Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS CEBALLOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AARON FOUCH,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5801 OWW SMS P

ORDER VACATING SECOND SCHEDULING

ORDER (Doc. 32.) 

 Jesus Ceballos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 17, 2005, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting dates for a

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing of October 13, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned, a Motions in Limine hearing for November 3, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned and a jury trial for December 6, 2005, before the Honorable Judge Oliver Wanger at

9:00 a.m. The Court issued an Order denying in part and granting in part Defendant’s request for

modification of the Court’s Second Scheduling order on August 2, 2005, and ordered Plaintiff to

provide Defendant with a valid telephone number so that Defendants could make arrangements

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

for Plaintiff to appear at the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and Motion in Limine

hearing by phone. This Order was served on Plaintiff but was returned to the Court on August

31, 2005, as undeliverable. The envelope was marked “Returned to Sender - Attempted Not

Known.” (Doc. 37)

On August 16, 2005, the District Court issued an Order adopting Finding and

Recommendations regarding Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 31.) This Order

was served on Plaintiff but was also returned to the Court as undeliverable as the envelope was

marked “Return to Sender - attempted Not Known.” (Doc. 38.) 

On September 19, 2005, the Findings and Recommendations issued on June 14, 2005,

that the Motion for Summary Judgment be denied was also returned to the Court as

undeliverable. (Docs. 39, 40.) 

On September 21, 2005, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to Show Cause why

the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. The deadline for Plaintiff’s

response is due October 17, 2005. While it is clear that Plaintiff has made no contact with the

Court as he has not notified the Court of his current address, the deadline for Defendants to file a

Pretrial Statement as required by the Second Scheduling Order expired on September 29, 2005. 

However, no Pretrial Statement was filed by Defendants nor did Defendants request to be

relieved of the deadlines imposed therein. Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court Order

warrants the issuance of an Order to Show Cause why Default should not be entered or sanctions

imposed on Defendants. However, given Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his

current address, the Court will instead vacate the Second Scheduling Order in its entirety. 

Accordingly, in light of the outstanding Order to Show Cause directed to Plaintiff, the

Court HEREBY VACATES the Second Scheduling Order including the deadlines and hearing

dates set forth therein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2