Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-25/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SID LANDAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. T. VOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00815-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (DOC. 92)

ORDER VACATING SECOND

SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 78)

Plaintiff Sid Landau (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Leo Adcock, James Forrest, and Wendy Allen. On

September 10, 2010, the Court filed a second scheduling order, setting dates for the filing of

pretrial statements, telephonic trial confirmation hearing, and the date of trial. Doc. 78. Neither

party filed a pretrial statement, and on January 18, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause

why the parties should not be sanctioned for failure to obey a court order. Doc. 92. On January

20, 2011, Defendants filed their response. The Court HEREBY DISCHARGES the order to

show cause.

Defendants contend that neither party was served with the scheduling order, and thus

neither party was aware of any filing deadlines. Defs.’ Resp., Doc. 94. A review of the court

docket indicates that the Court did serve the documents. See Service By Mail court docket entry,

entered Sept. 19, 2010. It is thus unclear where the clerical error occurred. Nonetheless, the

Court will not impose sanctions on either party in this action.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 95 Filed 01/21/11 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the second scheduling order is VACATED. 

Defendants contend that Defendant Allen will file a motion for summary judgment in this action.

For the sake of judicial economy, the Court will issue a new scheduling order after the resolution

of Defendant Allen’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 95 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 2