Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Francis
Defendant
Negre
Defendant
Etuate Sekona
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK (PC)

ORDER FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

AND RELATED DEADLINES

Final Pretrial Conference: May 30, 2023 at 

1:30 p.m.

Jury Trial: August 8, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

Court Room 1; Jury Trial; In Person

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff Etuate Sekona’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 on April 24, 2019. (Doc. No 1). This case remains pending before Defendant Francis.1 

(See Docket). 

The Parties previously submitted pretrial statements. (Doc. Nos. 59, 61). On December 

12, 2022, the Court held a status/trial confirmation hearing. (Doc. No. 65). Etuate Sekona 

appeared pro se for Plaintiff; and, Tom Creeger appeared as counsel for Defendant Francis. (Id.). 

On December 13, 2022, the Court issued a Tentative Pretrial Order and set this case for a Final 

Telephoninc Trial Confirmation Hearing for March 13, 2023. (Doc. No. 64). There were no 

objections filed to the Tentative Pretrial Order and it became the final order without further order 

of the Court. 

On February 9, 2023, the Court vacated the final pretrial and trial dates and ordered the 

1 Defendant Negre moved for summary judgment, which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 33, 37, 41).

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 77 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 3
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

parties to complete a second settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 

No. 68). Pursuant to the deadlines set in the Tentative Pretrial Order, Plaintiff timely submitted 

four different money orders for witness fees for the following witnesses: LVN Melinda Cook, 

Correctional Officer Commagay, Correctional Officer Tabia, and Correctional Officer 

Hernandez. (See docket entry dated February 3, 2022). The Court will issue subpoenas to these 

witnesses using the addresses Plaintiff provided. On February 10, 2023, the Court vacated the 

remaining dates in the Tentative Pretrial Order. On April 10, 2023, the undersigned held the

second settlement conference, which resulted in an impasse. (Doc. No. 75). The Court now sets

this case for final pretrial conference and trial before Judge Ana de Alba.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. A final pretrial conference is set for May 30, 2023 at 1:30 p.m before District Judge 

Ana de Alba. The final pretrial conference will be held digitally. The parties will be provided 

with the Zoom ID and password by Judge de Alba’s Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. 

The Zoom ID number and password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court 

attire is required. 

2. Counsel for Defendant is required to contact Plaintiff’s institution to arrange for 

Plaintiff’s participation at the final pretrial conference.

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE IS AVAILABLE

District Court Judges of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California have 

among the heaviest caseloads in the nation. The ongoing pandemic has exacerbated the backlog. 

The parties can consent to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings, including 

trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

73, and Local Rule 305. The Eastern District Magistrate Judges, all experienced in trial, use the 

same jury pool and same court facilities as United States District Court Judges. Since Magistrate 

Judges do not conduct felony trials, they have greater flexibility and schedule firm trial dates.

Judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is appealable directly to the United States 

Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. While there are scheduling benefits to consenting to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, substantive rulings and decisions will not be affected by whether a 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 77 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

party chooses to consent or not. The possibility of consenting may be addressed by the District 

Judge at the final pretrial conference.

Dated: April 17, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 77 Filed 04/17/23 Page 3 of 3