Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00016-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Lindsay
Defendant
Timothy S. Daubert
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY S. DAUBERT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF LINDSAY, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10-cv-00016 AWI GSA

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has filed the instant Motion for Clarification on June 9,

2010. (Doc. 14). Specifically, Plaintiff is inquiring how he requests a default judgment because

he contends that Defendant did not timely answer the Complaint, or contact him to prepare a

Joint Scheduling Conference Report for the Scheduling Conference that was held on June 9,

2010.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot give him legal advice. 

Therefore, Plaintiff shall refrain from filing motions requesting that the Court answer questions

related to his case. Plaintiff shall refer to the First and Second Informational Orders issued

contemporaneously with this order to address any questions he may have. Also, Plaintiff is

advised that the Complaint was served on Defendant on February 1, 2010. Defendant filed a

Waiver of Service on March 8, 2010. (Doc. 9). Therefore, Defendant’s Answer was due on

March 29, 2010. Id. See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). Defendant timely filed an answer on

1

Case 1:10-cv-00016-GSA Document 17 Filed 06/25/10 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

March 26, 2010. (Doc. 10). Therefore, there is no basis to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant

failed to timely respond to the Complaint.

Similarly, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not contact him to participate in the

preparation of the Joint Scheduling Conference Report in violation of this Court order and the

Local Rules of the Court. However, the Scheduling Conference was not held on June 9, 2010, so

there was no prejudice to Plaintiff. 

Defendant is advised that both parties are required to participate in the preparation of the

Joint Scheduling Conference Report in the future.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 23, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00016-GSA Document 17 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2