Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01270/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01270-7/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. )

 )

1:09-cv-1270 AWI GSA

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 21)

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

2010. (Doc. 21). 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. (Docs. 5 and 11). 

Also, Plaintiff is advised that the Complaint was served on Defendant on January 7, 2010. (Doc.

14). Defendant filed a Waiver of Service on January 15, 2010. (Doc. 14). Therefore,

Defendant’s Answer was due on March 8, 2010. Id.; See also. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(d)(3). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01270-GSA Document 24 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

Defendant timely filed an answer on February 12, 2010. (Doc. 15). 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01270-GSA Document 24 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2