Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01825/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01825-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pat Merez
Defendant
Jose DeJesus Rodriguez
Plaintiff
San Joaquin County Human Services Agency
Defendant

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 1

 This action was reassigned to the undersigned on August 29, 2006. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, CIV S-05-1825 DFL EFB PS

vs.

PAT MEREZ, SUPERVISOR, SAN 

JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

________________________________/

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned

pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).1

 On March 28, 2007, the

district judge issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff may proceed on his claims alleging a Fourteenth

Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon review of the record, it appears that no

answer is on file. Accordingly, defendants shall file an answer within ten (10) days from the

date of service of this order.

////

Case 2:05-cv-01825-RRB-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/24/07 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

2

 If the parties are unable to submit a joint status report, they shall submit separate status

reports within the time allotted. 

2

Further, the parties shall submit a joint status report2 within thirty (30) days of service of

this order, addressing the following matters: 

(1) service of process

(2) joinder of additional parties; 

(3) amendment of pleadings;

(4) jurisdiction and venue;

(5) anticipated motions; 

(6) anticipated discovery and disclosure of expert witnesses;

(7) future proceedings, including proposed deadlines for discovery, motions, and

scheduling the pretrial conference; 

(8) estimated length of trial;

(9) proposed modifications of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to

the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings; 

(10) whether the case is related to any other case, including any matter in bankruptcy;

(11) whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; and,

(12) any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter. 

Upon review of the joint status report, the court may either make a scheduling order

incorporating the suggestions of the parties or schedule a status conference. Pending such order

or conference, the parties are of course free to proceed with litigating this case. The parties are

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01825-RRB-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/24/07 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

3

further advised that failing to obey federal or local rules, or orders of this court, may result in

dismissal of this action. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01825-RRB-EFB Document 47 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3