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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendants. REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He filed a complaint May 4, 2004. On December 13, 2004, defendants filed a motion to

dismiss, which the court denied July 25, 2005. On August 16, 2005, defendants filed an answer.

On May 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice stating his intention to reject all correspondence from the

court “until further notice.” On May 9, 2006, mail was returned to the court with the notation

“RTS, Inmate Refused.” On May 18, 2006, mail was returned to the court with the notation,

“returned to sender - inmate refused.” Based on plaintiff’s apparent abandonment of the action,

on May 25, 2006 this court issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action

be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 76 Filed 07/28/06 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

 As noted above, defendants’ motion to dismiss was resolved by order filed July 25, 1

2005. 

2

On July 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for a pretrial settlement conference, a

pretrial statement, and a document styled as objections to a motion to dismiss. On July 5, 2006, 1

plaintiff filed two motions styled as motions in limine concerning alleged withholding of

documents by the Office of the Attorney General. It appears that plaintiff has not abandoned this

action. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations will be vacated. Plaintiff is cautioned,

however, that he must accept service of all documents related to this action or risk imposition of

sanctions, including dismissal of the action.

On June 15, 2006, defendant Micheletti filed a request for an extension of time to

file pretrial motions. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. The court will, by this

order, set new dates for filing dispositive motions as well as for the filing of pretrial statements

and for pretrial conference and for jury trial. The motions in limine filed by plaintiff on July 5,

2006 are premature and will be denied without prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 25, 2006 are vacated.

2. Defendant’s June 15, 2006 request for an extension of time to file dispositive

motions is granted.

3. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or

before September 15, 2006. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of the

court’s order filed October 5, 2004.

4. Plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial statement and any motions necessary to

obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial on or before December 15, 2006. Defendant shall file

his pretrial statement on or before December 29, 2006. The parties are advised that failure to file

a pretrial statement may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 76 Filed 07/28/06 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

5. Pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 16-282) is set in this case for

January 5, 2007, before the magistrate judge. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on the

file only, without appearance by either party.

6. This matter is set for jury trial before the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on

March 27, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom # 2.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12

chri0084.vac

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 76 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 3