UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 23, 2008
BYRON G. MARTIN, PLAINTIFF,
C/O RAUH AND C/O PADILLA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC TRIAL-SETTING CONFERENCE HELD ON DECEMBER 22, 2008 ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT DOE #4 AND PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS CLAIM ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR COURT TO REFER CASE TO JUDGE VADAS FOR MEDIATION
On December 22, 2008, at 8:00 a.m., this court held a telephonic Trial-Setting Conference before Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in Courtroom 4. Plaintiff Byron G. Martin appeared in propria persona, and Deputy Attorney General Philip L. Arthur appeared on behalf of defendants Rauh and Padilla.
At the conference, plaintiff responded to the court's Order to Show Cause of August 14, 2008, which ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant Doe #4 should not be dismissed from this action for plaintiff's failure to identify Doe #4. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff argued that defendant Doe #4 is important to plaintiff's case and requested either additional time to identify Doe #4, or a court order for defendants' counsel to provide Doe #4's name to plaintiff. Defendants opposed plaintiff's request. Based on the evidence, the Court denied plaintiff's request and dismissed defendant Doe #4 and plaintiff's due process claim from this action.
Both parties indicated willingness to settle this action before a third party. Plaintiff declined to mediate before Judge Vadas. The parties agreed to a Settlement Conference before Judge Sandra M. Snyder, to be scheduled by the parties on Judge Snyder's calendar. Based on the foregoing, the Court denied defendants' request for the court to refer the case to Judge Vadas for mediation.
The Court scheduled dates for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing and jury trial in this action. The Court also set deadlines for the parties to file motions in limine, other pretrial motions, and responses to motions. The Court shall issue a Second Scheduling Order setting out the dates and deadlines scheduled in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Doe #4 and plaintiff's due process claim are DISMISSED from this action, and the Clerk is directed to reflect the dismissal on the court's docket;
2. This action now proceeds only against defendant C/O Rauh for use of excessive force against plaintiff, and defendant C/O Padilla for failure to protect plaintiff from harm;
3. Defendants' request for the court to refer this case to Judge Vadas for mediation is DENIED;
4. This order incorporates by reference the oral decisions of the Court given at the Trial-Setting Conference on December 22, 2008; and
5. The Court shall issue a Second Scheduling Order setting out the dates and deadlines scheduled in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.