Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't Corrs. & Rehabilitation

March 17, 2009

SHAWNA HARTMANN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CAL. DEP'T CORRS. & REHABILITATION DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed her complaint on December 18, 2008, and paid the filing fee.

Plaintiff's complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California State Personnel Board, Division of Adult Institutions, Division of Community Partnerships, Central California Women's Facility, Matthew Cate, Sean Harrigan, Richard Costigan, Maeley Tom, Anne Sheehan, Suzan Hubbard, Del Sayles-Owen, Barry Smith, Nola Grannis, Mary Lattimore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the State of California. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of the action. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to issue the appropriate number of summonses to plaintiff for purposes of service of process. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Plaintiff shall complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within 60 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on each defendant together with a summons and a copy of complaint.

Within 120 days from the date of this order, plaintiff and defendants shall each submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary. If further discovery is deemed necessary, the party desiring it shall state the nature and scope of the discovery and provide an estimate of the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated. If any such motion is contemplated, the party intending to file it shall describe the type of motion and shall state the time needed to file the motion and to complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-230(m);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary evidence at trial;

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any witnesses who are presently incarcerated;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury; and

10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.