Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Johnson v. Sullivan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 15, 2009

GARRISON S. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF,
v.
W.J. SULLIVAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur Alarcón United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation

ORDER

On April 14, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., this Court conducted a telephonic status conference. In attendance via telephone were Laurie Thrower and Michael DeNiro for Plaintiff and Jeffrey Steele of the Attorney General's Office of the State of California for Defendants.

The Court informed all parties of the intention to go to trial on July 13, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. unless a settlement can be reached prior to that time.

The parties discussed a schedule for filings regarding the Plaintiff's motion to hold Secretary Cate in contempt for failure to respond to Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum. Defendants are ordered to respond to the motion on of before April 21, 2009.

The Court asked the parties about their positions on mediation for this case. Plaintiff indicated he was willing to participate in mediation. Defendants are to file a notice indicating whether they are willing to participate in mediation on or before April 16, 2009. Plaintiff will file a similar notice on or before April 17, 2009. Alternatively, the parties will file a joint notice to the Court on or before April 17, 2009 indicating their respective positions as to the mediation issue.

Should this matter go to trial, the parties are ordered to file a joint stipulation of undisputed facts. The stipulation should include factual agreements, if any, regarding questions such as:

1. Is there any dispute that all the prisoners, regardless of their ethnic background or gang affiliation, were locked down or placed in a modified program after an alleged attempted rape and an alleged assault on a law enforcement officer or correctional officer?

2. Is there any dispute that all black and African-American prisoners continued to be locked down or kept in a modified program after all other ethnic groups were allowed to return to their prison programs?

3. Is the only dispute to be decided at trial whether the continued lock down or modified program of the black and African-American prisoners was justified under Turner v. Saffley as reasonably related to a legitimate penalogical interest?

The Court also orders the parties to file their proposed exhibits with the Court and exchange copies prior to trial. The parties are directed to file any objections to the proposed exhibits prior to the trial date. The Court will issue tentative rulings on the admissibility of the exhibits as to which an objection has been interposed. The parties will be permitted to state their objections to the Court's tentative rulings on admissibility on the date set for trial prior to the impanelment of the jury.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants will respond to Plaintiff's motion to hold Secretary Cate in contempt for failure to respond to Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum on or before April 21, 2009; and

2. Defendants will file a notice as to whether or not they are interested in mediating this case on or before April 16, 2009 and Plaintiff will file a similar notice on or before April 17, 2009, or the parties may file a joint notice on or before April 17, 2009.

20090415

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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