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.

Swygert v. Dickinson

April 15, 2009

CURTIS LEE SWYGERT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.*FN1



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

ORDER

On April 15, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., this Court conducted a telephonic status conference. In attendance via telephone were Joanna Mendoza for Plaintiff and Grant Lien 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 28, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. unless a settlement can be reached prior to that time. Defendants' counsel discussed two conflicts with that trial date-one with a witness's schedule and one with Mr. Lien's schedule. The Court suggested that if the witness's conflict persists, the parties may be able to agree to submit the witness's testimony by means of a deposition, or a stipulation to the facts perceived by the witness. The parties were amenable to this suggestion. The Court will address Mr. Lien's scheduling conflict as we get closer to the trial date.

The Court ordered that the parties may file a motion for summary judgment on or before May 29, 2009. Any opposition must be filed on or before June 5, 2009.

The Court asked the parties about their positions on mediation for this case. Both parties agreed to discuss the possibility of mediation with their clients. The parties are ordered to file a joint stipulation on or before April 29, 2009 that contains the following: (1) a statement as to whether the Plaintiff and Defendants are willing to participate in mediation that will take place on or before July 1, 2009, and, if so, (2) a list of three magistrate judges in the Eastern District of California that both parties agree may mediate this matter.

The Court asked the parties to discuss with their respective clients the possibility of entering into a consent decree or a settlement that would address the parties' interests and concerns, and dispose of this matter prior to trial.

Should this matter go to trial, the parties are required to file a joint stipulation as to any undisputed facts to expedite the court proceedings. The stipulation should address any undisputed facts that may assist the trier of fact that may possibly include the following:

1. Are Jewish inmates at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California ("CMF") provided an opportunity to eat Kosher food? If so, how many meals per day are Kosher?

2. Apart from the option to eat vegetarian meals, are CMF inmates provided any other non-standard meal options that relate to a religion? If so, what are they?

3. Do any non-Jewish inmates participate in CMF's Kosher meal program?

4. What is the cost, per day, of food for an inmate participating in the Kosher meal program at CMF?

5. What is the cost, per day, of food for an inmate participating in the standard meal plan at CMF?

6. What is the cost, per day, of food for an inmate participating in the vegetarian meal plan at CMF?

7. What impact does providing Kosher meals to inmates have on the guards, other inmates, and on the allocation ...


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.