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.

Jackson v. Carey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 8, 2009

CHARLES JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOM L. CAREY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT STATUS REPORT Telephonic Status Hearing: August 5, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 (GSA)

Plaintiff Charles Jackson ("plaintiff") is proceeding with this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was filed on June 29, 1998. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on plaintiff's fifth amended complaint, filed June 24, 2004, against defendants Warden Tom L. Carey, Lieutenant R. Papac, J. Marshall, A. Davis, and E. Padilla ("Defendants") for violations of Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiff alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was denied the right to a defense at a Rules Violation Hearing, and was placed in the SHU subsequent to his disciplinary findings being reissued and reheard. Plaintiff alleges that his retention in the SHU is atypical confinement, that his placement in the SHU was not rectified by Defendants, and that he suffered emotional distress as a result of such placement. Plaintiff further alleges that the failure to respond to the second inmate appeal denied him his First Amendment right to redress grievances.

On February 21, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. (Doc. 141.) On September 29, 2006, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and the motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants, closing the case. (Doc. 158.) On October 26, 2006, Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, and on May 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. (Docs. 160, 167.) Therefore, this court will, by this order, set a further schedule for this litigation.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. This matter is set for a telephonic status hearing before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on August 5, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10;

2. Counsel for the parties shall coordinate a conference call and initiate the telephonic hearing at (559) 499-5960;

3. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before July 27, 2009;

4. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on:

Colleen Kennedy, Esq. O'Melveny and Myers Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090708

© 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.