IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2009
JOHN KENT, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. ("Local Rule") 72-302(c)(21). On November 24, 2008, the undersigned vacated the status conference in this action, which was scheduled for December 3, 2008, and ordered plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, because plaintiff had not yet completed service of process on defendants. Dckt. 12. Plaintiff filed a timely response to the order to show cause, and requested additional time to serve defendants. Dckt. 13. The court granted plaintiff the requested extension, and plaintiff served several of the defendants. Dckt. 14, 16, 17. Shortly thereafter, the served defendants moved to stay the action. Dckt. 18. However, on August 11, 2009, those defendants withdrew their motion to stay and filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. Dckt. 33, 35.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for October 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned.
2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status reports*fn1 briefly describing the case and addressing the following:
a. Progress in service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Expected or desired amendment of pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling;
f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and dates for pretrial conference and trial;
h. Special procedures, if any;
i. Estimated trial time;
j. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings;
k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;
l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;
m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge;
n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
3. Failing to obey federal or local rules, or order of this court, may result in dismissal of this action. Even though the court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules.
4. Plaintiff and counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See L.R. 16-160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), opposition to granting of a motion must be filed fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Moreover, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."
5. The parties may consent to have this case before the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). A consent form is attached. Any party who consents should complete the form and return it to the Clerk. Unless all parties have consented, no judge will be notified that a consent form has been filed.