IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 1, 2009
JOHN KENT, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule ("Local Rule") 72-302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and on February 11, 2008, this court granted plaintiff's motion. Dckt. Nos. 1, 3, 4. On May 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on July 23, 2008, the court ordered that service of process be made by the U.S. Marshal on the following defendants: "the City of Sacramento Code Enforcement Department, the Sacramento City Manager's Office, the Sacramento Police Department, Melody Lane, Guss Pina, Jason [Contreras], Josh Pino, Ron O'Connor, Max Fernandez, Brian Ramsey, Caroline McNorton, Benjamin Rolison, and Ricardo Vargas." Dckt. No. 9. The July 23, 2008 order directed the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff the necessary forms for completion and return to the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff was ordered to send the requisite forms to the U.S. Marshal within 15 days. Dckt. No. 3at 3.
In a separate order issued on July 23, 2008, the court set a scheduling conference for December 3, 2008, and directed the parties to file status reports no later than fourteen days prior to the conference. The order further cautioned that failure to obey the Federal Rules, Local Rules, or orders of the court could result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Dckt. No. 11.
On November 24, 2008, because the docket failed to independently demonstrate that service of process had been effected, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this court's July 23, 2008 order, and vacated the December 3, 2008 status conference. Dckt. No. 12. On January 29, 2009, after receiving plaintiff's response to the order to show cause, the court discharged the order to show cause and gave plaintiff fifteen additional days to comply with the July 23, 2008 order. Dckt. No. 14. On February 10, 2009, plaintiff notified the court that he had delivered the required service documents to the Marshal. Dckt. No. 15.
In March 2009, defendants Josh Pino, Max Fernandez, Ricardo Vargas, Benjamin Rolison, Jason Contreras, and Ron O'Connor waived service of the summons, with answers due in May 2009. Dckt. Nos. 16, 17. In April 2009, defendants City of Sacramento, Josh Pino, Max Fernandez, and Jason Contreras moved to stay the action. Dckt. No. 18. That motion was withdrawn on August 11, 2009, Dckt. No. 33, and on that same date, defendants City of Sacramento, Josh Pino, Max Fernandez, and Jason Contreras filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. Dckt. No. 35.
On August 19, 2009, the court set a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference for October 7, 2009, and directed the parties to file status reports (or a joint status report) no later than fourteen days prior to the status conference. Dckt. No. 37. On September 16, 2009, plaintiff and defendants City of Sacramento, Josh Pino, Max Fernandez, and Jason Contreras filed a joint status report, which noted that several of the defendants have either not been served or have not filed answers. Dckt. No. 38. None of the other defendants participated in the preparation of the status report.
Although the docket does not reflect service upon all of the defendants, the U.S. Marshal has informed the court that as of September 28, 2009, all defendants who the docket reflects have not been served, were personally served. Accordingly, the October 7, 2009 status conference is rescheduled for December 16, 2009. No later than December 2, 2009, all parties shall file status reports (or a joint status report) briefly describing the case and addressing the following:
a. Progress in service of process as to each specific defendant, and the status of each defendant's response to plaintiff's complaint;
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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The October 7, 2009 status conference is continued to December 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25;
2. No later than December 2, 2009, all parties shall file status reports (or a joint status report), discussing the matters addressed above;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 501 "I" Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030; and
4. Within fifteen days of this order, the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve a copy of this order on all defendants who were personally served at the address where service of process was effected. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable to do so, for any reason whatsoever, the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned within twenty days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.