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.

STEVEN NUR AHMED v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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


November 30, 2010

STEVEN NUR AHMED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

CONFERENCE ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this civil rights action on November 24, 2010, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. The Clerk has issued a summons for three defendants. The case has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set before the undersigned on Friday, April 1, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 27;

2. Within fourteen (14) days after plaintiff is served with this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order upon each defendant. Within five (5) days after serving a copy of this order on a defendant, plaintiff shall file with the court a certificate of service indicating the date and manner of service of this order on that defendant;

3. Any party may appear at the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128 at least 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference;

4. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before March 18, 2011, and defendants shall file and serve a status report or reports on or before March 25, 2011. Each status report shall address all of the following matters:

a. Progress of service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial;

h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;

i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;

j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;

k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and

l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action;

5. The pro se plaintiff is informed that failure to file a timely status report or failure to appear at the status conference either in person or telephonically may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183; and

6. The pro se plaintiff is cautioned that Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished on that defendant within 120 days from the date the complaint is filed.

DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.prose\ahmed3178.ossc

20101130

© 1992-2010 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.