IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 29, 2011
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, PLAINTIFF,
J. MASON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding against defendants Mason and Abamonga for claims arising under the First Amendment including conspiracy to violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights. See Orders dated July 8, 2008, and July 31, 2009. This matter is scheduled for trial before the district court judge assigned to this case on November 28, 2011. Several matters are before the court.
I. Corrections To Pretrial Order
On September 28, 2010, defendants filed a document requesting that the pretrial order be modified. The changes suggested are minor and concern background information regarding exhibits defendants are allowed to present at trial. Good cause appearing, defendants' request that the pretrial order be modified will be granted.
II. Request That Plaintiff Be Declared A Vexatious Litigant
Defendants ask that plaintiff be declared a "vexatious litigant" pursuant to Local Rule 151(b) and, as a result, be required to post security before proceeding to trial. On September 24, 2009, the parties were informed that all pretrial motions had to be filed before April 9, 2010. Because defendants have failed to provide any justification for filing their motion to declare plaintiff "vexatious" six months after the deadline for filing motions addressing pretrial matters, their motion will be denied.*fn1
III. Request For A Settlement Conference
Plaintiff has requested that the court hold a settlement conference. The record reflects that a settlement conference was held on September 1, 2010 and the case did not settle. Defendants have not responded to plaintiff's request for another settlement conference. In light of these facts, plaintiff's request that the court hold a settlement conference is denied. The court would be inclined to reconsider this request if defendants are amenable to court assisted settlement discussions. If defendants are interested in a further settlement conference, or, as plaintiff suggests, a mediation pursuant to the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program, they should inform the court as soon as possible.
IV. Motion To Strike
Plaintiff asks that the court strike defendants' reply brief concerning their motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant because counsel for defendants misrepresented facts. He also requests that defendants be sanctioned. Because plaintiff has not shown that counsel for defendants knowingly misrepresented facts, plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' September 28, 2010, "request for correction of pretrial order" is granted;
2. The September 22, 2010, pretrial order is modified in accordance with the changes suggested in defendants' motion;
3. Defendants' October 5, 2010, motion requesting that plaintiff be declared a "vexatious litigant" is denied;
4. Plaintiff's October 18, 2010, request for a settlement conference is denied; and 5. Plaintiff's November 10, 2010, motion to strike and for sanctions is denied.