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.

Robert Mitchell v. T. Felker

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


November 16, 2011

ROBERT MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's counsel has requested a status conference. Dckt. No. 95.

The court recognizes that, due to the amendment of the complaint, a new scheduling order must issue to govern the progress of this case. Accordingly, the parties shall file status reports with the court as provided in this order. The court will schedule a status conference, if necessary, upon consideration of the status reports filed.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Not later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, 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 Rule 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.

2. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See L.R. 160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to granting of a motion must be filed fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed hearing date. The 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 230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 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."

3. The parties may consent to have this case before the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to resend consent forms to the parties. The parties shall return the consent forms within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order to inform the court whether they consent or decline such assignment.


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.