(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 23, 2024·No. 1:19-cv-01362·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HACKWORTH, JR, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED SECOND SCHEDULING 13 v. ORDER

14 E. AREVALOS, et al., ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL AND 15 Defendants. ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

16 Pretrial Conference: 7/8/2024 at 10:30 a.m. 17 Jury Trial: 10/16/2024 at 8:30 a.m. 18

19 20 Plaintiff Robert Hackworth, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 22 Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendant Arevalos. (Doc. 89.) 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 On August 15, 2023, the undersigned conducted a settlement conference. (Doc. 99.) 25 Plaintiff appeared without an attorney, and Deputy Attorney General Matthew Ross Wilson 26 appeared for Defendant E. Arevalos. The case did not settle. 27 On August 17, 2023, the Court issued its Second Scheduling Order, setting this matter for a pretrial conference and jury trial before then-assigned District Judge Ana de Alba. (Doc. 100.) 1 On December 1, 2023, Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an Order of Temporary 2 Reassignment to No District Court Judge (NODJ), due to the elevation of Judge de Alba to the 3 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 109.) 4 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pretrial statement. (Doc. 111.) 5 The following day, Judge Mueller issued a minute order vacating the previously set 6 pretrial conference and jury trial and related deadlines to be reset at a later date. (Doc. 112.)1 7 On March 14, 2024, Judge Mueller issued an Order of Reassignment, reassigning this 8 action to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. (Doc. 113.) 9 Plaintiff filed an amended pretrial statement on March 15, 2024. (Doc. 114.) 10 On March 28, 2024, the Court issued its Order Directing Parties to Meet and Confer 11 Regarding Resetting of Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates and to Submit a Proposed Stipulation 12 Within Twenty-One (21) Days. (Doc. 115.) The parties were provided with potential dates for a 13 pretrial conference and jury trial before Judge Sherriff. (Id. at 2-3.) 14 On April 17, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Pretrial Conference and Trial 15 Dates. (Doc. 116.) Specifically, the parties indicated availability for a pretrial conference on June 16 10 or 24, 2024, and July 8 or 15, 2024, as well as availability for jury trial the weeks of October 17 14 and 28, 2024. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff indicated a desire for a further settlement conference and 18 Defendants indicated their previous settlement position was unchanged. (Id. at 2.) 19 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court now sets a 20 further schedule for this litigation. 21 II. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND PROCEDURES 22 A pretrial conference is set for July 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m.,2 before District Judge Kirk E. 23 Sherriff. The pretrial conference will be held in Courtroom 6 on the 7th Floor at the United 24 States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Fresno. The Court will issue a writ 25

26 1 A review of the docket for this action reveals Plaintiff was not served a copy of the minute order.

27 2 The parties were originally advised that Judge Sherriff held pretrial conferences at 1:30 p.m. However, Judge Sherriff has since modified his calendaring preferences and pretrial conferences are now heard at 10:30 a.m. 1 of habeas corpus ad testificandum to allow for Plaintiff’s attendance, as appropriate. 2 Plaintiff shall file a pretrial statement that complies with Local Rule 281 on or before 3 June 10, 2024. Defendant shall file a pretrial statement on or before June 17, 2024. A copy of 4 Defendant’s statement shall also be emailed in Word format to KESorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 5 The parties are advised that failure to file a pretrial statement as required by this Order may 6 result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include dismissal of the action or 7 entry of default. 8 In addition to the matters already required to be addressed in the pretrial statement in 9 accordance with Local Rule 281, Plaintiff will be required to make a particularized showing in 10 order to obtain the attendance of witnesses. The procedures, requirements, and deadlines for 11 making such a showing are outlined in detail below. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply 12 with the procedures set forth below may result in the preclusion of any and all witnesses named 13 in his pretrial statement. 14 At the trial of this case, Plaintiff must be prepared to introduce evidence to prove each of 15 the alleged facts that support the claims raised in the lawsuit. In general, there are two kinds of 16 trial evidence: (1) exhibits and (2) the testimony of witnesses. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to 17 produce all of the evidence to prove his case, whether that evidence is in the form of exhibits or 18 witness testimony. If Plaintiff wants to call witnesses to testify, he must follow certain 19 procedures to ensure that the witnesses will be at the trial and available to testify. 20 1. Procedures for Obtaining Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses Who Agree to 21 Testify Voluntarily 22 An incarcerated witness who agrees voluntarily to attend trial to give testimony cannot 23 come to court unless the Court orders the warden or other custodian to permit the witness to be 24 transported to court. The Court will not issue such an order unless it is satisfied that the 25 prospective witness has actual knowledge of relevant facts. 26 A party intending to introduce the testimony of incarcerated witnesses who have agreed 27 voluntarily to attend the trial must serve and file a written motion for a court order requiring that 1 address, and prison identification number of each such witness; and (2) be accompanied by 2 declarations showing that each witness is willing to testify and that each witness has actual 3 knowledge of relevant facts. The motion should be entitled “Motion for Attendance of 4 Incarcerated Witnesses.” 5 The willingness of the prospective witness can be shown in one of two ways: (1) the 6 party himself can swear by declaration under penalty of perjury that the prospective witness has 7 informed the party that he or she is willing to testify voluntarily without being subpoenaed, in 8 which declaration the party must state when and where the prospective witness informed the 9 party of this willingness; or (2) the party can serve and file a declaration, signed under penalty 10 of perjury by the prospective witness, in which the witness states that he or she is willing to 11 testify without being subpoenaed. 12 The prospective witness’s actual knowledge of relevant facts can be shown in one of two 13 ways: (1) if the party has actual firsthand knowledge that the prospective witness was an 14 eyewitness or an ear-witness to the relevant facts (e.g., if an incident occurred in Plaintiff’s cell 15 and, at the time, Plaintiff saw that a cellmate was present and observed the incident), the party 16 himself can swear by declaration under penalty of perjury that the prospective witness has 17 actual knowledge; or (2) the party can serve and file a declaration signed under penalty of 18 perjury by the prospective witness in which the witness describes the relevant facts to which the 19 prospective witness was an eye or ear witness. Whether the declaration is made by the party or 20 by the prospective witness, it must be specific about the incident, when and where it occurred, 21 who was present, and how the prospective witness happened to be in a position to see or to hear 22 what occurred at the time it occurred. 23 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos ((PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Heller
551 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)