(PC) Hammler v. Gooch

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00653-JLT-EPG (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 12 v. (ECF No. 115) 13 GOOCH, et al.,

14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 20 notice indicating that he does not intend to further amend his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 115) 21 Accordingly, the Court will set a pretrial conference before the District Judge. 22 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 23 1. The Court sets a Zoom pretrial conference before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston 24 for October 23, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the 25 participation of Plaintiff in the pretrial conference. The parties shall appear at the 26 conference with each party connecting remotely either via Zoom video conference or 27 Zoom telephone number. The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password 28 by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. 1 enn nn nee ee ene nn NE EE EI EO

1 2. The Court will not set a trial date, which will be addressed at the upcoming pretrial 2 conference. 3 3. Plaintiff has until no later than September 22, 2023, to file an amended pretrial 4 statement if he chooses to do so. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pretrial statement, 5 he may be precluded from calling witnesses or introducing evidence not included in his 6 initial pretrial statement.! 7 4. While the Court recognizes that the issues addressed in Plaintiff's notice have been 8 ongoing and addressed in previous filings, if Defendants wish to make a response to any 9 allegations in Plaintiff's notice (ECF No. 115), they may file a response no later than 10 September 18, 2023. (ECF No. 115). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: _ August 21, 2023 [sf ey — 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Cf. Hall v. City of Fairfield, No. 2:10-CV-00508-GEB, 2012 WL 1155666, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 26 || 2012) (noting that failure to properly identify witnesses may prevent the testimony of such witness at trial); see Local Rule 281(b)(10) (“Only witnesses [] listed [in the party’s pretrial statement] will be 27 || permitted to testify at the trial, except as may be otherwise provided in the pretrial order.”); Local Rule 281(b)(11) (“Only exhibits [] listed [in the party’s pretrial statement] will be permitted to be offered at 28 trial except as may be otherwise provided in the pretrial order.”).