From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bledsoe v. Martinez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 27, 2023
2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2023)

Opinion

2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P

01-27-2023

DONNELL BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. On January 17, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to timely file a pretrial statement, and to file a pretrial statement with his response. On January 23, 2023, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Statement and Response to Judge Newman's Order . . . to Show Cause.” (ECF No. 194.)

Plaintiff claims that on January 9, 2023, he sent “a” pretrial statement to Judge Barnes' orders email and sent “a pre-trial notice” to opposing counsel, and claims the settlement conference would not have occurred if he had not done so. (ECF No. 194 at 2.) Plaintiff asks this court to check with Judge Barnes, who issued a minute order suggesting if plaintiff could not get pretrial statements or filings in by mail before December 29, 2022, to e-mail her before January 5, 2023. (ECF No. 194 at 2.) Plaintiff asks for leave to file a late pretrial statement. (Id.) He then discusses the merits of his case.

Subsequently, plaintiff acknowledges that Judge Barnes' minute order makes no mention of a pretrial statement and argues this was misleading. (ECF No. 194 at 6.) Plaintiff reminds the court he is proceeding pro se. (Id.)

First, despite the title of plaintiff's filing, no pretrial statement was included as directed by the undersigned. (ECF No. 193.) Plaintiff provided exhibits; one page is a title page labeled “Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Statement,” but no additional pages are provided, and the document does not comport with Local Rule 281.

Second, plaintiff appears to initially claim he emailed his pretrial statement to the Judge Barnes' orders folder along with his settlement conference statement. However, this court obtained a copy of the six-page document plaintiff emailed to Judge Barnes (plaintiff's settlement conference statement), and no pretrial statement was provided. Indeed, had plaintiff provided a pretrial statement to Judge Barnes, the pretrial statement would have been filed on the docket.

Third, Judge Barnes' minute order expressly refers to a “confidential settlement statement.” (ECF No. 194 at 11.) Nothing in her order mentions a “pretrial statement.”

Fourth, the requirement that plaintiff file a pretrial statement had nothing to do with the settlement conference. By this court's September 27, 2022 order, issued long before the settlement conference was scheduled, plaintiff was directed to file a pretrial statement on or before December 14, 2022. (ECF No. 174.) Plaintiff is admonished that even as a pro se litigant, he is responsible for calendaring court deadlines and meeting them. If plaintiff is unable to do so, it is his responsibility to seek an extension of time from the court before the deadline passes.

Plaintiff's delay in filing his pretrial statement further delays the issuance of the pretrial order and the scheduling of the jury trial. Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause strains credulity and could even be construed as an attempt to mislead the court. However, in an abundance of caution, the court discharges the order to show cause and grants plaintiff a brief extension of time to file his pretrial statement. Plaintiff should review the September 27, 2022 order, as well as Local Rule 281, which sets forth what information is required in the pretrial statement. The January 27, 2023 pretrial conference, conducted on the file, is continued to March 1, 2023.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 17, 2023 order to show cause is discharged.

2. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall comply with the September 27, 2022 order, including filing a pretrial statement that complies with Local Rule 281.

3. The January 27, 2023 pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 282) is continued to March 1, 2023, before the undersigned. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on the file only, without appearance by either party.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a copy of Local Rule 281.


Summaries of

Bledsoe v. Martinez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 27, 2023
2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2023)
Case details for

Bledsoe v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:DONNELL BLEDSOE, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 27, 2023

Citations

2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2023)