Candler v. Mallot

Full title: KEITH CANDLER, Plaintiff, v. MALLOT, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 21, 2015

2:14-cv-0363 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2015)

Opinion

KEITH CANDLER, Plaintiff, v. MALLOT, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-0363 GEB KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 21, 2015

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magitrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 24, 2015, the undersigned issued a pretrial order. (ECF No. 78.) On October 7, 2015, defendants filed objections to the pretrial order. (ECF No. 80.) The undersigned addresses defendants' objections herein.

         Defendants object to the portion of the undisputed facts stating that, "On July 26, 2013, at around 10:30 p.m., plaintiff was observed with a noose around his neck." (ECF No. 78 at 2.) Defendants state that they believe that it may have been later than 10:30 p.m. when plaintiff was observed with the noose around his neck. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff was found wearing the noose on July 26, 2013. Good cause appearing, the pretrial order is amended to state, "On July 26, 2013, between approximately 10:30 p.m. and midnight, plaintiff was observed with a noose around his neck."

         Defendants next object to the portion of the pretrial order listing plaintiff's deposition transcript as an exhibit. (Id. at 6.) Defendants state that they do not intend to offer plaintiff's deposition as an exhibit, but intend to use it for impeachment purposes. Defendants state that plaintiff's deposition transcript should be listed as a "discovery document." Good cause appearing, the pretrial order is amended to list plaintiff's deposition transcript as a discovery document rather than as an exhibit.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial order is amended as discussed above.