Opinion
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)
07-06-2016
ALBERT J. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. CHENDEHEN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CASE CONFERENCE AND MOTION FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS FOR TRIAL [ECF Nos. 52 & 53]
Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302.
On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a case conference and motion for court to serve subpoenas for trial. (ECF Nos. 52 & 53.) Plaintiff's motions must be denied.
I.
DISCUSSION
I. Motion for Case Conference
Plaintiff requests the Court conduct "some kind of case conference." (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not and will not conduct a conference merely at the request of one of the parties and there is no basis to conduct a conference in this case at the present time. Indeed, on May 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, which is presently pending review by the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), all motions filed in this case are deemed submitted after the deadline for filing an opposition and reply has expired, unless the Court determines that a hearing is necessary. The Court has not determined that a hearing is necessary and not order on the motion to dismiss has been issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a case conference must be denied.
II. Motion for Service of Subpoenas for Trial
Plaintiff requests that the Court serve subpoenas for two inmate witnesses to be presented at trial. Plaintiff's motion must be denied as premature. First, this case is not yet ripe for trial as a motion to dismiss is pending, and a discovery and scheduling order has not issued. Second, Plaintiff cannot simply request that subpoenas issue without complying with the necessary procedural requirements which will be provided at a later date if appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for the issuance of subpoenas must be denied.
II.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a case conference is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for service of subpoenas is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6 , 2016
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE