From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beinlick v. Aung

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2021
2:19-cv-2095 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-2095 AC P

08-16-2021

BRIAN BEINLICK, Plaintiff, v. SANDAR AUNG, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, is represented by counsel, and he has paid the filing fee. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff's second amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against several defendants. See ECF No. 7. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of the action. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will be directed to issue the appropriate number of summonses to plaintiff for purposes of service of process. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

The defendants are: Dr. Sandar Aung, Dr. Alexander Liu, Dr. Monirivin Son, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the County of San Joaquin, and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff shall have until the end of the discovery period to determine the identities of Does 1-10 and provide them to the court so that they may be served and directed to file a response to the second amended complaint.

Herein, plaintiff will only be directed to serve defendant County of San Joaquin in the traditional manner. Because the defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the Office of the Attorney General have agreed to participate in the E-Service Pilot Program, under separate order, defendant CDCR and its named defendant employees will be served electronically per that program's procedures.

Plaintiff shall complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within sixty days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendant County of San Joaquin together with a summons and a copy of the second amended complaint.

Within 120 days from the date of this order, plaintiff and defendant County of San Joaquin shall each submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary. If further discovery is deemed necessary, the party desiring it shall state the nature and scope of the discovery and provide an estimate of the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated. If any such motion is contemplated, the party intending to file it shall describe the type of motion and shall state the time needed to file the motion and to complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 230(1);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary evidence at trial;

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any witnesses who are presently incarcerated;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury, and

10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the attention of the court.

In addition, plaintiff shall inform the court in his status report of the date and manner of service of process.

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Any party choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent form unless all parties to the action have consented.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue and send plaintiff a summons for defendant County of San Joaquin. With this order, the Clerk shall also send plaintiff a copy of the form “Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge.”

2. Plaintiff shall complete service of process on the defendant County of San Joaquin within sixty days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the form “Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge” on defendant County of San Joaquin at the time the summons and complaint are served.

3. Defendant County of San Joaquin shall reply to the complaint within the time provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a).

4. Plaintiff's status report shall be filed within ninety days from the date of this order. Defendant County of San Joaquin's status report shall be filed within thirty days thereafter. The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in accordance with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action and preclusion of issues or witnesses.

5. Unsigned affidavits or declarations will be stricken, and affidavits or declarations not signed under penalty of perjury have no evidentiary value.


Summaries of

Beinlick v. Aung

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2021
2:19-cv-2095 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Beinlick v. Aung

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN BEINLICK, Plaintiff, v. SANDAR AUNG, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 16, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-2095 AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)