From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sterr v. D. Baptista

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2010
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-2307 DOC P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-2307 DOC P.

February 8, 2010


ORDER


Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Set Pretrial Schedule and Trial Date (the "Motion"). Pursuant to Local Rule 240(a), the assigned Judge shall order the holding of one or more scheduling conferences for the purpose of entering a pretrial scheduling order. However, under Local Rule 240(c)(8), prisoner actions as defined by Local Rule 101 are exceptions to the mandatory scheduling order requirement. Local Rule 101 defines prisoner actions as "actions brought in propria persona by a person in custody who is seeking habeas corpus relief ( 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq.) or any relief authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., or actions pursuant to Bivens or the Federal Tort Claims Act." Plaintiff Sterr has brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is a prisoner action as defined by Local Rule 101. The Court finds that a scheduling order is inappropriate in this matter.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion.


Summaries of

Sterr v. D. Baptista

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2010
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-2307 DOC P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Sterr v. D. Baptista

Case Details

Full title:Marc A. Sterr, Plaintiff, v. D. Baptista, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-2307 DOC P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)