From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Widener v. Newman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3001 JAM EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-3001 JAM EFB PS

03-13-2012

AMANDA WIDENER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDY NEWMAN - PEACH TREE CLINIC & MARYSVILLE IMMEDIATE CARE; EDGAR GENATO, Defendants.


ORDER

This case, in which plaintiffs proceed pro se, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is currently pending before the undersigned. Dckt. No. 3. Further, a status (pretrial scheduling) conference is scheduled for March 21, 2012. Dckt. No. 6.

In addition to the scheduling matters addressed in the parties' joint status report, the parties should come to the scheduling conference prepared to discuss: (1) whether Marysville Immediate Care is a federally supported health care center; and (2) whether this action can be dismissed with or without prejudice against the minor plaintiff, even though Ms. Widener does not have the authority to represent her minor son without retaining a lawyer. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997).

____________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Widener v. Newman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2012
No. CIV S-11-3001 JAM EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)
Case details for

Widener v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:AMANDA WIDENER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDY NEWMAN - PEACH TREE CLINIC …

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 13, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-3001 JAM EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)