(PC) Smith v. Gonzales ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY SMITH, No. 1:17-cv-0436 ADA GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT 13 v. PROCEED TO TRIAL 14 J. GONZALEZ, et al., PARTIES’ SHOWINGS OF CAUSE DUE NOVEMBER 13, 2023 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently, trial 20 proceedings in this case have been vacated pending the improvement of Plaintiff’s health. See 21 generally ECF No. 136. 22 For the reasons stated below the parties will be directed to show cause why this matter 23 should not be recalendared for trial. In addition, the Clerk of Court will be directed to send 24 Plaintiff copies of certain documents on the docket that relate to trial proceedings. 25 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 On September 19, 2022, this matter was scheduled for trial. ECF No. 126 (Second 27 Scheduling Order). At that time, a pretrial conference was set for November 28, 2022, and a jury 28 1 trial was set for January 31, 2023. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was to file his pretrial statement by October 2 20, 2022, and Defendants were to file theirs by November 7, 2022. Id. at 7. 3 On September 27, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Second Scheduling 4 Order due to scheduling conflicts and workload demands. ECF No. 127. On September 29, 5 2022, the motion was granted. ECF No. 128. As a result, the pretrial conference was reset for 6 February 6, 2023, and the jury trial was reset for April 4, 2023. Id. at 2-3. All other directives in 7 the Second Scheduling Order – including filing deadlines –were to remain in effect. See id. at 3. 8 Plaintiff failed to file a pretrial statement by his October 20, 2022, deadline. Defendants, 9 however, timely filed their pretrial statement on November 4, 2022. ECF No. 130. In it, 10 Defendants asked the Court to dismiss this matter given that Plaintiff had not filed a pretrial 11 statement. Id. at 2. 12 On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ request for dismissal; a 13 declaration in support of same, and a motion for the appointment of counsel1 were docketed. 14 ECF Nos. 132-34. In the opposition, Plaintiff apologized for having missed the pretrial 15 conference. ECF No. 133 at 2, ¶ 6. He asked the Court not to dismiss his case, in part, because 16 he had become overwhelmed with two other active federal cases he has in this Court. Id. at 2, ¶ 17 4. He also asserted that he was experiencing severe back pain and he requested the appointment 18 of counsel. Id. at 2, ¶ 5. 19 In the supporting declaration filed with the opposition, Plaintiff went into detail about the 20 difficulty he was having with his back and the scheduling of surgery for it; his suicide attempts, 21 and the like. See generally ECF No. 134. Based on these facts, on January 6, 2023, the Court 22 vacated the pretrial conference and trial dates, and Plaintiff was ordered to file three-month status 23 reports to inform the Court of the status of his medical condition and of his ability to proceed to 24 trial. ECF No. 136 at 2-3. 25 Since the vacation of the trial dates, Plaintiff has filed status reports in April 2023, June 26 2023, and October 2023. ECF Nos. 137, 139-40, 144. His most recent status report indicates that 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel was eventually denied. ECF No. 135. 1 his transfer to a new facility has warranted the rescheduling of his spine surgery to “sometime in 2 the near future.” ECF No. 144 at 1, ¶ 2. In the report, Plaintiff also states that he continues to be 3 in great pain; he is unable to stand or sit for extended periods of time, and he is still using a 4 wheelchair. Id. at 1, ¶ 3. Plaintiff further asserts that when he was out-to-medical in November 5 and December of 2022, some of his legal property was lost by Lancaster State Prison. A 6 grievance he filed about his lost property has been denied. Id. at 2, ¶ 4. As a result, Plaintiff 7 states, he does not have the pretrial statement documents that the Court issued. Id. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 The parties will be ordered to show cause why this matter should not proceed to trial. 10 Interests in continuing to move this matter towards a final resolution warrant such an order. 11 Courts have a duty to manage their dockets in a manner that is just and speedy. See Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 1; see In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating orderly 13 and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to rule of law and delay in reaching 14 merits is costly in money, memory, manageability, and confidence in process). Both the Court 15 and the public have an interest in the disposal of cases in an expedient manner. See generally 16 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (presuming public has interest 17 in expeditious litigation). The Court also maintains broad discretion to control its docket. Adams 18 v. California Dep’t of Hlth. Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 19 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) as amended (May 22, 1992). 20 This matter has been on the Court’s docket since March of 2017. See ECF No. 1 (date 21 Complaint docketed). The Court fully acknowledges that Plaintiff’s significant health issues have 22 prevented his ability to move this case forward. The Court also understands that any upcoming 23 surgery Plaintiff might have may affect the rescheduling of trial dates. However, this matter 24 cannot remain stayed pending a sufficient and/or complete resolution of Plaintiff’s health 25 concerns because it is unclear when that will occur. Indeed, Plaintiff has stated that he is also 26 uncertain of when he will “get better.” See ECF No. 132 at 2, ¶ 5 (Plaintiff’s motion for the 27 appointment of counsel, docketed November 2022). 28 1 In light of these facts and concerns, the parties will be ordered to show cause why this 2 matter should not proceed to trial in the coming months. The parties will be given until 3 November 13, 2023, to file responsive pleadings to this order. In addition, in order to assist 4 Plaintiff with moving this case forward, as a one-time courtesy, the Clerk of Court will be ordered 5 to send Plaintiff the latest scheduling order issued by the Court and other related filings. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. As a one-time courtesy, the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff copies of the following 8 documents: 9 a. The Court’s Second Scheduling Order (ECF No. 126); 10 b. Defendants’ Motion to Modify Second Scheduling order (ECF No. 127); 11 c. The Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Modify Second Scheduling 12 Order (ECF No. 128); 13 d. Defendants’ Pretrial Statement (ECF No. 130), and 14 e. The Court’s Order Vacating Pretrial Conference and Trial (ECF No. 136). 15 2. Plaintiff and Defendants shall show cause why trial proceedings in this matter should 16 not recommence, and 17 3. The parties shall file and serve their showings of cause by November 13, 2023. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: October 25, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28