(PC) Green v. Shirley ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 MICHAEL R. GREEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00505-NODJ-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING STATEMENTS FROM PARTIES REGARDING 11 v. SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY 12 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et al., THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Michael Green is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has screened Plaintiff’s 18 complaint and has ordered the case to proceed. (ECF No. 9.) Defendants opted out of the early 19 settlement conference. (ECF No. 25.) The case will now proceed to litigation. Before scheduling 20 this case, however, the Court will require each party to submit a statement regarding the schedule 21 and discovery matters. 22 The statements regarding the schedule and discovery shall be filed within thirty days from 23 the date of service of this order. They should be filed with the Court, titled “SCHEDULING AND 24 DISCOVERY STATEMENT,” and include the name of the party filing the statement. They shall 25 address all of the following issues: 26 i. A brief summary of the parties’ claims and/or defenses. ii. The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each witness, 27 besides expert witnesses, the party may call at trial. 28 1 iii. A description by category and location of all documents the party may use at 2 trial. 3 iv. Whether any third parties, other than Plaintiff’s institution of confinement, are 4 likely to have relevant documents. v. Whether the party intends to use expert witnesses. 5 vi. If a settlement conference has not occurred, when the party will be prepared to 6 participate in a settlement conference. 7 Defendant(s)’ Scheduling and Discovery Statement shall also address all of the following 8 issues: 9 vii. Whether a third-party subpoena directed at Plaintiff’s institution of 10 confinement will be necessary to obtain relevant documents. 11 viii. Whether Defendant(s) intend to challenge the issue of exhaustion and, if so, 12 when Defendant(s) will be ready to file a motion for summary judgment 13 regarding the issue of exhaustion. 14 ix. Whether witness statements and/or evidence were generated from 15 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an 16 investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s).1 17 x. Whether there are any video recordings or photographs related to the 18 incident(s) at issue in the complaint, including video recordings and 19 photographs of Plaintiff taken following the incident(s). 20 xi. Whether Defendant(s) intend to argue that Defendant(s) are not properly 21 named because they are not the individual(s) responsible for the action(s) 22 described in the complaint (i.e., someone else did or is responsible for the 23 action(s) alleged in the complaint). /// 24 /// 25 26 1 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an 27 administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and 28 evidence can be gathered and preserved.”). 1 Finally, any party may also include any information that the party believes would assist in 2 | discovery and/or scheduling the case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _ February 14, 2024 [see hey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28