Curtis v. Buckley et al
Filing
77
ORDER DENYING 76 Motion for Modification of Order for Status Conference Continuance, ORDERED that defense counsel simply inquire of prison officialsat California Correctional Institution Tehachapi whether Plaintiff can be handcuffed in front during the status conference, signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 05/20/2010. (Martin, S)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Buckley, et al., Defendants. Parnell Curtis, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:06-CV-00230-SMM ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Court previously continued the telephonic status conference to May 24, 2010. Recently, Plaintiff requested that certain accommodations be made at the continued status conference so that he can better participate in it (Dkt. 76). However, the Court cannot interfere with prison officials' management of their own affairs by ordering these discretionary accommodations. Though, it may be helpful for Plaintiff to be handcuffed in front, rather than behind, in order for him to refer to his legal documents during the status conference. Therefore, the Court will order defense counsel to simply inquire of prison officials at California Correctional Institution Tehachapi whether Plaintiff can be handcuffed in front during the status conference. Of course, the Court and defense counsel must defer to the prison officials' balancing of reasonable accommodations with safety and security. /// ///
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request For Modification Of Order For Status Conference Continuance (Dkt. 76) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel simply inquire of prison officials at California Correctional Institution Tehachapi whether Plaintiff can be handcuffed in front during the status conference. DATED this 20th day of May, 2010.
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
