Puckett

(PS) Harrell v. Puckett

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 28, 20252:23-cv-01448California2,220 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PETER T. HARRELL, No. 2:23-CV-1448-DC-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This court conducted a scheduling conference on March 26, 2025. Plaintiff failed to appear1. Attorney Michael Malone, Esq., appeared on behalf of all named Defendants except Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court issues this scheduling order. I. SERVICE OF PROCESS All named defendants except Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling have been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Plaintiff is ordered to effect service on Bruce’s towing within 30 days of this order. / / /

By separate order the Court will direct Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to participate in the preparation of a join…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.