Puckett

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER T. HARRELL, No. 2:23-CV-1448-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pursuant to the Court’s 18 order issued on February 13, 2025, the matter was set for a scheduling conference on March 26, 19 2025, and parties were directed to file a joint statement ahead of the conference. See ECF No. 30. 20 The conference was set for remote video access via Zoom and parties were emailed the access 21 information on March 3, 2025. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to order, ECF No. 30, 22 asserting that he had not been served with the answer and “the Clerk has inadvertently failed to 23 produce the documents necessary to effect service upon Bruce’s Towing, etc.” Id. at 1. 24 However, nothing about that filing either caused the scheduling conference to be 25 vacated, or excused Plaintiff’s obligation to appear at the scheduling…