Free Bench Trial - Completed - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CIVIL TRIAL MINUTES

Phoenix Division
HON: SUSAN R. BOLTON DATE: 2/24/06 CIV 02-1056-PHX-SRB Year Case No. Dft #

Judge # 7026

T.C. Mullins v. Dora Schriro, et al. Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) T.C. Mullins (pro se) Plaintiff(s) counsel Susanna Pineda and Catherine Bohland Defense counsel

===================================================================================== CIV 03-1393-PHX-SRB Year Case No. Dft #

Isadore Baptisto v. Dora Schriro, et al. Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) Isadore Baptisto (pro se) Plaintiff(s) counsel Susanna Pineda and Catherine Bohland Defense counsel

===================================================================================== CIV 03-1498-PHX-SRB Year Case No. Dft #

Christian Diaz v. Dora Schriro, et al. Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) Christian Diaz (pro se) Plaintiff(s) counsel Susanna Pineda and Catherine Bohland Defense counsel

============================================================================== Deputy Clerk: Maureen Williams Court Reporter: Kim Moll
PROCEEDINGS:/ /JURY TRIAL / X /COURT TRIAL / /VOIR DIRE / /JURY SWORN

Trial Day #

3

Waiver of Jury trial filed

n/a

9:03 a.m. Reconvene. Defendants' case (continued): Cheryl McRill is sworn and examined. Witness is excused. Brendan Monghan is sworn and examined. Exhibit 100 is admitted. Exhibit 99 (video tape) is viewed in open court. Witness is excused. Defense rests. 10:27 a.m. Recess.
Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB Document 100 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

10:46 a.m. Reconvene. Plaintiffs advise the Court they will not be offering any rebuttal evidence or witnesses. Pending motions are addressed. In CV 02-1056-PHX SRB (Mullins v. Schriro), IT IS ORDERED denying without opposition Defendant's Motion for Court to View SMU II Lighting Conditions [doc. 114]. In CV 03-1393-PHX SRB (Baptisto v Schriro), the Court rules as follows: Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena of Witnesses [doc. 72] is denied as moot; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [doc. 73] is deemed moot; Plaintiff's Motion for Writ [doc. 75] is deemed moot; Motion for Order to Set Deadlines [doc. 76] is deemed moot; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [doc. 80] is deemed moot; Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing [doc. 82] is stricken as there is no such pending motion to dismiss filed by defendants; Plaintiff's Motion for Order to deputy warden at Eyman SMUII [doc. 84] is deemed moot; Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of time past February 2006 for trial date [doc. 92] is denied; Plaintiff's Motion to compel defendants to produce evidence [doc. 97] is denied as moot; Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [doc. 100] is deemed moot. In CV 03-1498-PHX-SRB (Diaz v Schriro), IT IS ORDERED denying without opposition Defendant's Motion for Court to View SMU II Lighting Conditions [doc. 84]. The Court advises it will not be requiring the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for reasons as stated on the record. Closing arguments. Exhibit 101 is admitted. IT IS ORDERED taking the matters under advisement. The Court will issue its written ruling within 60 days. 12:05 p.m. Court is adjourned.

Case 2:03-cv-01498-SRB

Document 100

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 2