Baker v. Beam et al

Filing 46

ORDER LIFTING Stay of Proceedings; ORDER DIRECTING Defendant's to File Responsive Pleading; Twenty-one (21) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/13/2019. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKE BAKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

E. BEAM, et al.

15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
(ECF No. 38)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Mike Baker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

20

amended complaint as follows: (1) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for deliberate

21

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) against Defendants Vasquez, Vogel, Beam,

22

Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, Benevidas, Goree, Cribbs, Diaz, Jarvis, and Pacillas for

23

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (3) against Defendants Vasquez, Vogel, Beam,

24

Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for conspiracy; (4) against Defendants Vogel,

25

Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for denial of access to the courts in

26

violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) against Defendants Vogel, Beam, Cuevas,

27

Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for a state law claim for property deprivation under

28

California law; (6) against Defendants Beam, Huerta, and Benevidas for violation of California Civil
1

1

Code § 52.1; (7) against Defendant Vogel for a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional

2

distress; and (8) against Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for a state law claim for negligent

3

infliction of emotional distress. (ECF No. 33.)

4

On September 9, 2019, the Court identified this case as an appropriate case for the post-

5

screening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) project and stayed the action to allow the parties an

6

opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (ECF No. 38.)

7

On November 8, 2019, a settlement conference was conducted before Magistrate Judge Stanley

8

A. Boone. The case did not settle. Therefore, this case is now ready to proceed. Consequently,

9

Defendants Vogel, Diaz, Caldwell, Jarvis, Pacillas, Cribbs, Benevidas, Cuevas, Beam, Cervantes,

10

Huerta, Goree, and Vasquez are directed to file an answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s

11

second amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The stay of this action, (ECF No. 38), is LIFTED; and

14

2.

Defendants Vogel, Diaz, Caldwell, Jarvis, Pacillas, Cribbs, Benevidas, Cuevas, Beam,

15

Cervantes, Huerta, Goree, and Vasquez are directed to file a responsive pleading within

16

twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 13, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2