Jones v. Oliveira, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR Project and Staying the Case for 90 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/7/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES B. JONES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
J. GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01311-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER REFERRING THE CASE TO POSTSCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING
THE CASE FOR 90 DAYS

16
17

When at least one Defendant has been served or appeared, the Court is referring all post-

18

screening, civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to the Post-Screening Alternative Dispute

19

Resolution Project to attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively. Defense counsel

20

from the Office of the California Attorney General has agreed to participate in this pilot project. No

21

defenses or objections are waived by participation.

22

As set forth in the screening order, the Court has found Plaintiff has stated at least one

23

cognizable civil rights claim. Thus, the Court STAYS this action for 90 days to allow the parties to

24

investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer and participate in a settlement conference.

25
26

There is a presumption that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the
undersigned will proceed to settlement conference.1 However, if after investigating Plaintiff’s claims

27
28
1

If the case does not settle during the stay, Court will set a deadline for the responsive pleading at the conference.

1

1

and speaking with Plaintiff, and after conferring with defense counsel’s supervisor, counsel finds in

2

good faith that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources,2 defense counsel may move to

3

opt out of this pilot project.

4

Within 35 days, the assigned Deputy Attorney General SHALL contact the Courtroom

5

Deputy Clerk at [e-mail], to schedule the settlement conference. If the

6

settlement conference cannot be set quickly due to the court’s calendar, the parties may seek an

7

extension of the initial 90-day stay.

8

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

This action is STAYED for 90 days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their

10

dispute before a responsive pleading is filed, or the discovery process begins. No other pleadings or

11

other documents may be filed in this case during the stay. The parties SHALL NOT engage in formal

12

discovery, but they may jointly agree to engage in informal discovery.

13

2.

Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties SHALL file the attached

14

notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or whether they believe

15

settlement is not achievable at this time. In addition, they SHALL indicate whether they object to the

16

undersigned conducting the settlement conference.

17

3.

Within 35 days from the date of this order, the assigned Deputy Attorney General

18

SHALL contact this court’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at [e-mail], to schedule

19

the settlement conference;

20
21
22

4.

If the parties settle their case during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a Notice

of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160;
5.

The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email, copies of: a. Plaintiff’s First

23

Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), b. the screening orders (Docs. 13, 18, 19, 22), and c. this order to

24

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Christopher Becker, and copy of this order to ADR

25

Coordinator Sujean Park;

26

6.

The parties are reminded of their obligation to keep the court informed of any changes

27
28

2

By way of guidance, if the defense intends to file an exhaustion motion and believes in good faith that it has a
significant chance of success, this would be a likely circumstance where the opt-out provision should be employed.

2

1

of addresses during the stay and while the action is pending. Changes of address must be reported

2

promptly in a separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.” See L.R. 182(f).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated:
6

May 7, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES B. JONES,
Plaintiff,

8

NOTICE REGARDING EARLY SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.

9
10

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01311-LJO-SKO (PC)

J. GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13

As required by the Court’s order:

14
15
16
17

1.

The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees that there is a good chance that

an early settlement conference will resolve this action and wishes to engage in an early settlement
conference.

18

Yes

____

No

____

19
20
21

2.

The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees the assigned Magistrate Judge

may conduct the settlement conference.

22

Yes

____

No

____

23
24

Dated:

25

________________________________
Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendants

26
27
28
4