Lipsey v. Hand-Ronga, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion for referral to the VDRP, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/12/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
N. HAND-RONGA, et al.,

15

1:17-cv-01704-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO
VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PROGRAM
(ECF No. 19.)

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Christopher Lipsey, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

20

commencing this action on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed

21

a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 12.) On September 24, 2018, the

22

court issued a screening order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim

23

with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 15.) On December

24

3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which awaits the court’s requisite

25

screening. (ECF No. 16.)

26

On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to refer this case to the

27

“Alternative Dispute Resolution Project” after the court has completed screening the complaint.

28

(ECF No. 19.)
1

1

II.

VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM -- LOCAL RULE 271

2

Local Rule 271 governs the referral of certain actions to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution

3

Program (“VDRP”) at the election of the parties. However, this Rule does not apply to prisoner

4

cases. L.R. 271(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s case cannot be referred to the VDRP under Rule

5

271 and his request must be denied.

6

However, the court is able to refer prisoner cases for settlement before a participating

7

United States Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the court,

8

or at a prison in the Eastern District of California. As a rule, the court does not refer cases for

9

settlement unless both Plaintiff and Defendants have notified the court that they believe, in good

10

faith, that settlement is a possibility and that they are interested in having a settlement conference

11

scheduled by the court. In this case none of the Defendants have appeared, and therefore referral

12

for settlement is premature. If Plaintiff still seeks to settle this case at a later stage of the

13

proceedings, after the Defendants have appeared, he may file a request at that time for the court

14

to schedule a settlement conference.

15

III.

16
17

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for referral

of this case to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program is DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 12, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2