Solis v. Gonzales

Filing 20

ORDER Referring the Case to Post-Screening ADR Project and Staying the Case for 90 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/1/19. Case stayed. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT O. SOLIS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. ROSA GONZALES, Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00015-LJO-JLT 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, the Court is referring all post-screening, civil 18 rights cases filed by pro se inmates to the Post-Screening Alternative Dispute Resolution Project to 19 attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively. Defense counsel from the Office of the 20 California Attorney General has agreed to participate in this pilot project. No defenses or objections 21 are waived by participation. 22 As set forth in the screening order, the Court has found the 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 the plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer and participate in a settlement conference. 25 There is a presumption that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the 26 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 SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the settlement conference. If the settlement 6 conference cannot be set quickly due to the court’s calendar, the parties may seek an extension of the 7 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 SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the 19 settlement conference; 20 21 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; 22 5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email, copies of: a. plaintiff’s First 23 Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), b. the screening order (Doc. 16), and c. this order to Supervising 24 Deputy Attorney General Christopher Becker, and copy of this order to ADR Coordinator Sujean 25 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 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 ROBERT O. SOLIS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No.: 1:18-cv-00015-LJO-JLT (PC) NOTICE REGARDING EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE v. ROSA GONZALES, Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 23 24 As required by the Court’s order: 25 26 1. The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees that there is a good chance that 27 an early settlement conference will resolve this action and wishes to engage in an early settlement 28 conference. 3 1 Yes ____ No ____ 2 3 4 2. The party or counsel for the party signing below, agrees the assigned Magistrate Judge may conduct the settlement conference. 5 Yes 6 No ____ /// 7 ____ /// 8 3. 9 The plaintiff (Check one): _____ Would like to participate in the settlement conference in person, OR 10 _____ Would like to participate in the settlement conference by video conference. 11 12 Dated: ________________________________ Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendants 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?