(PC) Randolph v. Sandoval et al

Filing 29

ORDER LIFTING Stay of Proceedings; ORDER VACATING November 3, 2020 Settlement Conference; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Issue Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/13/2020. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN M. RANDOLPH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:18-cv-00968-NONE-BAM (PC) ORDER LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ORDER VACATING NOVEMBER 3, 2020 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SANDOVAL, et al., (ECF No. 27) 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 16 17 Plaintiff Colin M. Randolph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 20 against Defendants Benevides and Carrillo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment and against Defendants Sandoval, Speidell, and Benavides for retaliation in violation 22 of the First Amendment. On September 9, 2020, the Court identified this case as an appropriate case for the post- 23 24 screening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) project, and stayed the action to allow the 25 parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (ECF No. 27.) 26 The Court’s order granted Defendants time to investigate and determine whether to opt out of the 27 post-screening ADR project. 28 /// 1 1 On October 13, 2020, Defendants filed a request to opt out and vacate settlement 2 conference. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants state that after fully investigating Plaintiff’s allegations, 3 defense counsel believes to Plaintiff’s lawsuit is barred by his failure to comply with the PLRA’s 4 exhaustion requirement. Further, after conferring with Plaintiff by telephone on October 12, 5 2020, defense counsel believes that Plaintiff’s demand and any amount Defendants would 6 consider for settlement are currently too far from each other for a settlement conference to be 7 fruitful at this time. (Id.) 8 9 10 After review, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ request. Therefore, the stay is lifted, and the November 3, 2020, settlement is vacated. This case is now ready to proceed. If the parties wish to set a settlement conference with the Court at a later date, they should 11 so inform the Court. However, the parties are also reminded that they are not precluded from 12 negotiating a settlement without judicial assistance. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The stay of this action, (ECF No. 27), is LIFTED; 15 2. The November 3, 2020 settlement conference is VACATED; 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a discovery and scheduling order; 17 18 and 4. 19 The parties may proceed with discovery pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order to be issued by separate order. 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara October 13, 2020 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?