(PC) Lute v. Silva et al

Filing 38

ORDER Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 90 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 11/9/2023. Notice re Settlement due within forty-five (45) days. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01122-CDB (PC) ORDER REFERRING CASE TO POSTSCREENING ADR AND STAYING CASE FOR 90 DAYS FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY DEADLINE E. SILVA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Christopher Robert Lute is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 8, 2023, Defendants E. Moreno, A. Randolph, E. Romero and O. Valladolid filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 37.) The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to Alternative Dispute 22 Resolution (“ADR”) to attempt to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. 23 The Court stays this action for ninety days to allow the parties to investigate Plaintiff’s 24 claims, meet and confer, and participate in an early settlement conference. The Court presumes 25 that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a settlement 26 conference. However, if, after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and conferring, either 27 party finds that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of 28 the early settlement conference. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 2 1. This action is STAYED for ninety (90) days to allow the parties an opportunity to 3 settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. No pleadings or motions may 4 be filed in this case during the stay. The parties shall not engage in formal discovery, 5 but they may engage in informal discovery to prepare for the settlement conference. 6 2. Within 45 days from the date of this Order, the parties SHALL file the attached 7 notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or their 8 belief that settlement is not achievable at this time. 9 3. Within 60 days from the date of this Order, the assigned Deputy Attorney General 10 SHALL contact the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at shall@caed.uscourts.gov 11 to schedule the settlement conference, assuming the parties agree to participate in an 12 early settlement conference. 13 4. If the parties reach a settlement during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a 14 Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160. 15 5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email copies of Plaintiff’s second amended 16 complaint (Doc. 24), the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations (following 17 screening) (Doc. 29), and this Order to Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica 18 Anderson, and a copy of this Order to ADR Coordinator Sujean Park. 19 6. The parties are obligated to keep the Court informed of their current addresses during 20 the stay and the pendency of this action. Changes of address must be reported 21 promptly in a Notice of Change of Address. See L.R. 182(f). 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 9, 2023 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 NOTICE REGARDING EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE v. 13 14 Case No. 1:20-cv-01122-ADA-CDB (PC) CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE, E. SILVA, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 1. The party or counsel agrees that an early settlement conference would be productive and wishes to engage in an early settlement conference. 18 Yes ____ 19 No ____ 20 21 2. Plaintiff (check one): 22 _____ would like to participate in the settlement conference in person. 23 _____ would like to participate in the settlement conference by telephone or video conference. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: ________________________________ Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendants

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?