(PC) Lear v. Navarro et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 28 Plaintiff's Request to Opt Out of ADR Settlement Conference ; ORDER DENYING 31 Plaintiff's Request to Keep IFP Status as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 01/11/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. NAVARRO, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-JLT-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO OPT OUT OF ADR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 28) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO KEEP IFP STATUS AS MOOT (ECF No. 31) Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 19 against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and John Doe 1 for excessive force in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 2020. 21 On December 7, 2021, the Court identified this case as an appropriate case for the post- 22 screening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) project, and stayed the action to allow the 23 parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (ECF No. 26.) 24 The Court’s order granted Defendants time to investigate and determine whether to opt out of the 25 post-screening ADR project. The settlement conference is currently set for February 8, 2022 at 26 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Id.) 27 28 On December 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a request to opt out of the settlement conference. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants and their attorney contend that Plaintiff is not 1 1 telling the truth about his claims. Plaintiff states that it is impossible for the parties to settle if 2 Defendants contend he is lying, and Plaintiff therefore believes it would be a waste of resources 3 to conduct any settlement talks until at least the facts of this case are established. (Id.) 4 Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s request, and the deadline for Defendants to file 5 their own request to opt out of the settlement conference has expired. Therefore, it appears 6 Defendants remain willing to attend a settlement conference, and the Court finds that it would be 7 useful to attempt a settlement between the parties at this time. Plaintiff’s request is denied, and 8 the February 8, 2022 settlement conference before Judge Boone will proceed as scheduled. 9 Plaintiff also filed a request to keep IFP status on January 7, 2022. (ECF No. 31.) 10 Plaintiff states that he has paid his filing fees for this action, but requests that he be permitted to 11 continue to proceed in forma pauperis and that the Court not revoke his IFP status. (Id.) 12 Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s request, but the Court finds a 13 response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 14 Plaintiff’s request is denied as moot. Although Plaintiff states that he has paid the filing 15 fee in full for this action, this does not mean that his in forma pauperis status is revoked. Plaintiff 16 will continue to proceed in forma pauperis in this case unless or until some other information 17 comes to the Court’s attention that might warrant revocation. The fact that Plaintiff has 18 apparently finished paying the filing fee for this action, alone, does not warrant revocation of 19 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request to opt out of settlement conference, (ECF No. 28), is DENIED; and 22 2. Plaintiff’s request to keep in forma pauperis status, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED as moot. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 11, 2022 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?