(PC) Hill v. Kaye, et al.
Filing
40
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Post Screening Settlement Conference and STAY of Case for 60 Days signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 9/15/2022. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CYMEYON HILL,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00929-JLT-HBK (PC)
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO
POSTSCREENING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND STAY OF CASE FOR
60 DAYS
DAVID B. KAYE,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
This matter comes before the Court upon initial review of the case file that was transferred
20
to this Court from the Northern District of California on July 27, 2022. (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff
21
Cymeyon Hill is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his First Amended
22
Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 13, 15). The court in the Northern
23
District determined Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment
24
claim against Defendant Kaye. (Doc. No. 17). Prior to transfer, the court in the Northern District
25
set this matter for a settlement conference. (See Doc. No. 27). Due to the change in venue, the
26
settlement conference did not take place.
27
28
This Court also refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to an early
settlement conference before the magistrate judges to attempt to resolve such cases more
1
1
expeditiously and less expensively. See also Local Rule 270. No claims, defenses, or objections
2
are waived by the parties’ participation. Attempting to resolve this matter through settlement now
3
would save the parties the time and expense of engaging in discovery and preparing substantive
4
dispositive motions.
5
The Court therefore will STAY this action for 60 days to allow the parties to investigate
6
Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and participate in an early settlement conference. The Court
7
presumes that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a
8
settlement conference. If, however, after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and
9
conferring, either party finds that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party
10
may opt out of the early settlement conference. If either party opts out or the settlement is
11
unsuccessful the Court will direct Defendant to file a response to the First Amended Complaint
12
after which the Court will enter a discovery and scheduling order.
13
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
14
1.
This action will remain STAYED for 60 days to allow the parties an opportunity
15
to settle their dispute. No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the stay, and the
16
parties shall not engage in formal discovery.
17
2.
Within 30 days from the date on this Order, the parties shall file a notice if they
18
object to proceeding to a settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently
19
achievable. If either party objects to a settlement conference the Court will issue a
20
scheduling and discovery order.
21
3.
If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection
22
period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge,
23
other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference.
24
4.
If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL
25
file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
5.
The parties are obligated to keep the Court informed of their current addresses
2
during the stay and the pendency of this action. Changes of address must be reported promptly in
3
a Notice of Change of Address. See Local Rule 182(f).
4
5
6
Dated:
September 15, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?