(PC) Ellis v. Kern County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 47

ORDER Overruling 45 Plaintiff's Objections to Notice to Opt-Out of Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/07/2024.(Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES ELLIS, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
KERN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

No. 1:22cv-01209-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE TO OPT-OUT OF
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 45)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant

18
19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ notice to opt-out of the

20
21

settlement conference, filed February 6, 2024.

22

On December 11, 2023, the Court issued an order referring this case to the Court’s

23

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, set the case for a settlement conference on February 13,

24

2024, before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, and stayed the case. (ECF No. 38.) The

25

Court advised defense counsel that counsel could opt-out of the settlement conference with thirty

26

days.

27
28

On January 23, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to opt-out of the settlement conference
because after investigation they believe a settlement conference would be unproductive at this
1

1

time. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants acknowledged that the notice was untimely under the Court’s

2

order, but provided good cause in that defense counsel was out of the country from December 11,

3

2023 to January 2, 2024, and after correspondence from Plaintiff believed a settlement conference

4

would not be fruitful as only a waiver of costs could be offered. (ECF No. 40.)
Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ notice and argues that Defendants violated the Court’s

5
6

order because they are manipulating the Court. (ECF No. 45.) As stated above, Defendants

7

presented good cause for the late filing of the opt-out notice and provided sufficient cause as to

8

why they believed a settlement conference would not be fruitful at this time. (ECF No. 40.)

9

Plaintiff’s objections have no merit and there is no basis to impose sanctions. Accordingly,

10

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 7, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2