(PC) Duclos v. Smith et al

Filing 31

ORDER Referring Case to Early ADR and Stay of Case signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 11/22/2024. Deadline to Opt Out: 3/21/2025. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MCGHEE TONY DUCLOS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
D. SMITH, S. SANTIAGO, AND M.
DELIMA,

Case No. 1:24-cv-00515-HBK (PC)
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY
ADR AND STAY OF CASE
DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE:
MARCH 21, 2025

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff McGhee Tony Duclos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

on his Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). As set forth in the Court’s

20

June 24, 2024 Screening Order, Plaintiff’s Complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment

21

excessive use of force claims against Defendants Smith and Santiago and a cognizable First

22

Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant De Lima but no other claims. (Doc. No. 10).

23

Plaintiff agreed to proceed only on the claims deemed cognizable. (Doc. Nos. 12-13). On

24

October 28, 2024 and November 20, 2024, Defendants filed Answers to the Complaint. (Doc.

25

Nos. 24, 30).

26

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to early Alternative

27

Dispute Resolution (ADR) to try to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively.

28

See also Local Rule 270. In appropriate cases, defense counsel from the California Attorney

1

General’s Office have agreed to participate in early ADR. No claims, defenses, or objections are

2

waived by the parties’ participation.

3

Attempting to resolve this matter early through settlement now would save the parties the

4

time and expense of engaging in lengthy and costly discovery and preparing substantive

5

dispositive motions. The Court therefore will STAY this action for up to 120 DAYS to allow the

6

parties an opportunity to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and engage in settlement

7

discussions, or agree to participate in an early settlement conference conducted by a magistrate

8

judge. If after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and conferring, either party finds that a

9

settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the early settlement

10

conference.

11

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

12

1.

This action will remain STAYED until further order to allow the parties an

13

opportunity to settle their dispute. The parties may not file any pleadings or motions during the

14

stay period. Further, the parties shall not engage in formal discovery until the Court issues a

15

Scheduling and Discovery Order.

16

2.

No later than March 21, 2025, the parties shall file a notice if they object to

17

proceeding to an early settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently

18

achievable.

19

3.

If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection

20

period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge,

21

other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference.

22
23

4.

If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL

file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated:

November 22, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE