ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 117.) ORDER STAYING DEADLINES FOR COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY AND FILING OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, PENDING RESOLUTION OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively, "Defendants"), on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.)

On April 26, 2018, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the court's April 23, 2018, order. (ECF No. 117.) Specifically, Defendants request clarification on whether the court's order intended to stay the case or just the discovery deadline. Defendants seek clarification because the May 29, 2018, deadline for completion of discovery is approaching and they have not yet received discovery from Plaintiff or taken Plaintiff's deposition.

The court's April 23, 2018, order found it beneficial to defer the scheduling of a settlement conference in this case until after Plaintiff's pending criminal case is resolved. (ECF No. 115.) The order requires the parties to notify the court in writing, every three months, of the status of Plaintiff's pending criminal case. (Id.) The order did not stay this case, nor any of the pending deadlines in this case. However, Defendants have shown good cause for the court to stay the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines pending resolution of the settlement conference requested by the parties.

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.