Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wheaten v. Knoll, 1:18-cv-00885-AWI-JLT (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190429a81 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER REFERRING THE CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING THE CASE FOR 90 DAYS (Doc. 18) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . When at least one defendant has been served, the Court is referring all post-screening, civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to the Post-Screening Alternative Dispute Resolution Project to attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively. No defenses or objections are waived by participation. Defendants' motion to extend time to respond
More

ORDER REFERRING THE CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR PROJECT AND STAYING THE CASE FOR 90 DAYS

(Doc. 18)

When at least one defendant has been served, the Court is referring all post-screening, civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to the Post-Screening Alternative Dispute Resolution Project to attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively. No defenses or objections are waived by participation. Defendants' motion to extend time to respond to the Complaint (Doc. 18) is subsumed by this order and will be granted.

As set forth in the screening order, the Court has found the plaintiff has stated at least one cognizable civil rights claim. Thus, the Court STAYS this action for 90 days to allow the parties to investigate the plaintiff's claims, meet and confer and participate in a settlement conference.

There is a presumption that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to settlement conference.1 However, if after investigating plaintiff's claims and speaking with plaintiff, and after conferring with necessary supervisors, counsel finds in good faith that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources2, defense counsel may move to opt out of this pilot project.3

Within 35 days, defense counsel SHALL contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the settlement conference. If the settlement conference cannot be set quickly due to the court's calendar, the parties may seek an extension of the initial 90-day stay.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. This action is STAYED for 90 days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before a responsive pleading is filed, or the discovery process begins. No other pleadings or other documents may be filed in this case during the stay. The parties SHALL NOT engage in formal discovery, but they may jointly agree to engage in informal discovery.

2. Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties SHALL file the attached notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or whether they believe settlement is not achievable at this time. In addition, they SHALL indicate whether they object to the undersigned conducting the settlement conference.

3. Within 35 days from the date of this order, defense counsel SHALL contact this court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule the settlement conference;

4. If the parties settle their case during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160;

5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve copy of this order to ADR Coordinator Sujean Park via email;

6. The parties are reminded of their obligation to keep the court informed of any changes of addresses during the stay and while the action is pending. Changes of address must be reported promptly in a separate document entitled "Notice of Change of Address." See L.R. 182(f); and

7. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, filed on April 25, 2019, (Doc. 18), is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. If the case does not settle during the stay, Court will set a deadline for the responsive pleading at the conference.
2. By way of guidance, if the defense intends to file an exhaustion motion and believes in good faith that it has a significant chance of success, this would be a likely circumstance where the opt-out provision should be employed.
3. If defense counsel moves to opt out, a deadline will be set for the responsive pleading
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer