Opinion
1:22-cv-00407-ADA-BAM (PC)
06-21-2023
MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., Plaintiff, v. ALLISON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 651 ET SEQ.
(ECF NO. 26)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants V. Diaz and D. Escalera for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On April 18, 2023, the Court identified this case as an appropriate case for the postscreening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) project, and stayed the action to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (ECF No. 22.) The Court's order granted Defendants time to investigate and determine whether to opt out of the post-screening ADR project. Defendants filed a motion to opt out of early ADR on May 18, 2023, indicating that after conferring with Plaintiff, investigating Plaintiff's claim, and consulting with defense counsel's supervisor, defense counsel determined that a settlement conference would likely be a waste of resources for the Court and the parties at this early stage. (ECF No. 23.) The Court granted the request on May 23, 2023. (ECF No. 24.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to enforce alternative dispute resolution pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 651, et seq., filed June 20, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff argues that he believes there could be a reasonable settlement agreement in this case, and Defendants are being completely unreasonable considering all of the circumstances. Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce alternative dispute resolution between Plaintiff and Defendants. (Id.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Without a clear indication from all parties to the action that they are willing to discuss settlement, the Court does not find that it would be an efficient use of judicial resources to set this case for a settlement conference at this time. The parties are reminded that they are free to settle this matter without judicial involvement at any time by communicating among themselves. If in the future the parties jointly decide that this action would benefit from a Court-facilitated settlement conference, or if they are able to reach an independent settlement agreement, they may so inform the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to enforce alternative dispute resolution, (ECF No. 26), is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.