From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Correa v. Braudrick

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2022
1:19-cv-00369-ADA-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00369-ADA-CDB (PC)

11-16-2022

ANGELO CORREA, Plaintiff, v. BRAUDRICK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO ADVISE THE COURT IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS ACTION WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE

Angelo Correa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on March 20, 2019. (Doc. 1.)

Following screening and service of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, Defendants filed an answer on May 26, 2020. (Doc. 29.)

On May 28, 2020, the Court issued an Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 90 Days. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff opted to participate in a settlement conference (Doc. 32) whereas Defendants elected not to do so (Doc. 33). As a result, on July 10, 2020, the Court lifted the previously imposed stay and issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Docs. 34 & 35.) 1

On July 27, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (Doc. 42) and Defendants replied (Doc. 43).

On December 28, 2020, the Court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 50.) The evidentiary hearing was heard before then Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on March 9, 2021. (Doc. 57 [minutes].)

On March 22, 2021, Judge Thurston issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied and excusing Plaintiff's failure to exhaust. (Doc. 59.) Defendants filed objection on April 6, 2021. (Doc. 63.)

On June 15, 2021, then assigned District Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 67.)

The action was reassigned to District Judge Ana de Alba on August 24, 2022. (Doc. 90.)

On July 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiff opposed the motion (Doc. 79) and Defendants replied (Doc. 80).

On June 27, 2022, then assigned Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin issued Findings and Recommendations to deny summary judgment as to the excessive force claims against Defendants Braudrick and Maddux, and to grant summary judgment as to the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Salinas-Torres. (Doc. 82.) On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. 85.)

On October 6, 2022, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned as magistrate judge. (Doc. 96.)

On October 12, 2022, District Judge Ana de Alba issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 98.) On October 21, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant Salinas-Torres. (See Docs. 101 & 102.)

Discovery is closed and all deadlines associated with the previously issued and/or modified Discovery and Scheduling Order have now passed. 2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Given the present procedural posture of this action, and prior to any trial setting, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defense counsel SHALL arrange to communicate with Plaintiff telephonically for the purpose of a good faith discussion between the parties as to whether a settlement conference in this action would be productive prior to setting the matter for trial;
2. The parties SHALL then advise the Court, in writing and by way of a notice to be filed by defense counsel within 30 days of the date of this order, of the following:
a. Whether both parties agree a settlement conference would be productive;
b. If either party does not, or both parties do not, believe a settlement conference would be productive, that party, or both parties, shall provide a reason or reasons for the belief;
c. Should both parties agree a settlement conference in this action would be productive, the parties shall provide the Court with several possible available dates for scheduling such a settlement conference in early-2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3


Summaries of

Correa v. Braudrick

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2022
1:19-cv-00369-ADA-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022)
Case details for

Correa v. Braudrick

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO CORREA, Plaintiff, v. BRAUDRICK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 16, 2022

Citations

1:19-cv-00369-ADA-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022)