From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. M. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 2, 2021
2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P

08-02-2021

DAVID HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, Defendant.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 2, 2021, this case was referred to the court's Post-Screening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Project and stayed for a period of 120 days. ECF No. 16. That order provided defendant the opportunity to request opting out of the ADR Project based on a good faith belief that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources. Id. at 2. Defendant now requests to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project and that the stay be lifted. ECF No. 19. Having reviewed the request, the court finds good cause to grant it.

Counsel for defendant is advised that in the future, any motion to opt out should affirm that counsel has spoken to plaintiff, as required by the order referring the case to the Post-Screening ADR Project.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' request to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED.
2. The stay of this action, commencing July 2, 2021, ECF No. 16, is LIFTED.
3. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, defendant shall file a response to the complaint.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. M. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 2, 2021
2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Hamilton v. M. Son

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 2, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-2210 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021)