Opinion
No. 2:18-cv-2081 KJN P
08-09-2018
LORENZO MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiffs are state prisoners, proceeding through counsel, with a class action complaint. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.6; and California Government Code § 11135. Plaintiffs paid the filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, various violations of inmates' rights at both the Sacramento County Jail and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center. The complaint states potentially cognizable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the California Government Code, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), against defendant County of Sacramento. If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons to plaintiffs for purposes of service of process. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Plaintiffs shall complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within sixty days from the date of this order. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on defendant together with a summons and a copy of the complaint.
The undersigned is aware that the parties have been negotiating for a lengthy period of time before filing this action. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Therefore, this action is set for status conference on December 6, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom #25, before the undersigned. On or before close of business on November 27, 2018, each party shall submit to the court and serve on each other, a status report addressing, without breaching confidentiality, the status of their negotiations, and how each party believes this action should proceed. For example, should the court schedule motion practice, or would a court-assisted settlement conference be helpful? In addition, the parties should inform the court whether additional discovery is deemed necessary, and if so, the party desiring it shall state the nature and scope of the discovery and provide an estimate of the time needed in which to complete it. Also, the parties should address the timing of plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Any party choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent form unless all parties to the action have consented.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue and send plaintiff one summons for defendant County of Sacramento. The Clerk shall also send plaintiffs copies of the form "Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge" with this order.
2. Plaintiffs shall complete service of process on the defendant within sixty days from the date of this order. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the form "Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge" on defendant at the time the summons and complaint are served.
3. On or before close of business on November 29, 2018, the parties shall file status reports as set forth above.
4. This action is set for status conference on December 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom #25, before the undersigned.
5. Because Lorenzo Mays is identified as lead plaintiff, the Clerk of the Court shall change the short title of this case to Mays v. County of Sacramento. Dated: August 9, 2018
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /mays.8fee.aty