From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 20, 2022
1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC)

06-20-2022

THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, Defendants.


ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS MOOT (Doc. No. 55) ORDER FIDNING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS RELATED TO PAYMENT OF HIS FILING FEE MOOT (Doc. Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116) ORDER STAYING ACTION AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS TO OPT OUT OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pending before the Court are the following motions submitted by Plaintiff: (1) motion to enter proof of payment of his filing fee (Doc. No. 113); (2) motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 114); (3) motion to enter an inmate request for interview form (Doc. No. 115); and (4) motion to enter his prisoner trust fund account statement (Doc. No. 116). Essentially, Plaintiff seeks verification that the Clerk of Court has received the $402.00 filing fee in this action.

By way of background, on January 3, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status due to Plaintiff's three strike status. (Doc. No. 55). In response, Plaintiff advised that he intended to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 61). The Court 1 afforded Plaintiff multiple extensions of time to pay the $402.00 filing fee. (See Doc. Nos. 84, 104). After denying Plaintiff a further 30-day extension of time, the Court received the final outstanding amount owed ($2.00) and, as of the date of this Order, the Court has received the full filing fee for this case. (See Receipts CAE100050147 for $350.00, CAE100050192 for $50.00, and CAE100050720 for $2.00).

In light of Plaintiff's payment of the full filing fee, Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status is moot. Similarly, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration and/or verification that the payment fee has been paid in full are also moot.

Upon further review of the docket, on December 27, 2021, the Court issue an order staying the case and directing parties to file notice if they wished to opt out of a settlement conference. (Doc. No. 49). Finding that Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status is moot, the Court believes the parties may benefit from an early Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) conference. As previously noted in the Court's December 27, 2021 Order, the Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to ADR to attempt to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. See also Local Rule 270. The Court therefore will continue a LIMITED STAY of this action for 60 days to allow the parties to investigate Plaintiff's claims, meet and confer, and participate in an early settlement conference. If either party opts out or the settlement is unsuccessful the Court will enter a discovery and scheduling order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. In light of Plaintiff's payment in full of the $402.00 filing fee, Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 55) is MOOT.

2. Plaintiff's motion to enter proof of payment of his filing fee (Doc. No. 113), motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 114), motion to enter an inmate request for interview form (Doc. No. 115) and motion to enter his prisoner trust fund account statement (Doc. No. 116) are MOOT.

3. Consistent with the Court's December 27, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 49) this action is STAYED for 60 days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute. No pleadings or motions may be filed during the stay, and the parties shall not engage in formal discovery 2 until the Court LIFTS the STAY.

4. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to a settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently achievable. If either party objects to a settlement conference the Court will LIFT the STAY and issue a Scheduling and Discovery Order.

5. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the 30-day objection period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge, other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference.

6. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160. 3


Summaries of

Mills v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 20, 2022
1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2022)
Case details for

Mills v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 20, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2022)