From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhodes v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
1:21-cv-00942-JLT-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00942-JLT-CDB (PC)

08-17-2023

PERCY LEE RHODES, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER REFERRING CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR AND STAYING CASE FOR 90 DAYS

FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Ruiz, Lightner, and McComas, a First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Cortez, and Eighth Amendment failure to protect and failure to train claims against Defendants Lightner and McComas.

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) to attempt to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively.

The Court stays this action for ninety days to allow the parties to investigate Plaintiff's claims, meet and confer, and participate in an early settlement conference. The Court presumes that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a settlement conference. However, if, after investigating Plaintiff's claims and meeting and conferring, either party finds that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the early settlement conference.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This action is STAYED for ninety (90) days to allow the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the stay. The parties shall not engage in formal discovery, but they may engage in informal discovery to prepare for the settlement conference.
2. Within 45 days from the date of this Order, the parties SHALL file the attached notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or their belief that settlement is not achievable at this time.
3. Within 60 days from the date of this Order, defense counsel SHALL contact the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy Clerk at shall@caed.uscourts.gov to schedule the settlement conference assuming all parties elect to participate.
4. If the parties reach a settlement during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.
5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email a copy of this Order to ADR Coordinator Sujean Park.
6. The parties are obligated to keep the Court informed of their current addresses during the stay and the pendency of this action. Changes of address must be reported promptly in a Notice of Change of Address. See L.R. 182(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE REGARDING EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

1. The party or counsel agrees that an early settlement conference would be productive and wishes to engage in an early settlement conference.

Yes___ No___

2. Plaintiff (check one):

___ would like to participate in the settlement conference in person.
___ would like to participate in the settlement conference by telephone or video conference.

Dated:

______________Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendants


Summaries of

Rhodes v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
1:21-cv-00942-JLT-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Rhodes v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:PERCY LEE RHODES, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 17, 2023

Citations

1:21-cv-00942-JLT-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)