Opinion
2:17-cv-00702-JAD-BNW
01-24-2023
Steven L. Scott, Plaintiff v. James Cox et al., Defendants
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER ON MANDATE AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER AND FILE STATUS BRIEFS EXPLAINING THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THE SETTLEMENT ON THIS REMANDED CASE
[ECF NO. 165]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
Pro se prisoner Steven L. Scott brought this civil-rights action against prison officials at the Southern Desert Correctional Center, alleging primarily that the facility's policies and procedures for dispensing a common-fare diet violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that they retaliated against him for filing grievances. This court granted summary judgment in favor of some of the defendants, and Scott appealed. While that appeal was pending, the parties stipulated to dismiss this case with prejudice. A few months later, the Ninth Circuit decided Scott's appeal, reviving some of the claims I had resolved by summary judgment.
ECF No. 160.
ECF No. 163.
Scott reminds this court that the mandate on that decision has been issued and moves the court to take action in response to that mandate. I grant that motion. But it is unclear to me what effect the dismissal of the case had on these claims that were revived on appeal.
ECF No. 165.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Scott's motion for the court to take action on the mandate [ECF No. 165] is GRANTED, and the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [ECF No. 164] is hereby spread on the docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties must meet and confer by phone or videoconferencing to discuss the status of this case and what, if anything, is left to be done in light of the Ninth Circuit decision and the settlement. This conference must occur by February 24, 2023. Each side will then have until March 15, 2023, to file a status report with the court, advising the court of what steps, if any, are left to be taken in this case.