Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-ADA-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

(ECF No. 70)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, filed January 9, 2023.

Plaintiff contends that he never requested to conduct settlement negotiations and he never sought 

reconsideration of the Court’s December 12, 2022, order. (ECF No. 70.) Rather, Plaintiff 

submits that he “is requesting the Court to clarify what is going on with his case in regards to this 

matter.” (Id. at 1.) As stated in the Court’s December 23, 2022, order, there is insufficient 

evidence to substantiate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the “eavesdropping” of officers during 

the settlement conference in this case. In addition, the Court must defer to prison officials 

regarding the safety and security of the prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 86 (1987) (the 

Supreme Court has long emphasized that absent substantial evidence to the contrary, courts 

should defer to prison officials' judgment regarding prison security and administration.); see

also Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 71 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

themselves in minutiae of prison operations in the name of the Constitution). Moreover, there is 

currently no settlement conference scheduled, and any order relating to such would be 

premature. Again, Plaintiff is advised that the parties are free to engage in settlement 

negotiations amongst themselves and may contact the Court if they both believe a settlement 

conference would be beneficial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 71 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 2