Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO WHEATLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00481-CDB (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO POSTSCREENING ADR AND STAYING CASE 

FOR 90 DAYS

FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Ricardo Wheatley, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on claims 

screened in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to the Eighth Amendment for 

excessive force against Defendants D. Dominguez and R. Flores; failure to intervene against 

Defendants Dominguez, Denny, and Hernandez; and medical indifference claim against each 

defendant in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 22, 23.)

On January 9, 2024, all Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint. (Doc. 31.)

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 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 4
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

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, the assigned Deputy Attorney General 

SHALL contact the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at shall@caed.uscourts.gov

to schedule the settlement conference, assuming the parties agree to participate in an 

early settlement conference.

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 copies of Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint (Doc. 22), the Second Screening Order (Doc. 21), and this Order to 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Bragg (Lawrence.Bragg@doj.ca.gov), 

and a copy of this Order to ADR Coordinator Sujean Park.

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

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.

Dated: January 10, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO WHEATLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00481-CDB (PC)

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 Defendant 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/10/24 Page 4 of 4