Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814-10/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION AND 

REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE VADAS FOR SETTLEMENT 

PROCEEDINGS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 76, 77

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the California Healthcare Facility, filed 

this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional and state tort violations 

arising out of a 2012 surgery during which he had rods installed in his back. The surgery was 

performed by defendant UCSF Medical Doctor Shane Burch (“Burch”), and the rods were 

manufactured by a company acquired by defendant Medtronic, Inc (“Medtronic”). In an order 

filed March 2, 2015, the Court screened the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and determined that it stated 

the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 

defendant Burch; (2) a supplemental state law negligence claim against defendant Burch; and 

(3) supplemental state law product liability claims against defendant Medtronic. See Dkt. No. 18.

On February 25, 2016, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Burch on the grounds that 

Burch had recently performed surgery to remove the defective rods from plaintiff’s back and 

plaintiff maintained a physician-patient relationship with Burch. On March 2, 2016, the Court 

dismissed Burch without prejudice. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

the remaining state law claims against Medtronic and dismissed those claims without prejudice to 

plaintiff pursuing them in state court. The action was ordered closed.

On March 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a “request to strike/withdraw the filed 2/25/2016 motion 

to dismiss defendant (Dr. Shane Burch).” Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiff filed two similar requests on 

March 23, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 76. 77. The Court construes the requests as a motion to reopen the 

action, and in the interests of justice, GRANTS the motion. 

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 80 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff has also filed a request for a settlement conference. Dkt. Nos. 71, 76. The Court 

agrees that this action is suitable for early settlement proceedings before a magistrate judge and 

GRANTS the request.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, 

1. The Order of Dismissal and Judgment entered on March 2, 2016 (dkt. nos. 69, 70) are 

VACATED. The Clerk shall reopen this action.

2. The Court refers this action to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas pursuant to the Pro Se 

Prisoner Mediation Program for settlement proceedings. Such proceedings shall take place within 

120 days of the date this order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Vadas’s calendar 

will permit. Magistrate Judge Vadas shall coordinate a place, time, and date for one or more 

settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within fifteen 

days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall file with the Court a report thereon. 

Plaintiff must attend all conferences scheduled by Judge Vadas. Failure to attend even one 

conference may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to Judge Vadas’s chambers. The case is 

STAYED pending the settlement proceedings.

3. Plaintiff’s pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after the 

conclusion of settlement proceedings if the action does not settle.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 71, 76, and 77.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/8/2016

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 80 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2