Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01574-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORY T. O’BRIEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIBSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01574 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

RE: MODIFYING ORDER REFERRING 

CASE TO POST-SCREENING ADR

(ECF No. 43)

ORDER VACATING COURT’S ORDER 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING

(ECF No. 41)

Defendants have filed a motion requesting the Court to modify its order which stayed the 

proceedings and referred the parties to post-screening alternative dispute resolution. ECF No. 43. 

Defendants request that the date to opt out of the ADR Program be extended by forty-five days 

from October 28, 2024, to December 12, 2024. Id. at 1. They also request that the stay of the 

case be extended thirty days as well, from December 26, 2024, to January 26, 2025, and that the 

Court’s order which granted their extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF No. 41) be 

vacated.

1

 Id.

1

 The Court notes for the record that Defendants’ September 16, 2024, request for an extension of 

time to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint (see ECF No. 40) appears to have been filed in 

Case 1:21-cv-01574-KES-GSA Document 44 Filed 11/15/24 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

In support of the request, defense counsel states, in relevant part, that he was unaware of 

the order which stayed this matter for 120 days and directed the parties to investigate Plaintiff’s 

claims, meet and confer, etc. because he never received it. Id. at 5-6 (Declaration of DAG Joseph 

Railey). Counsel further states that he did not receive the Court’s order because he failed to file a 

notice of appearance when he filed the waiver of service for Defendants. Id. As a result, defense 

counsel needs additional time to confer with Plaintiff in order to make an informed decision 

whether early settlement is appropriate. See id. at 6.

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s September 18, 2024, order which granted Defendants’ request of an 

extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 41) is hereby VACATED;

2. Defendants’ request to extend the opt out and matter stay dates (ECF No. 43) is 

GRANTED;

3. The date for the parties to opt out of early alternative dispute resolution shall be 

EXTENDED forty-five days to December 12, 2024, and

4. The stay of these proceedings shall be EXTENDED thirty days to January 26, 2025.

All other directives in the Court’s order referring this matter to post-screening early 

alternative dispute resolution are to remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

error, given the earlier-issued Court’s August 29, 2024, ADR referral and stay order (see ECF No. 

39). As a result, the Court’s subsequent order which granted Defendants’ request, was also issued 

in error.

Case 1:21-cv-01574-KES-GSA Document 44 Filed 11/15/24 Page 2 of 2