Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977-4/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

ANDY GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALES and CHARLES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00977-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE STAY 

(Doc. No. 20)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE 

STAY OF CASE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER 

OF COURT

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice to 

Object to Early Settlement Conference and Extend Stay. (Doc. No. 20). Defendants request a 

45-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s December 27, 2023 Order referring the case 

to early ADR and staying the case for 90 days. (Id. at 1-2). The current deadline to opt out of 

early ADR is March 26, 2024. (See Doc. No. 19). Defendants assert that a related case filed by 

Plaintiff (E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:23-cv-01442-KES-BAM) is currently pending a Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the case as duplicative, and counsel on the related matter is 

expected to file a notice of appearance in this case but has not yet done so. (Doc. No. 20 at 1-2). 

Accordingly, Defendants contend it would be a waste of judicial resources for this case to 

proceed to early settlement at this time. (Id.).

The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 21 Filed 03/20/24 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

705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion 

may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified 

Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) 

provides for extending deadlines for good cause shown, if the request to extend time is made 

before the existing deadline. The Court finds good cause to grant the extension and continue the 

stay of the case for an additional 45 days, so that pending proceedings potentially affecting this 

case can be resolved before the Parties are required to respond regarding their intent to participate 

in early settlement.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ construed Motion to Continue Stay of Case (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 

The deadline for the parties to file a notice objecting to this case proceeding to an 

early settlement conference is extended from March 26, 2024 to May 6, 2024.

2. This action will remain STAYED until further order.

3. No later than May 6, 2024, the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to 

an early settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently 

achievable. 

4. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection period, 

the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate 

Judge, other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 

5. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL file a 

Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.

Dated: March 20, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 21 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 2