Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00170/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00170-4/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

LEON HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. URIAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00170-HBK (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

SETTLEMENT AND STAY OF CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY:

January 5, 2024

Plaintiff Leon Hawkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his 

civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 7). As set forth in the 

May 10, 2023 Screening Order, the Court determined Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable First 

Amendment retaliation claims against Defendant Urias but no other claim. (Doc. Nos. 8, 10). 

Defendant filed an answer raising affirmative defenses to the complaint on September 20, 2023. 

(Doc. No. 19).

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to early settlement to 

attempt to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. See also Local Rule 270. 

In appropriate cases, defense counsel from the California Attorney General’s Office have agreed 

to participate in early settlement. No claims, defenses, or objections are waived by the parties’ 

participation. 

Case 1:23-cv-00170-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 10/11/23 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

Attempting to resolve this matter early though settlement now would save the parties the 

time and expense of engaging in lengthy and costly discovery and preparing substantive 

dispositive motions. The Court therefore will STAY this action to permit the parties to 

investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet, confer, and engage in settlement discussions or agree to 

participate in an early settlement conference conducted by a magistrate judge. If, however, after 

investigating Plaintiff’s claims, 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 by the above date. If either party opts out of a settlement conference the Court will 

enter a discovery and scheduling order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. This action will remain STAYED until further order to allow the parties an 

opportunity to settle their dispute. No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the 

stay and the parties shall not engage in formal discovery.

2. On or before January 5, 2024, the parties shall file a notice if they object to 

proceeding to a settlement conference or if they believe that settlement is not currently 

achievable. If either party objects to a settlement conference the Court will lift the stay of 

this action and issue a scheduling and discovery order. 

3. 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. 

4. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the scheduled settlement conference, they 

SHALL file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.

Dated: October 10, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00170-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 2