Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00786-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPIN MYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. BATES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-00786 CKD P

ORDER

On October 23, 2020, the undersigned ordered Deputy Attorney General J. Bridges to 

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him or CDCR counsel as a result of the

October 22, 2020 settlement conference held in this action before the undersigned. (ECF No. 24.) 

On November 4, 2020, Deputy Attorney General Bridges filed a response to the order to show 

cause. (ECF No. 25.)

For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned discharges the order to show cause, with the 

following observations. 

The order to show cause directed Deputy Attorney Bridges to show cause why sanctions 

should not be imposed for his failure to communicate with plaintiff prior to the settlement 

conference. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) The order to show cause noted that the May 1, 2020 order 

referring this action to the Post-Screening ADR Project directed defense counsel to speak with 

plaintiff before the settlement conference and move to opt out of the pilot project if defense 

Case 2:19-cv-00786-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 11/10/20 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

counsel in good faith determined that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources. (Id.

at 2, n.2.)

In the response to the order to show cause, Deputy Attorney General Bridges did not 

address his failure to communicate with plaintiff prior to the settlement conference. Accordingly, 

the undersigned assumes that Deputy Attorney General Bridges, in fact, failed to communicate 

with plaintiff prior to the settlement conference, as required by the May 1, 2020 order. The 

undersigned is disturbed by Deputy Attorney General Bridges’ failure to fulfill this obligation.

The order to show cause also directed Deputy Attorney General Bridges to show cause 

why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to research plaintiff’s other actions prior to 

the settlement conference. (Id. at 3.) At the settlement conference, the undersigned discussed 

with Deputy Attorney General Bridges the possible settlement of two other actions filed by 

plaintiff, i.e., case nos. 2:20-cv-00151 DMC P and 2:20-cv-0153 DB P. (Id. at 2.) Deputy 

Attorney General Bridges informed the undersigned that he was unaware of these cases because 

they had not been served on any defendants, and indicated that he was not prepared to discuss 

settling those two cases. (Id.) 

In the response to the order to show cause, Deputy Attorney Bridges states that, as 

required by the Department of Justice and CDCR’s guidelines, he researched his office’s database 

to find any other current pending claims filed by plaintiff in which the Department of Justice 

represents the defendants. (ECF No. 25 at 7.) Deputy Attorney General Bridges states that he 

was not aware of 2:20-cv-00151 and 2:20-cv-0153 because he did not represent the defendants in 

those cases and he was unaware if CDCR could or would represent defendants in those filings. 

(Id. at 2.) 

As stated by the undersigned at the settlement conference and in the order to show cause, 

brown bag training sessions offered by the court, attended by Deputy Attorney General Bridges, 

provide information that preparation for settlement conferences includes reviewing CM/ECF to 

determine whether the plaintiff/inmate has other cases, including unserved cases. (ECF No. 24 at 

2.) In the response to the order to show cause, Deputy Attorney General Bridges does not discuss 

this training he allegedly received. The undersigned is disturbed by Deputy Attorney Bridges’ 

Case 2:19-cv-00786-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 11/10/20 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

failure to fulfill his obligation to review CM/ECF for other cases filed by plaintiff prior to 

attending the settlement conference.

Finally, in the order to show cause, the undersigned ordered Deputy Attorney Bridges to 

show cause for his failure to ensure that someone from CDCR with settlement authority was 

available at the time of the settlement conference. (Id. at 3.) The order to show cause observed 

that during the settlement conference, the undersigned asked Deputy Attorney General Bridges to 

call CDCR to find out if someone was available to authorize a larger settlement amount. (Id. at 

2.) After making a telephone call, Deputy Attorney General Bridges informed the undersigned 

that the CDCR official responsible for this action was not available. (Id.) Deputy Attorney 

General Bridges informed the undersigned that only the Legal Officer of the Day was available. 

(Id.) The Legal Officer of the Day informed Deputy Attorney General Bridges that they could 

not authorize Deputy Attorney General Bridges to settle this action for more than the minimal 

amount originally offered. (Id.)

In the response to the order to show cause, Deputy Attorney General Bridges states that 

the Legal Officer of the Day “had full access to the file, was aware of the settlement conference, 

and was fully aware of the settlement evaluation prior to receiving the phone call from Deputy 

Attorney General Bridges.” (ECF No. 25 at 3.) 

It appears to the undersigned that while the Legal Officer of the Day technically had 

settlement authority, that person was not familiar with the facts of this case and potentially any 

other relevant information at the time they received the telephone call from Deputy Attorney 

General Bridges. It appears that the Legal Officer of the Day’s decision not to authorize a higher 

settlement amount was made “on the fly,” after quickly reviewing the file during the telephone 

call with Deputy Attorney General Bridges. The CDCR Chief Deputy General Counsel assigned 

to the case should have been available at the time of the settlement conference. 

Despite the concerns expressed above, the order to show cause is discharged. However,

the undersigned also orders that in all future settlement conferences before the undersigned 

attended by deputies from the Torts Section of the Office of the Attorney General, the DAG shall 

have a CDCR representative attend via Zoom with authority to authorize settlements. The 

Case 2:19-cv-00786-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 11/10/20 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

CDCR representative with the authority to authorize settlements shall have knowledge of the case 

prior to the settlement conference and, preferably, be the CDCR Counsel assigned to the case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The October 23, 2020 order to show cause (ECF No. 23) is discharged;

2. In all future settlement conferences before the undersigned attended by deputies from 

the Torts Section of the Office of the Attorney General, the DAG shall also have a 

CDCR representative attend via Zoom with authority to authorize settlements. The 

CDCR representative with the authority to authorize settlements shall have knowledge 

of the case prior to the settlement conference and, preferably, be the CDCR Counsel 

assigned to the case; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this order on Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

Monica Anderson.

Dated: November 10, 2020

My786.dis

Case 2:19-cv-00786-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 4