Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01563-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO POSTSCREENING ADR AND STAYING CASE 

FOR 90 DAYS

FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Leonel Hernandez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim against 

Defendant J. Welch. (See Docs. 10 & 11.) Defendant Welch filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 

complaint on July 30, 2024. (Doc. 20.) 

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se inmates to Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (“ADR”) to attempt to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. In 

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

participate in ADR. No claims, defenses, or objections are waived by the parties’ participation.

The Court stays this action for ninety days to allow the parties to investigate Plaintiff’s 

claims, meet and confer, and participate in an early settlement conference. The Court presumes 

that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a settlement 

conference. However, if, after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and conferring, either 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 08/01/24 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

party finds that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of 

the early settlement conference. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This action is STAYED for ninety (90) days to allow the parties an opportunity to 

settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. No pleadings or motions may 

be filed in this case during the stay. The parties shall not engage in formal discovery, 

but they may engage in informal discovery to prepare for the settlement conference.

2. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of this order, the parties SHALL file the 

attached notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement 

conference or their belief that settlement is not achievable at this time.

3. Within sixty (60) days from the date of this order, the assigned Deputy Attorney 

General SHALL contact the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at 

wkusamura@caed.uscourts.gov to schedule the settlement conference, assuming the 

parties agree to proceed to an early settlement conference.

4. If the parties reach a settlement during the stay of this action, they SHALL file a 

Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.

5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve via email copies of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 

1), the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 8), the Order Adopting Findings and 

Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims (Doc. 11), and this Order to Supervising 

Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Bragg (Lawrence.Bragg@doj.ca.gov), and a copy 

of this Order to ADR Coordinator Sujean Park.

6. The parties are obligated to keep the Court informed of their current addresses during 

the stay and the pendency of this action. Changes of address must be reported 

promptly in a Notice of Change of Address. See L.R. 182(f). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 08/01/24 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WELCH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO 

NOTICE REGARDING EARLY 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

1. The party or counsel agrees that an early settlement conference would be productive and 

wishes to engage in an early settlement conference.

Yes ____ No ____

2. Plaintiff (check one):

_____ would like to participate in the settlement conference in person.

_____ would like to participate in the settlement conference by telephone or video 

conference.

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 08/01/24 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

Dated:

________________________________

Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendant 

Case 1:23-cv-01563-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 08/01/24 Page 4 of 4