Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01670/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01670-7/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

ANTOINE LAMAR BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CLASON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-1670 WBS DB P

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to remove the 

settlement conference from the calendar. (ECF No. 25.)

By order dated June 15, 2023, the court referred this action to the court’s Post-Screening 

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Project. (ECF No. 17.) The order stated that if after 

investigating plaintiff’s claim, defense counsel determined that a settlement conference would be 

a waste of resources, a motion to opt out of the ADR Project should be submitted within sixty 

days. (Id.) Thereafter, defendants sought and obtained an extension of time to file a motion to 

opt out. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) Defendants did not file a motion to opt out, and a settlement 

conference was set for October 12, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Peterson. (ECF No. 25.)

////

Case 2:22-cv-01670-WBS-SCR Document 26 Filed 09/29/23 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

Defendants have submitted a request to vacate the settlement conference set for October 

12, 2023. In support of their request counsel for defendants states that they recently discovered1

that plaintiff previously filed a state case based on the same incident at issue in the instant case. 

Counsel argues that the settlement conference would be a wase of resources because the parties 

are unlikely to come to an agreement regarding settlement. In light of counsel’s indication that 

the settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the court will grant the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to vacate the settlement conference (ECF No. 25) is granted;

2. The settlement set for October 12, 2023, is vacated;

3. The ADR stay is lifted; and 

4. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Dated: September 29, 2023

/s/DEBORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/bail1670.vac ADR

1 Counsel has not provided any reason why this information was not discovered during the opt out 

period.

Case 2:22-cv-01670-WBS-SCR Document 26 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2