Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604-2/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

KING SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAPIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01604-NONE-HBK

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

SETTLEMENT AND STAY OF CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY:

MARCH 25, 2024

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his First Amended 

Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 18). As set forth in the October 27, 

2023 Screening Order, the Court determined Plaintiff’s operative complaint states a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against Defendant Tapia. (Doc. No. 20). 

Defendant answered the operative complaint on December 22, 2023. (Doc. No. 26).

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

the parties may attempt to resolve the case 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 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 28 Filed 01/16/24 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

Attempting to resolve this matter early through 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 an 

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

reach an agreement 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. If either party opts out of the 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 March 25,2024, 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 and

issue a scheduling and discovery order. 

3. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the above date, 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 date of the settlement conference, they 

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

Dated: January 16, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 28 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2