Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947-12/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

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

DAVID JOSEPH MADRID, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and M. LOPEZ,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

David Madrid (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated 

in Los Angeles County Jail.

On March 2, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., the Court attempted to hold an Initial Scheduling 

Conference (“Conference”). (ECF No. 63). Prior to the Conference, the Court issued an order 

directing Los Angeles County Jail to make Plaintiff available for the Conference. (ECF No. 60, 

p. 2). Additionally, court staff specially set up a phone line compliant with Los Angeles 

County Jail requirements, so that Plaintiff could participate telephonically in the Conference. 

Defense counsel Jaime Ganson telephonically appeared at the conference. Plaintiff did 

not appear.

1

 Given the difficulties in arranging the Conference, as well as Defendants’ 

assertion that they intend to file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust available 

1 Approximately thirty minutes after the conference was scheduled to begin, Irma Munoz, a Courtroom 

Deputy for another judge in this division, received a call from someone purporting to be Plaintiff’s mother. 

According to the caller, Plaintiff has retained counsel for this case. However, Plaintiff’s attorney did not appear at 

the conference and has not entered an appearance in this case.

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 64 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 3
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

administrative remedies (ECF No. 62, p. 4), the Court will not schedule the case or set a further 

scheduling conference at this time. Instead, the Court will limit discovery to the issue of 

exhaustion,2and give Defendants ninety days from the date of service of this order to file a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust.

3

Additionally, given Defendants’ assertion that they have not received Plaintiff’s initial 

disclosures (id. at 2), the Court will direct Plaintiff to serve defense counsel with his initial 

disclosures within thirty days from the date of this order.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendants allege that discovery requests Defendants

mailed to Plaintiff “were returned to [defense counsel] with the handwritten notation ‘refused 

mail’ on the front of the envelope. Defendants seek assistance from the Court to advise Madrid 

of his duty to timely respond to these discovery requests.” (Id. at 3) (citation omitted). It is not 

clear who wrote “refused mail” on the envelope, or why the mail was refused. However, the 

Court warns Plaintiff that if he fails to participate in this case, including by failing to respond to 

discovery requests, he may be sanctioned.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Discovery is stayed except as to the issue of exhaustion of administrative 

remedies.

2. Defendants have ninety days from the date of service of this order to file a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies. Failure to raise the exhaustion issue by this deadline will result in 

waiver of the defense. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(providing that the exhaustion question should be decided as early as feasible). 

3. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve 

Defendants’ counsel with his initial disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s 

prior order (ECF No. 46), Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with “[t]he name 

2 The Court opened discovery on January 8, 2020. (ECF No. 60).

3 While the Court is limiting discovery at this time, the Court may open discovery generally and set a 

schedule prior to the resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 64 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to 

have discoverable information−along with the subjects of that information−that 

[Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be 

solely for impeachment.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff shall also provide Defendants with 

a “copy−or a description by category and location−of all documents, 

electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has in [his]

possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses, 

unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 64 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3