Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00268/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00268-1/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

STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General

of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JENNIFER A. NEILL

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DAVID A. CARRASCO, SBN 160460

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1938

Fax: (916) 324-5205

E-mail: David.Carrasco@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

Schwarzenegger, Alameida, Woodford, Candelaria, Songer, 

Shen, Adams, Posner, Klarich, Snow, Loaiza, and Kumar

SA2005101838

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DANIEL CORDERO, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1: 05-CV-00268 REC DLB

STIPULATION AND ORDER

VACATING ORDER REQUIRING

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO

COMPLAINT

It is stipulated by the parties that Defendants need not file a response to the

Complaint during the settlement negotiations now underway. Accordingly, the parties request

that the Court vacate its order requiring Defendants to file their response to the Complaint. 

At the status conference on January 23, 2006, at Plaintiff’s request, the Court

ordered that Defendants file a response to the Complaint by March 24, 2006. At the same time,

the Court scheduled a settlement conference for April 20, 2006. Before that settlement

Case 1:05-cv-00268-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 03/28/06 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

2

conference, Plaintiff had communicated a settlement proposal to Defendants. Since the status

conference, Defendants conveyed their initial settlement proposal to Plaintiff. 

Although the parties have not reached a settlement agreement, they are convinced

that each party is negotiating in good faith, and that the prospects of a settlement are good. If

Defendants were to file a response to the Complaint, it would likely be in the form of a motion to

dismiss some of the named Defendants and alleged claims. Such a motion would probably be

opposed by Plaintiff. The prospective settlement would obviate the need for adjudication of this

motion and the attendant expenditure of the Court’s and the parties’ time. For this reason, the

parties request that the Court order that its previous order requiring Defendants’ response to the

Complaint be vacated. If and when it becomes clear that a settlement cannot be reached,

Defendants will file a response. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ James Muller 

JAMES S. MULLER

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ David Carrasco 

DAVID A. CARRASCO

Attorney for Defendants

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation for an order vacating the

order requiring Defendants to respond to the Complaint by March 24, 2006, and good cause

showing therefore, orders as follows: Defendants need not file a response to the Complaint until

April 20, 2006, when the parties are scheduled to meet for a settlement conference. After the

settlement conference, the Court will inquire with the parties and determine whether to set

another deadline for Defendants’ response to the Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00268-OWW -DLB Document 31 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2