Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRETRIAL 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(Doc. 80)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendant 

Arevalos.

On August 24, 2021, the Court conducted an early settlement conference between Plaintiff 

and counsel for Defendants Arevalos, Brainard, and Stohl. (Doc. 48.) The parties did not reach a 

settlement. 

On March 31, 2023, the Court granted Defendants Brainard and Stohl’s motion for 

summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and denied Defendant 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 90 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Arevalos’s motion for summary judgment.

1 Because the parties and issues have been narrowed for 

trial, the parties may benefit from a settlement conference.

Therefore, the Court will afford the parties an opportunity to meet and confer about settling 

their dispute without Court intervention or in a mediated settlement conference before the Court. 

If, however, after meeting and conferring, either party finds that a settlement conference would be 

a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the pretrial settlement conference.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Within thirty (30) days, the parties shall meet and confer regarding settlement of this 

case, with or without the Court’s assistance;

2. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of this order, each party shall file the 

attached notice, indicating an agreement to proceed to a pretrial settlement conference 

or a belief that settlement is not achievable at this time;

3. If the parties agree to participate in a pretrial settlement conference, within sixty (60)

days from the date of this order, the assigned Deputy Attorney General shall contact 

the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at shall@caed.uscourts.gov to schedule the 

settlement conference; and

4. If the parties reach a settlement agreement, they shall file a Notice of Settlement as 

required by Local Rule 160(a).

5. Plaintiff’s motion requesting to reopen discovery (Doc. 80) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 During the pendency of Brainard and Stohl’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 63) and 

shortly after Arevalos filed her motion for summary judgment (Doc. 77), Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen 

discovery (Doc. 80). By his motion, Plaintiff sought Defendants’ work disciplinary record and a copy of 

his deposition to review for accuracy or treated as hearsay. (Id.) However, the motion was untimely, and in 

light of the Court’s rulings on the summary judgment motions, the discovery sought was not necessary or 

prejudicial to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 90 Filed 04/11/23 Page 2 of 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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-ADA-CDB (PC)

NOTICE REGARDING PRETRIAL

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

1. The party or counsel agrees that a pretrial settlement conference would be productive and 

wishes to engage in a pretrial 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.

Dated:

________________________________

Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 90 Filed 04/11/23 Page 3 of 3