Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484-18/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

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

On January 30, 2015, the parties filed a joint statement declining the Court’s offer to set a 

settlement conference. (Doc. 60 at 1) The parties reported they were in active settlement negotiations 

and felt the Court’s assistance was not needed. Id. The parties requested the Court stay the matter and 

indicated they would report as to the settlement negotiations by the end of February 2015. Id. In 

response, the Court stayed the case. (Doc. 61)

When the parties failed to report on the settlement progress, the Court issued to the parties an 

order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and the stay lifted due to their failure to 

comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 62) The parties responded and indicated that the parties 

remained in good faith negotiations to resolve the matter and the failure to respond was inadvertent. 

(Doc. 63 at 2) Counsel reported that reaching a settlement was complicated by the fact that many of 

the plaintiffs owed restitution. Id.

On April 20, 2015, the parties filed reports indicating they still were engaged in settlement 

DUBRIN et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL Stainer, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01484 AWI JLT 

ORDER RE: STAY

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 67 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

efforts but that the Defendants needed 30 days more to receive an indication whether the Office of 

Legal Affairs would approve the settlement. (Doc. 65 at 3) Plaintiffs’ counsel reported that he 

remained confident the matter would resolve in the near future. (Doc. 66 at 1-2). Therefore, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. No later than May 22, 2015 and every 30 days thereafter, the parties SHALL file a 

joint statement indicating the status of the settlement efforts. The obligation to initiate discussion 

about the joint status report and to draft and file the report is joint.

Counsel are advised that the Court does not anticipate allowing the matter to remain 

stayed beyond June 30, 2015, absent a showing of exceptional good cause. The parties are 

strongly advised to resolve the matter or recognize the matter may not be resolved within that 

time period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 67 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 2