Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURBIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BONILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01484-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE 

(Doc. 62)

RESPONSE DUE APRIL 20, 2015

Plaintiffs are state prisoners who were confined in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at 

the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi. (Doc. 19 at 2.) The parties were 

previously ordered to submit statements regarding whether a settlement conference would be of 

assistance. (Doc. 59.) In response, a stipulation to stay discovery and to extend the filing 

deadline for their response to the Court's inquiry until the end of February was filed. (Doc. 60.) 

On February 4, 2015, an order issued staying discovery and granting the parties until February 27, 

2015 to submit statements indicating whether in good faith they were interested in having a 

settlement conference scheduled in this action. (Doc. 61.) The deadline lapsed without response 

from either side. Thus, on March 4, 2015, an order issued for the parties to show cause within 

fourteen days why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to respond to the February 

4th order. (Doc. 62.) 

On March 16, 2015 defense counsel filed a response for both sides in this action. (Doc. 

63.) In this response, defense counsel indicated that the parties had agreed she would provide the 

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 64 Filed 03/17/15 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

response to the February 4th order, but due to trial in another action, she inadvertently forgot to 

file the response. She further indicates that the parties have been engaging in good faith 

settlement negotiations and that she is scheduled to meet with her clients on March 27, 2015. 

(Id.)

While defense counsel's explanation for her inattention to this file is accepted, she is 

reminded that deadlines in every action are important and that being occupied with other 

proceedings is good cause to request extensions of time before a court deadline has lapsed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) the Order to Counsel to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for 

Their Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, dated February 4, 2015 (Doc. 61), 

is DISCHARGED; and 

(2) no later than April 20, 2015, the parties shall submit statements indicating whether 

they believe, in good faith, settlement is possible and whether they wish the Court 

to set a settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 64 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2