Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA BELLOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 30)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 31)

ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO COORDINATE 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 

120 Days on October 30, 2024. (Doc. 28.) In relevant part, the parties were directed to “file the 

attached notice, indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement conference or their 

belief that settlement is not achievable at this time” within 45 days of the date of the order. (Id. at 

2.) Defendants timely filed their notice on December 13, 2024. (Doc. 29.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/16/25 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

On December 18, 2024, when more than 45 days passed without a response from Plaintiff, 

the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for 

Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey Court Order. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff was directed to file a written 

response, or, in the alternative, the notice concerning an early settlement conference, within 14 

days. (Id. at 2.) 

On January 10, 2025, when more than 14 days, including time for mailing, passed without 

a written response from Plaintiff, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss this 

action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey courts orders and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 31.) 

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 32.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Briefly stated, Plaintiff’s written response to the OSC asserts she complied with the 

Court’s order “and filled out and completed the Notice regarding Early Settlement.” Plaintiff 

states she also spoke to defense counsel by telephone about settlement. Plaintiff believes she has 

complied with the Court’s orders, appears willing to participate in an early settlement conference, 

and asks the Court not to dismiss this action. 

Although the Court has not received a notice from Plaintiff concerning her willingness to 

participate in an early settlement conference, it accepts her assertion that she completed the notice 

and the inference that she submitted it for filing. Therefore, the Court will discharge the OSC and 

vacate its Findings and Recommendations issued January 10, 2025. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The OSC (Doc. 30) issued December 18, 2024, is DISCHARGED; 

2. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 31) issued January 10, 2025, are 

VACATED; and

///

///

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/16/25 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

3. Defense counsel is DIRECTED to continue to work with the undersigned’s 

courtroom deputy and/or other court staff to schedule a settlement conference in this 

matter. See (Doc. 28 at 2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 3