Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

VACATE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE ORDER

(ECF No. 49)

On April 30, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which had been 

severed and transferred to this district. The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any 

claims and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 48). 

Later the same day, Defendants, who are seven prison officials, filed a motion to vacate the 

Court’s earlier order regarding an early settlement conference. (ECF No. 49). The Court’s earlier 

order, entered March 17, 2021, required Defendants to participate in a settlement conference but 

permitted Defendants to opt-out of the settlement conference by filing a notice to that effect. 

(ECF No. 40). It also required the parties to exchange certain documents if a settlement 

conference goes forward. (Id. at 2). Defendants argue that because there is no operative complaint 

in this matter, the settlement conference order is premature. (ECF No. 49 at 3-4).

///

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 50 Filed 04/30/21 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

The Court will permit grant Defendants’ motion to the extent they wish to opt out of the 

settlement conference. Because they do not need to file a motion vacating the Court’s earlier 

order, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to the extent it seeks to vacate the Court’s previous 

order. The Court may elect to order the parties to attend a settlement conference at a later time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 49) to vacate 

the Court’s settlement conference order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The 

parties are not required to participate in a settlement conference at this time. The Court may 

order a settlement conference at a later time. 1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2021 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Defendants’ assertion that “there is no operative complaint,” is incorrect. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

remains the operative pleading and it has not been dismissed. Rather, in the screening order, (ECF No. 48), the 

undersigned found that Plaintiff failed to state any claims in the first amended complaint and granted Plaintiff with 

leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to, he may stand on his complaint. In that case, the undersigned will issue findings 

and recommendations consistent with the screening order. A district judge will review those findings and 

recommendations. If the district judge agrees, then the district judge may dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

Until then, or until Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint remains the 

operative pleading in this case.

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 50 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 2