Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02709/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02709-15/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDRE WELLS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. KENDALL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2709 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 By order filed September 25, 2019, this case was referred to the Post-Screening ADR 

Project and the case was stayed for 120 days. ECF No. 50. A settlement conference was held on 

January 8, 2020, and the parties agreed to the dismissal of defendant Nicolson only. ECF No. 77. 

The stay will therefore be lifted and defendants Kendall and Lord will be required to answer the 

second amended complaint. 

 Also before the court are plaintiff’s objections to defendants’ allegedly bad faith conduct, 

ECF No. 70, and defendants’ motion to strike the objections, ECF No. 71. In his objections, 

plaintiff claims that defense counsel told plaintiff he would be given an opportunity to listen to 

the recording of the telephone call that he was in the middle of at the time of the incident with 

defendant Kendall. ECF No. 70. However, rather than being allowed to listen to the call, 

plaintiff was shown the use of force video in what he claims was a show of bad faith. Id. 

Defendants move to strike the objections on the ground that they are an unauthorized filing. ECF 

Case 2:17-cv-02709-JAM-AC Document 78 Filed 01/10/20 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 

No. 71. They further assert that plaintiff was allowed to listen to the phone call three days after 

he reviewed the video. Id. at 2. Plaintiff subsequently filed additional objections and a response 

to the motion in which he admits he was given an opportunity to listen to the recording, but 

alleges the recording was altered. ECF Nos. 73, 75. 

 Defendants’ motion to strike will be granted. As they point out, plaintiff’s objections are 

not an authorized filing since they are not a motion or other type of filing contemplated by the 

rules. Furthermore, in staying the case, the court also explicitly ordered that there would be no 

formal discovery, and therefore, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, he was not entitled to any 

discovery prior to the settlement conference. The purpose of the Post-Screening ADR Project is 

to attempt to resolve cases more quickly and less expensively, which is part of why the settlement 

conferences are scheduled prior to the opening of discovery. Since this case will now be moving 

forward, once defendants Kendall and Lord answer the complaint, a discovery and scheduling 

order will issue and discovery will open. At that time, plaintiff may make requests for discovery 

to defendants and bring any discovery motions he believes are necessary. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The stay of this action, commenced September 25, 2019, ECF No. 50, is lifted. 

2. Within twenty-one days of the filing of this order, defendants Kendall and Lord shall 

file a response to the complaint. 

3. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 71, is granted. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 70, from the 

record. 

DATED: January 9, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-02709-JAM-AC Document 78 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2