Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00518-1/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

THOMAS LEROY HAMPTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIWANA HILL, ULYSSES BANIGA, 

NANCY HIOLMES, TIFFANY 

GABBARD, and S. ONYANGO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-HBK (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

ADR AND STAY OF CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY: 

DECEMBER 2, 2024

Plaintiff Thomas Leroy Hampton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his First 

Amended Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 12, “FAC”). As set forth 

in the Court’s August 1, 2024 Screening Order, Plaintiff’s FAC stated a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendants U. Baniga, K. Hill, N. 

Holmes, T. Gabbard, and S. Onyango for failure to examine or treat Plaintiff’s back condition, 

and a separate Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendants Hill 

and Baniga for failure to provide him necessary pain medications. (Doc. No. 13). On September 

30, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 18). 

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to early Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) to try to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. 

See also Local Rule 270. In appropriate cases, defense counsel from the California Attorney

Case 1:22-cv-00518-HBK Document 19 Filed 10/01/24 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

General’s Office have agreed to participate in early ADR. No claims, defenses, or objections are 

waived by the parties’ participation. 

Attempting to resolve this matter early through settlement now would save the parties the 

time and expense of engaging in lengthy and costly discovery and preparing substantive 

dispositive motions. The Court therefore will STAY this action for 60 DAYS to allow the parties 

an opportunity to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and engage in settlement 

discussions, or agree to participate in an early settlement conference conducted by a magistrate 

judge. If after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and conferring, either party finds that a 

settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the early settlement 

conference. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. This action will remain STAYED until further order to allow the parties an 

opportunity to settle their dispute. The parties may not file any pleadings or motions during the 

stay period. Further, the parties shall not engage in formal discovery until the Court issues a 

Scheduling and Discovery Order.

2. Within 60 days from the date on this Order, or no later than December 2, 2024, 

the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to an early settlement conference or if 

they believe that settlement is not currently achievable. 

3. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection 

period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge, 

other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 

4. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL 

file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160.

Dated: October 1, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00518-HBK Document 19 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 2