Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK LATON STEWART, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ, and J. MIRAMONTES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00978 JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

ADR AND STAY OF CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY: 

MAY 23, 2023

Plaintiff Erick Laton Stewart, Sr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis on his Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). ). As set forth in 

the Court’s October 28, 2022, Screening Order, Plaintiff’s Complaint stated a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment excessive use of force claim against Defendants De La Cruz and Miramontes. (Doc. 

No. 10). Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. (Doc. No. 17). 

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 General’s 

Office have agreed to participate in early ADR. No claims, defenses, or objections are waived by 

the parties’ participation. 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 18 Filed 02/23/23 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

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 90 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. The Court presumes that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned 

will proceed to a settlement conference at some point. 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 other 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 90 days from the date on this Order, or no later than Tuesday, May 23,

2023, 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 early 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 

5. The parties must keep the Court informed of their current addresses during the stay

and the pendency of this action. Any changes of address must be reported promptly by filing a 

Notice of Change of Address with the Clerk of Court. See Local Rule 182(f). 

Dated: February 22, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 18 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 2