Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01495/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01495-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald F. Martinez
Plaintiff
C. Rodriguez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF THE 

COMPLAINT AND ADR PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. 39)

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations on December 19, 2024, 

recommending this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendant Rodriguez with the remaining claim or claims to be dismissed. (Doc. 38.) 

On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Statement of No 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims; 

And Request for Alternative Dispute Resolution Consideration.” (Doc. 39.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In relevant part, Plaintiff requests this Court “consider his retaliation claim against 

defendant Rodriguez for Alternative Dispute Resolution,” stating most of his previous lawsuits 

Case 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/03/25 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

“resulted in settlements.” (Doc. 39 at 1.) He asks the Court to “find ADR appropriate, and order 

Service of the First Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff is advised his requests are premature. The Findings and Recommendations issued 

December 19, 2024, are pending final resolution by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Until 

Judge Thurston issues her order, service of the operative complaint is improper and premature. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for ADR is premature because the Defendant has not been 

served. Only after service has been effected, and an answer has been filed on behalf of the 

Defendant, will the Court issue an order referring this action to early ADR proceedings. Further, 

Plaintiff is advised that participation in early ADR proceedings is voluntary. The undersigned 

does not require the parties to participate in early ADR. Should either party wish to opt out of 

early ADR proceedings, the matter will then proceed to the discovery stage.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s requests for 

service and early ADR (Doc. 39) are DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01495-JLT-CDB Document 40 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 2