Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles
Defendant
Andy Gomez
Plaintiff
Gonzalez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALEZ and CHARLES,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00977-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. No. 18)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

ADR AND STAYING CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY: 

MARCH 26, 2024

Plaintiff Andy Gomez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his 

complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as screened. (Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 13). As set forth in 

the Court’s June 23, 2023, Screening Order, Plaintiff’s operative complaint stated Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claims against both Defendants Gonzalez and Charles in their 

individual capacities but no other claim. (Doc. No. 7). Defendants waived service and request an 

extension of time to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. Nos. 17, 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 19 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 3
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

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. 

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. 

2. Defendants motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED to the extent 

that Defendants may, but are not required, to file a response to the complaint during the stay 

period. 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.

3. No later than March 26, 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. 

4. 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. 

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

file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160 

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 19 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

6. Plaintiff is reminded he must keep the Court informed of his 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). 

The failure to file a notice of change of address may result in a dismissal of this action without 

prejudice. 

Dated: December 26, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 19 Filed 12/27/23 Page 3 of 3