(PC) Forster v. Clendenin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA FORSTER, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01191-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING SHOW CAUSE ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 25) 14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., ORDER LIFTING PREVIOUSLY 15 Defendants. IMPOSED STAY 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ISSUE DISCOVERY AND 17 SCHEDULING ORDER 18 19 Plaintiff Joshua Forster is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants 21 Clendenin and Price for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights and related state 22 law violations. 23 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 On July 24, 2023, this Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and 25 Staying Case for 90 Days. (Doc. 17.) Specifically, the Court ordered the parties to file notice, 26 within 45 days, indicating whether they believed an early settlement conference would be 27 productive in this matter. (Id. at 2.) 1 | indicating a willingness to participate in an early settlement conference. (Doc. 18.) 2 After more than 45 days passed, on September 11, 2023, the Court issued its Order To 3 | Defendants To Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed For Failure To File A Notice 4 | Regarding Early Settlement Conference (“OSC”). (Doc. 25.) That same date, Defendants filed 5 | their Notice Regarding Early Settlement Conference, indicating defense counsel did not believe 6 | an early settlement conference would be productive. (Doc. 26.) 7 To determine whether neglect is excusable, a court must consider four factors: “(1) the 8 | danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 9 | the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” In 10 | re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court finds Counsel 11 | for Defendants prompt filing immediately following entry of the OSC demonstrates Defendants’ 12 | failure to follow the Court’s orders constitutes excusable neglect. 13 Because Defendants do not believe an early settlement conference would be productive, 14 | the Court will lift the previously imposed stay and issue a discovery and scheduling order. 15 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The previously issued OSC (Doc. 25) is DISCHARGED; 18 2. The previously imposed 90-day stay of this is action is LIFTED; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a discovery and scheduling order in 20 this matter. 21 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ** | Dated: _ September 13, 2023 | Wr Pr 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28