(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer

E.D. California

(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer

DecidedJanuary 11, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-01461

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Stone v. Pfieffer ((PC) Stone v. Pfieffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ADAM JAY STONE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-ADA-SAB (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 12 v. (ECF No. 70) 13 C. PFEIFFER, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, filed January 9, 2023. 19 Plaintiff contends that he never requested to conduct settlement negotiations and he never sought 20 reconsideration of the Court’s December 12, 2022, order. (ECF No. 70.) Rather, Plaintiff 21 submits that he “is requesting the Court to clarify what is going on with his case in regards to this 22 matter.” (Id. at 1.) As stated in the Court’s December 23, 2022, order, there is insufficient 23 evidence to substantiate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the “eavesdropping” of officers during 24 the settlement conference in this case. In addition, the Court must defer to prison officials 25 regarding the safety and security of the prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 86 (1987) (the 26 Supreme Court has long emphasized that absent substantial evidence to the contrary, courts 27 should defer to prison officials' judgment regarding prison security and administration.); see also Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing 1 | themselves in minutiae of prison operations in the name of the Constitution). Moreover, there is 2 currently no settlement conference scheduled, and any order relating to such would be 3 | premature. Again, Plaintiff is advised that the parties are free to engage in settlement 4 | negotiations amongst themselves and may contact the Court if they both believe a settlement 5 | conference would be beneficial. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _January 11, 2023 _ ef 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ADAM JAY STONE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-ADA-SAB (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 12 v. (ECF No. 70) 13 C. PFEIFFER, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, filed January 9, 2023. 19 Plaintiff contends that he never requested to conduct settlement negotiations and he never sought 20 reconsideration of the Court’s December 12, 2022, order. (ECF No. 70.) Rather, Plaintiff 21 submits that he “is requesting the Court to clarify what is going on with his case in regards to this 22 matter.” (Id. at 1.) As stated in the Court’s December 23, 2022, order, there is insufficient 23 evidence to substantiate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the “eavesdropping” of officers during 24 the settlement conference in this case. In addition, the Court must defer to prison officials 25 regarding the safety and security of the prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 86 (1987) (the 26 Supreme Court has long emphasized that absent substantial evidence to the contrary, courts 27 should defer to prison officials' judgment regarding prison security and administration.); see also Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing 1 | themselves in minutiae of prison operations in the name of the Constitution). Moreover, there is 2 currently no settlement conference scheduled, and any order relating to such would be 3 | premature. Again, Plaintiff is advised that the parties are free to engage in settlement 4 | negotiations amongst themselves and may contact the Court if they both believe a settlement 5 | conference would be beneficial. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _January 11, 2023 _ ef 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-stone-v-pfieffer-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack