ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
This is one of six related cases in which pro se prisoner-plaintiffs asserted claims based on an alleged exposure to asbestos and lead paint during the clean-up of the mattress factory in May — June 2012 at San Quentin State Prison. Summary judgment motions were filed in most of the cases, including Terry v. Smith, No. C 13-1227 EMC. The Court chose one case, Markee Carter v. Smith, No. C 13-4373 EMC, and granted the motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The Court dismissed the pending summary judgment motions in the other cases and referred all six related cases for settlement proceedings, explaining that the ruling in the Carter case was not technically dispositive of the motions for summary judgment in the other related cases, but provided enough guidance for all the parties to have a good sense of their relative positions for settlement purposes. The Court appointed counsel for the limited purpose of representing the plaintiffs in connection with settlement proceedings. Magistrate Judge Spero thereafter held settlement conferences, during which four of the cases were settled were settled. The parties in Terry v. Smith, No. C 13-1227 EMC, and Arnold v. Smith, No. C 13-4456 EMC, were unable to reach a settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court will set a case management conference to discuss moving this case toward resolution.
The telephonic case management conference will be held in this case at
Attorneys James McGinnis, Dylan Ballard, and Nadezhda Nikonova of the law firm of Sheppard Mullin were appointed as counsel for the plaintiffs in the related cases for the limited purpose of representing them in connection with settlement proceedings, and explained that the appointment would terminate with the conclusion of the settlement proceedings unless (a) counsel was permitted to withdraw or substitute out before the conclusion of those proceedings or (b) counsel requested appointment for further proceedings. The settlement proceedings have concluded for this case and counsel has not requested further appointment. Accordingly, the representation of Plaintiff by the appointed attorneys has concluded for this case. The Court thanks the attorneys for their willingness to take the time and effort to volunteer to represent Plaintiff. After sending a copy of this order to the attorneys appointed to represent Plaintiff
From this point forward, Plaintiff will be representing himself and must file all his own papers, including the case management conference statement. Defense counsel must serve all papers directly on Plaintiff, rather than on the attorneys whose representation has concluded.
The Court has received a letter from Plaintiff indicating that he is temporarily out-to-court in Los Angeles. The Court has set the deadlines in this order anticipating that he will return to San Quentin State Prison (or be reunited with his legal property) in sufficient time to file a case management conference statement and participate in the case management conference.
The stay of discovery imposed in the order filed July 21, 2015 (Docket No. 68) is now