Howard v. Gradtillo et al

Filing 58

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Court-Ordered Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/19/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE HOWARD,
CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00906-AWI-GBC (PC)

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT-ORDERED SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.
GRADTILLO, et al.,

(Doc. 54)
15

Defendants.

16
_____________________________________/
17
18
Plaintiff Clarence Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s
20
amended complaint, filed June 22, 2009, against Defendants Bennett, Avila and Jones (“Defendants”)
21
for excessive force on April 3, 2003, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 22, First Amd.
22
Comp.; Doc. 27, a Cog Claim Ord.). On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to order
23
a settlement conference between Plaintiff and Defendants. (Doc. 54).
24
Plaintiff correctly observes that Local Rule 270(a) states: “A settlement conference shall be held
25
in all actions unless otherwise ordered by the Court on objection of a party or for other good cause.”
26
Local Rule 270(a). However, key to Local Rule 270(a) is to “ensure that the settlement conference will
27
be meaningful.” Local Rule 270(a). While federal courts have the authority to require the parties to
28
engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss Graphic Systems,
1

1

Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001). Defendants have not indicated to the

2

Court that they are willing to participate in a settlement conference. At this stage of the litigation, no

3

settlement conference will be scheduled until both parties agree to participate in one.

4
5

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for settlement
conference, filed on June 21, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 54).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:
0jh02o

October 19, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2