Hendon v. Baroya et al

Filing 135

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/1/14: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:05-cv-01247-AWI-GSA-PC

CARLOS HENDON,

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.
BAROYA, et al.,

15

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Carlos Hendon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

22

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

23

September 30, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended

24

Complaint filed on June 26, 2008, against defendants Baroya, Pham, Nguyet, Hoppe, Griffin

25

and Reidman (“Defendants”) for subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation

26

of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 18.)

27

On September 30, 2009, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

28

establishing a deadline May 30, 2010 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a deadline of
1

1

August 9, 2010 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 36.) On March 27, 2012,

2

after defendant Hoppe made an appearance, the court issued an order commencing discovery

3

between Plaintiff and defendant Hoppe, establishing a deadline of August 1, 2012 for

4

completion of discovery between Plaintiff and defendant Hoppe, and a deadline of October 1,

5

2012 for all parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 88.) On October 3, 2012, the

6

court extended the dispositive motions deadline for defendant Pham until December 1, 2012.

7

(Doc. 98.) The pretrial deadlines have now expired.

8
9

On September 23, 2014, the court denied in part two motions for summary judgment
filed by Defendants.1

(Doc. 94.)

10

proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

11

II.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

12

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States

13

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a

14

prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court

15

whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they

16

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2

17

Counsel for defendants Baroya, Riedman, Nguyet, Griffin, and Hoppe shall notify the

18

Court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a settlement

19

conference. If security concerns exist, Counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns

20

can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to

21

prison for housing.

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

1

On October 1, 2012, defendants Baroya, Riedman, Nguyet, Griffin, and Hoppe filed a motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 93.) On November 30, 2012, defendant Pham filed a motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 107.)
2

The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement

is feasible.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from

3

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file written responses to this

4

order.3

5
6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 1, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

3
The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make every
reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.

3