Derwin Jules Jackson v. W. Sullivan, Et Al.

Filing 91

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would Be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/5/17: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DERWIN JULES JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

W. SULLIVAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:07-cv-00178-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Derwin Jules Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Complaint,

20

upon which this case now proceeds. (ECF No. 1.)

21

On June 8, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming in part and reversing in

22

part the court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants in this case. (ECF No. 85.)

23

The case was remanded to this court to proceed against defendants Meadors and Cobbs

24

(“Defendants”) on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for denial of access to the prison yard.

25

(Id.) At this stage of the proceedings, the court anticipates setting a schedule for trial.

26

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

27

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

28

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the court or at a
1

1

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

2

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

3

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled before the court.1

4

Defendants= counsel shall notify the court whether there are security concerns that

5

would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall

6

notify the court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred

7

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

8

III.

CONCLUSION

9

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

10

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

11

order.2

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 5, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

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

is feasible.
27
28

2
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.

2