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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?