Derwin Jules Jackson v. W. Sullivan, Et Al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DERWIN JULES JACKSON,
W. SULLIVAN, et al.,
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
Derwin Jules Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Complaint,
upon which this case now proceeds. (ECF No. 1.)
On June 8, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming in part and reversing in
part the court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants in this case. (ECF No. 85.)
The case was remanded to this court to proceed against defendants Meadors and Cobbs
(“Defendants”) on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for denial of access to the prison yard.
(Id.) At this stage of the proceedings, the court anticipates setting a schedule for trial.
The court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States
Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the court or at a
prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the court
whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they
are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled before the court.1
Defendants= counsel shall notify the court whether there are security concerns that
would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall
notify the court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred
for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from
the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 5, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement
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.
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?