Aubert v. Elijah et al

Filing 80

ORDER Requiring Parties To Notify Court Whether A Settlement Conference Would Be Beneficial, Thirty-Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/27/2013.(Responses due by 4/30/2013) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ESS’N AUBERT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C/O KEVIN ELIJAH and C/O MARIO
)
GARCIA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01629-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17

Ess’n Aubert ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

19

action on November 8, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint,

20

against defendants Correctional Officers Kevin Elijah and Mario Garcia (“Defendants”) for use

21

of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.)

22

The deadlines established by the Court for discovery and filing pretrial dispositive

23

motions have expired, (Docs. 20, 52), and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were

24

denied on November 15, 2011 and March 26, 2013, (Docs. 59, 79). No other motions are

25

pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case

26

for trial.

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 by 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

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

9

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

10

order.2

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

March 27, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin

16

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

17

6i0kij8d

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement is
feasible.
2

28

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