Singleton v. Hedgepath et al

Filing 211

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/17/14. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KELVIN X. SINGLETON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
WOULD BE BENEFICIAL

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Kelvin X. Singleton (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

23

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

24

January 18, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

25

On March 27, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this

26

action and closed this case. (Docs. 198, 199.) On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff appealed the district

27

court’s order and judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 200.) On June

28

6, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming in part and reversing in part the district
1

1

court’s grant of summary judgment, remanding the case to the district court. (Doc. 208.) The

2

Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the

3

denial of accommodations to Singleton’s back pain, but revers[ed] the grant of summary

4

judgment with respect to the prison official’s delay in providing effective treatment for that

5

pain, and failure to respond to Singleton’s eye pain and swelling.” (Doc 208 at 6 ¶III.) The

6

Ninth Circuit’s mandate was issued on July 1, 2014. (Doc. 209.)

7

This case was reopened at the district court and now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second

8

Amended Complaint filed on February 12, 2009, against defendants Chief Medical Officer

9

(CMO) A. Youssef; S. Lopez, M.D.; J. Akanno, M.D.; S. Qamar, M.D.; Dr. Vasquez, M.D.;

10

Registered Nurse II (RN) Ali; and RN Wright-Pearson, on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate

11

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for delay in

12

providing effective treatment for Plaintiff’s back pain, and failure to respond to Plaintiff’s eye

13

pain and swelling. (Doc. 26.)

14

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

15

trial.

16

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

26
27
28

1

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 a written response to this

4

order with respect to the scheduling of a settlement conference.2

5
6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 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

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.

3