Hasan v. Johnson

Filing 95

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/18/2013. Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAWWAAD HASAN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

1:08-cv-00381-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.
C/O JOHNSON,

11

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

12
13
14
15

I.

BACKGROUND
Jawwaad Hasan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff=s original

17

Complaint filed on March 17, 2008, against defendant Correctional Officer B. Johnson

18

(ADefendant@) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1.)

19

All parties to this action have voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

20

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and the case was assigned to the undersigned to conduct

21

any and all further proceedings in the case, including the trial and entry of a final judgment.

22

(Docs. 7, 14, 26.)

23

On April 21, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

24

establishing a deadline of December 21, 2011, for the parties to conduct discovery, and a

25

deadline of March 1, 2012 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 62.) The

26
1

27
28

On October 20, 2010, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants and Plaintiff's claim based on supervisory
liability from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 19.) On February 13, 2012, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff's state law claims from this action via Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 43.)
1

1

deadline for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions was extended to April 16, 2012, and

2

thereafter Defendant was granted a thirty day extension of time to file a motion for summary

3

judgment. (Docs. 46, 50.) On May 15, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,

4

and the motion was denied on April 1, 2013. (Docs. 52, 54, 92.) The pretrial deadlines have

5

now expired. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the

6

case for trial.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2

12

Defendant’s counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that

13

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

14

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

15

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

16

II.

CONCLUSION

17

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

18

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

19

order.3

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 18, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin

25
2

26
27
28

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

is feasible.
3

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

DEAC_Signature-END:

2

6i0kij8d

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3