McElroy v. Cox et al

Filing 101

ORDER ADDRESSING Plaintiff's 99 Motion for Settlement; ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/21/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATWAHN McELROY,

12

1:08-cv-01221-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT
(Doc. 99 resolved.)

ROY COX, et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY
COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL

15
Defendants.
16

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
/

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff Latwahn McElroy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

20

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

21

August 19, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed on

22

February 1, 2010, against defendants Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Roy Cox, C/O B. Cope, C/O R.

23

Robles, C/O Paul Rocha, C/O Thomas Acosta, C/O Sherri Stinnett, and LVN M. Hankins, for

24

excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

25

The pretrial deadlines in this action have expired, and the parties’ pretrial dispositive motions

26

have been resolved. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the

27

case for trial.

28

///
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT

2

On February 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to participate in settlement proceedings via

3

the Court. (Doc. 99.) The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

8

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

9

prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court

10

whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and

11

then returned to prison for housing.

12

III.

CONCLUSION

13

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Plaintiff's Motion to participate in settlement proceedings is resolved by this order; and

15

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants

16

shall file a written response to this order.2

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

February 21, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

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

feasible.
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. If the case is referred for
settlement, the case will be stayed by order pending completion of the settlement conference.

2