Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 129

ORDER Denying 128 Plaintiff's Request for Status Conference and Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/2/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR S TATUS C ONFER E N C E AND
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 128)
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 11, 2008. On May

17

27, 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel

18

and denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and denying Plaintiff’s motion for a status conference

19

and motion to conduct further discovery. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration

20

on July 1, 2011; July 15, 2011; and July 25, 2011, that are currently pending decision by the District

21

Court. (ECF No. 113, 115, 116.) On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to schedule pretrial

22

and trial dates. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied on September 7, 2011, and Plaintiff

23

was informed that once the District Court Judge has decided his motions for reconsideration a further

24

scheduling order would issue. (ECF No. 122.) Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification and

25

modification of the order for incamera review on September 15, 2011.1 (ECF No. 125.) Defendants

26

filed a motion for a protective order on October 3, 2011. (ECF No. 125.) On November 14, 2011,

27
28

1

The Court will address this motion once the District Court rules on Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration.

1

1

Plaintiff filed a motion for a telephonic conference, status conference and settlement conference.

2

(ECF No. 128.)

3

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize settlement discussions at any pretrial

4

conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(9). While federal courts have the authority to require the parties to

5

engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss Graphic

6

Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001.) Defendants have not

7

indicated to the Court that they are willing to participate in a settlement conference. No settlement

8

conference will be scheduled until such time as both parties agree to participate in one. Plaintiff is

9

advised that this order does not preclude the parties from discussing settlement.

10

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds it unnecessary to conduct a status conference.

11

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are addressed to the District Court and until the District Court

12

resolves the motions for reconsideration, there are no issues to be addressed at a hearing.

13
14
15
16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a telephone conference, status conference, and settlement
conference, filed November 14, 2011, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

March 2, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2