Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 216

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Ex Parte 209 Motion for Settlement Conference and Requiring Defendants to Notify Court whether a Settlement Conference would be beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/13/14. (21-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENECE AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER
A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL (ECF No. 209)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure
to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda
and Garcia for assault and battery in violation of state law. A jury trial is scheduled for March 10,
2015.
On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request that this matter be set for a settlement
conference. (ECF No. 209.) The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a United States
Magistrate Judge. A settlement conference will only be set if the parties are willing to make a
1

1

meaningful attempt to resolve this action and are willing to compromise. Settlement conferences may

2

be held by video conference or in person at the court. Defendants shall notify the Court whether they

3

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

4

having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

then returned to prison for housing. Counsel shall also notify the Court whether video capabilities at

9

Plaintiff’s facility exist and are available.

10

Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants

11

shall file a written response to Plaintiff’s request and this order. If a settlement conference is set by

12

the Court, then the Court will issue a separate order indicating each of the parties’ responsibilities

13

regarding the settlement conference.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 13, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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