Branch v. Grannis, et al.,
Filing
239
ORDER denying as moot Motions for telephonic / video settlement conference re 223 , 231 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/29/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
LOUIS BRANCH,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
N. GRANNIS, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
TELEPHONIC/VIDEO SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(ECF Nos. 223, 231)
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights
18
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s July 10,
19
2013, third amended complaint against Defendants Szalai, Alvarez, and Umphenour for
20
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
21
against Defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The
22
action is set for trial on January 30, 2017.
23
Initially, the Court scheduled a settlement conference in this case for September
24
9, 2016 (ECF No. 214), but then continued it to September 30, 2016. (ECF No. 224.) On
25
September 19, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to submit, by September 26, 2016,
26
Confidential Settlement Conference Statements containing specified information. (ECF
27
28
No. 233.) Plaintiff’s submission did not comply with the Court’s specifications, and
1
accordingly, on September 27, 2016, the settlement conference was cancelled. (ECF
2
No. 236.) The Court does not intend to set a further settlement conference in this case.
3
(See id.)
4
Still pending before the Court are two identical motions by Plaintiff to
5
appear by telephone or video conference at the above-referenced settlement
6
conference. (ECF Nos. 223, 231.) Since the settlement conference has been cancelled,
7
Plaintiff’s motions to appear telephonically are moot and DENIED on that basis.
8
Nevertheless, the Court believes it productive to address the substance of Plaintiff’s
9
motions.
10
Plaintiff argues that 42 U.S.C. 1997e(f)(1) obligates the Court to allow him to
11
appear by telephone or video. That code section, which applies to inmates like Plaintiff
12
13
who challenge the conditions of their confinement, provides that ‘[t]o the extent
practicable” pretrial proceedings in which an inmate’s participation is required or
14
permitted
shall
be
conducted
by
telephone,
video
conference,
or
other
15
telecommunications technology without removing the inmate from the facility in which he
16
is confined.
17
The Court typically allows inmates to appear telephonically for all pretrial
18
proceedings. However, it finds that settlement conference are rarely, if ever, productive
19
where the Court lacks live, personal, one-on-one contact with the participants.
20
Moreover, the Court’s video conferencing systems are designed to work with those in
21
sister federal courts; the Court is informed that they are not to be connected to non-court
22
systems. While the Court is aware of independent video service providers and systems,
23
its ability to use them is restricted and, in any event, finds from experience that they can
24
be less than reliable and generally inadequate for the conduct of a settlement
25
conference. For all these reasons, the Court requires parties to personally appear at
26
settlement conferences convened before it.
27
In passing, the Court notes that the proposed settlement conference in this case
28
2
1
was voluntary on the part of the parties. If Plaintiff elects not to comply with the Court’s
2
directions for submissions or objects to attending a settlement conference at the Court,
3
he is free to undertake to conduct settlement discussion without the involvement of the
4
Court.
5
6
THEREFORE, Plaintiff’s motions to appear by telephone or video conference at
the previously scheduled settlement conference are DENIED as moot.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 29, 2016
/s/
10
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?