Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 240

ORDER Regarding Notice Re Confidential Settlement Conference Statement signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/03/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LOUIS BRANCH,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
N. GRANNIS, et al.,

14

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING NOTICE RE
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(ECF No. 238)

Defendants.

15
16
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights

17
18

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

This matter was set for a settlement conference on September 30, 2016. (ECF

20

No. 224.) On September 19, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to submit, not later than

21

September 26, 2016, Confidential Settlement Conference Statements containing

22

specified information. (ECF No. 233.) Plaintiff’s submission did not contain the specified

23

information.

24

cancelled. (ECF No. 236.) Accordingly, the Court also denied as moot Plaintiff’s requests

25

to appear at the settlement conference by telephonic or video conference. (ECF No.

26

239.)

27
28

Given the absence of that information, the settlement conference was

1

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that his settlement

2

conference statement was submitted in response to an earlier order which did not call for

3

the information the undersigned had required. (ECF No. 238; See ECF No. 214.) Plaintiff

4

also explained that his submission predated his receipt of the undersigned’s order and

5

its specific requests. Finally, Plaintiff reiterated his intent not to participate in the

6

settlement conference in person, and again asked to appear by telephonic or video

7

conference.

8

Accordingly, the Court concludes, and issues this order to note, that Plaintiff’s

9

failure to comply with the Court’s order regarding the content of the settlement

10

conference statement was attributable to delays within the prison mail system and not to

11

any fault or neglect on the part of Plaintiff. Nonetheless, the settlement conference was

12

cancelled for the reasons stated.

13

The Court’s order denying as moot Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 223 &231) for

14

telephonic or video conference stands. (ECF No. 239.) Given Plaintiff’s objections to

15

personal participation in a voluntary settlement conference outside the prison, no further

16

settlement conferences will be scheduled in this case by the undersigned.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2016

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2