Calloway v. Veal et al

Filing 123

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/03/2013. Respone due by 01/6/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

M. VEAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Jamisi Jermaine Calloway (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

19

commencing this action on December 10, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the
20

Third Amended Complaint filed on October 5, 2009, against defendants C/O Hayward and C/O
21

Oaks, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 20.)

22

On June 14, 2011, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,
23

establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties to amend pleadings, conduct discovery, and file
24

pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 31.) On April 23, 2012, defendants Hayward and Oaks
25
26
27
28

1

On March 19, 2011, the Court found that Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against
defendants Wang, Oaks, and Hayward, and dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 18(a). (Doc. 24.) On April 22, 2013, the Court granted defendant Wang’s motion for summary judgment
and entered judgment in favor of defendant Wang. (Docs. 84, 85.)
1

1

filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 56.) On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

2

for summary judgment. (Doc. 57.) On December 2, 2013, the court entered an order denying

3

the parties’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 121.) The pretrial deadlines have now

4

expired. At this stage of the proceedings, the court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for

5

trial.

6

The court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the court.2

11

Defendants= counsel shall notify the court whether there are security concerns that

12

would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall

13

notify the court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred

14

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

15

II.

CONCLUSION

16

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from

17

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this

18

order.3

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

23
24

December 3, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

25
26

2

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

is feasible.
27
28

3
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.

2