Hernandez v. Smith et al

Filing 46

ORDER Directing Defense Counsel to File a Response to 45 Plaintiff's Motion for Civil Case and Settlement Conference Within Ten (10) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/22/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL HERNANDEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
R.D. SMITH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CIVIL CASE AND SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WITHIN TEN DAYS
[ECF No. 45]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a civil case and settlement conference

19
20

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00828-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Raul Hernandez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to Local Rule 270.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001).
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants R.D.

25
26

Smith and Kirk for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s dental needs in violation of the Eighth

27

Amendment.

28

///
1

Defendant Kirk filed an answer to the complaint on November 5, 2013, and Defendant Smith

1
2

filed an answer to the complaint on April 11, 2014.
On November 17, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting a dispositive

3
4

motion deadline of September 18, 2014. The scheduling order was extended to Defendant on April

5

15, 2014.

6

On September 9, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery and

7

scheduling order as to Defendant Smith only, and set new discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.

8

Discovery was extended to December 10, 2014, as to Defendant Smith only and the dispositive motion

9

deadline was extended to December 18, 2014, as to both Defendants.
The Court finds a response by defense counsel will be helpful in resolving Plaintiff’s instant

10
11

motion for a settlement conference. Accordingly, within ten (10) days from the date of service of this

12

order, defense counsel shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion indicating whether or not a settlement

13

conference would be beneficial in this case.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

September 22, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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