Washington v. Adams et al

Filing 89

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 87 88 Motion for Settlement and Discovery Conferences signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 06/13/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

CHRISTOPHER N. WASHINGTON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01666-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SETTLEMENT AND DISCOVERY
CONFERENCES

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS,

11

(Docs. 87 and 88)

Defendant.
/

12
13

Plaintiff Christopher N. Washington, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

14

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 21, 2009. On June 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

15

motion seeking settlement and discovery conferences.1

16

The operative discovery and scheduling order was issued on May 18, 2012, and Plaintiff was

17

previously informed in the first informational order that he must serve Defendant directly with any

18

discovery requests. (Docs. 4 ¶8, 84.) The Court will set a settlement conference only if both parties

19

express an interest in one, and this action is excepted from mandatory scheduling and discovery

20

conferences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), (f); Local Rule 240(c). Plaintiff

21

shall refer to the scheduling order and first informational order for further information.

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
ie14hj

June 13, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

1

The motion was docketed twice.

1