Sutherland v. Yates et al

Filing 95

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would Be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/21/2014. 30-day deadline. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9

1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

10

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

11
12

I.

BACKGROUND

13

William Sutherland ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

14

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

15

commencing this action on December 11, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the

16

First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2010, against defendants

17

Correctional Officers (C/O) A. Fernando and M. Jericoff for use of excessive force in violation

18

of the Eighth Amendment, and related state claims.1 (Doc. 15.)

19

On September 8, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

20

establishing a deadline May 8, 2012 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a deadline of July

21

17, 2012 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions.2 (Doc. 27.) The pretrial deadlines have

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On June 16, 2011, the Court dismissed defendant Lieutenant R. Lantz from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against him under § 1983. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, due
process violations, and violations of the Penal Code were also dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Id.) On February 20, 2014, the Court
issued an order granting in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of August 17, 2012, granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Yates. (Doc. 94.) The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claim of negligent hiring. (Id. at 2 ¶4.)
2

On September 18, 2012, the Court granted Defendants an extension of time nunc pro tunc until August
17, 2012, to file a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54.)
1

1

now expired. On February 20, 2014, the Court denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary

2

judgment. (Doc. 94.) At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to

3

schedule the case for trial.

4

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.3

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

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

16

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

17

order.4

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

22
23
24

February 21, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

25
3

26
27
28

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

is feasible.
4

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