Arzaga v. Reed

Filing 62

ORDER Requiring Defendant to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/20/13. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANIEL ARZAGA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:10-cv-00369-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL

v.
SERGEANT REED, et al.,

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
14

Defendants.
/

15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Daniel Arzaga (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

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

19

action on February 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed

20

by Plaintiff on March 31, 2011, against defendant Sergeant Reed (“Defendant”), for retaliation and

21

unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc. 11.)

22

On October 12, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of June

23

12, 2012 for completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, and a deadline of

24

August 20, 2012, for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 29.) On February 13,

25

2013, with leave of court, Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which is

26

pending. (Doc. 59.)

27

On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion for settlement which was lodged by the

28

Court, in which he indicated his willingness to participate in settlement proceedings. (Doc. 61.)
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion contains confidential information and therefore shall not be filed on the court

2

record.

3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

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

5

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

6

District of California. Defendant shall notify the Court whether he believes, in good faith, that

7

settlement in this case is a possibility and whether he is interested in having a settlement conference

8

scheduled by the Court.1

9

Defendant’s counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would

10

prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court

11

whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and

12

then returned to prison for housing.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14
15

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the
date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a written response to this order.2

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

March 20, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

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

feasible.
2

28

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