Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 96

ORDER requiring parties to notify Court whether settlement conference would be beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/7/2013. (Written Response re Settlement Deadline: 3/28/2013) (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

R. TOLSON, et al.,
FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE

10

Defendants.

11
Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

12
13

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

14

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants K. Allison, F. Diaz, D.

15

Ibarra, S. Knight, C. Palmer, R. Santos, R. Tolson, K. Turner, and C. Walters for violation of the

16

First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious

17

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

18

Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants are

19

each to file a written response indicating whether a court settlement conference would be beneficial

20

in resolving this action. If both parties agree, the Court will issue a further scheduling order setting

21

this matter for settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge or District Judge from the United

22

States District Court, Eastern District of California.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

26
27
28

/s/ Dennis

March 7, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

77e0d6
1