Aubert v. Hector

Filing 40

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/20/2013. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ESS’NN AUBERT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:10-cv-00565-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

H. ROBLES,

15

Defendant.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Ess’nn A. Aubert (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with the Complaint filed

20

on April 1, 2010, against defendant Correctional Officer Hector Robles (“Defendant”), for

21

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

22

On March 31, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order, establishing

23

pretrial deadlines in this action. (Doc. 17.) On February 9, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for

24

summary judgment, which was denied by the court on December 19, 2013. (Docs. 26, 39.)

25

The pretrial deadlines have now expired. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily

26

proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

27

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

28

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a
1

1

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

2

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

3

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

8

II.

CONCLUSION

9

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

10

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

11

order.2

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

16
17
18

December 20, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

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

is feasible.
27
28

2
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