Williams v. Anderson

Filing 135

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Requests for Court Settlement and Denying Request for Court Order Relating to Discovery, re 132 , 133 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/27/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

12
13
14

15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AND
FOURTH REQUESTS FOR COURT
SETTLEMENT AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
COURT ORDER RELATING TO DISCOVERY
[ECF Nos. 132, 133]

Plaintiff Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the

19

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

20

This case is currently set for jury trial on August 25, 2015.

21

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third request for a court settlement and request for a court

22

order forcing Defendant Anderson to respond to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 132.) On May 26,

23

2015, Plaintiff filed a fourth request for a court settlement. (ECF No. 133.)

24

Plaintiff previously filed two separate requests for a settlement conference which were both

25

denied. (ECF Nos. 116, 118, 128, 131.) As Plaintiff was previously advised, the Court is available to

26

assist with settlement of this action at the request of both parties. Should the parties agree that the

27

Court’s assistance would be beneficial in settlement of this action, they may file a request for a

28

settlement conference and a magistrate judge will be assigned to conduct a settlement conference.
1

1

Absent a request by both parties demonstrating that a settlement conference may be beneficial, the

2

Court will not order a settlement conference and Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.
As to Plaintiff’s request for a court order to compel Defendant to file a response to his

3
4

discovery requests, it must be denied. Plaintiff is advised that discovery in this action is closed and

5

any and all pending discovery matters have been resolved. See ECF No. 31. Thus, Plaintiff cannot

6

now propound discovery and compel a response, and his request must be denied.

7

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court settlement conference is DENIED; and

9

2.

Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant to respond to his discovery requests is
DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

14

May 27, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2