McNeil v. Hayes et al

Filing 158

ORDER Denying 155 Motion to Modify Settlement Conference Orders signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/09/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL MCNEIL,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDERS

v.
(Doc. 155)

13

LVN HAYES, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Michael McNeil (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010.
18 Pursuant to the orders filed on September 26, 2014, this case is set for a scheduling conference on
19 November 13, 2014, before United States Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison at the federal
20 courthouse in Sacramento, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
21 (“CDCR”) was directed to transport Plaintiff for the settlement conference. On October 6, 2014,
22 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to modify the orders to either (1) require CDCR to transport him to
23 and from his current prison on the day of the settlement conference or (2) allow him to appear by
24 telephone or videoconference.
25

The Court cannot intervene with respect to the terms of Plaintiff’s transport by CDCR.

26 The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the disruption to his housing and program
27 assignments, but managing the transportation of inmates rests firmly within the discretion of
28 prison officials.

1

Furthermore, it is standard practice for all parties in civil cases to appear in person for

2 settlement conferences.1 Appearance by any other means directly impacts both the court’s ability
3 to conduct a meaningful settlement conference and the parties’ ability to engage in meaningful
4 settlement negotiations.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for modification of the settlement conference orders is

5

6 HEREBY DENIED.
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

10

October 9, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although the standard civil scheduling order was not issued in this case because Plaintiff is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se, parties in non-pro se prisoner civil cases are subject to a standard scheduling order which sets forth
the requirement that all parties appear personally for settlement conferences.

2