White v. Patel et al

Filing 50

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Settlement Conference (Doc. 47 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/17/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JEROME WHITE,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

PATEL, et al.,

14

1:11-cv-00047-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(Doc. 47.)

Defendants.

15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Jerome White (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint, filed

19

on March 12, 2012, against defendants Dr. Patel, Dr. Chen, Dr. Ramon,1 and RN M.

20

Thompson, for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 14.

21

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to participate in settlement negotiations in

22

this action with Defendants. (Doc. 47.) On June 16, 2014, Defendants filed a response to

23

Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. 49.)

24

II.

25
26

REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiff requested the opportunity to attempt to resolve the issues in this case, by a

telephone conference with counsel for Defendants.

Defendants responded that following

27
28

1

On March 22, 2013, the court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process upon defendants in this action.
(Doc. 19.) However, to date, defendant Ramon has not been served with process.

1

Plaintiff’s request, the parties engaged in settlement discussions but were unable to come to an

2

agreement.

3

settlement is likely. However, Defendants are willing to participate in a settlement conference

4

if Plaintiff considerably reevaluates the merits of this case and his settlement posture.

Due to Plaintiff’s evaluation of the lawsuit, Defendants do not believe that

5

The Court shall not require Defendants to attend a settlement conference at this stage of

6

the proceedings. Based on Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s request, it appears unlikely that a

7

settlement conference would be beneficial at this time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request shall be

8

denied.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a settlement
conference, filed on May 12, 2014, is DENIED.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 17, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE