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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?