Adler v. Gonzalez et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 58 Motion for Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/14. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 58)
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in
forma pauperis on November 17, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff since has been released
from prison and obtained counsel. (ECF Nos. 36 & 51.)
The action proceeds against Defendants Negrete, Zanchi, Carrasco, Holland,
Holmstrom, Gonzalez, Steadman, Bryant, Schuyler, Lundy, Stainer, and Does Nos. 1, 2,
4, 5, and 6 on Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedom of religion claim, and against the
same Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Stainer, on Plaintiff’s Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claim. (ECF Nos. 37 & 38).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 8, 2014 motion for a settlement conference.
(ECF No. 58.) In a declaration attached to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel states that this
case is nearly three years old, and that “public policy favors resolutions rather than
prolonged multi-year litigation that would be fruitless compared to a settlement
conference.” (Id.) Counsel also states that he asked opposing counsel to join in the
motion, and that opposing counsel declined.
This is Plaintiff’s second request for a settlement conference. (See ECF No. 48.)
His prior request was denied by the Court on September 30, 2014, eight days prior to
the instant request. (ECF No. 57 at 4 n.1.) The Court noted that Defendants were not, at
that time, willing to pursue a settlement conference in this matter. (Id.) Plaintiff’s
statement that defense counsel was unwilling to join in the instant motion indicates that
the defense posture did not change in the intervening eight days. Indeed, Defendants
have since filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 60.) As previously stated, the
Court will not refer a case to formal settlement talks unless all parties agree such
negotiations might be productive. Local Rule 271(b)(4).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for settlement conference (ECF No. 58) is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2014
Michael J. Seng
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?