Adler v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 61

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 58 Motion for Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

BRENT ADLER,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
(ECF No. 58)
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

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

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

1

prolonged multi-year litigation that would be fruitless compared to a settlement

2

conference.” (Id.) Counsel also states that he asked opposing counsel to join in the

3

motion, and that opposing counsel declined.

4

This is Plaintiff’s second request for a settlement conference. (See ECF No. 48.)

5

His prior request was denied by the Court on September 30, 2014, eight days prior to

6

the instant request. (ECF No. 57 at 4 n.1.) The Court noted that Defendants were not, at

7

that time, willing to pursue a settlement conference in this matter. (Id.) Plaintiff’s

8

statement that defense counsel was unwilling to join in the instant motion indicates that

9

the defense posture did not change in the intervening eight days. Indeed, Defendants

10

have since filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 60.) As previously stated, the

11

Court will not refer a case to formal settlement talks unless all parties agree such

12

negotiations might be productive. Local Rule 271(b)(4).

13
14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for settlement conference (ECF No. 58) is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 30, 2014

/s/

18

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2