McClough v. Keener et al

Filing 32

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/26/2015. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

1:12-cv-02076-LJO-GSA-PC

CHARLES MCCLOUGH,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.

9

JIMMY KEENER, et al.,

10

Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

11
12

I.

BACKGROUND

13

Charles McClough ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

14

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the initial Complaint

15

filed by Plaintiff on December 26, 2012, against defendants Keener, Gonzales, Longoria,

16

Flores, Cahlander, and Felix (collectively “Defendants”) for use of excessive force against

17

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)1

18

On April 1, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

19

establishing a deadline of December 4, 2014 for the parties to conduct discovery, including

20

filing motions to compel, and a deadline of February 9, 2015 for the filing of pretrial

21

dispositive motions. (Doc. 21.) On December 17, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s request

22

for a thirty-day extension of time to file a discovery motion. (Doc. 29.) The thirty-day time

23

period passed, and Plaintiff did not file a discovery motion or request additional time. The

24

pretrial deadlines have now expired, and no motions are pending.

25

proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

At this stage of the

26
27
28

1

On September 16, 2013, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 8.)
1

1

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

2

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States

3

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a

4

prison in the Eastern District of California.2 Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court

5

whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they

6

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.3

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from

9

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this

10

order.4

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25

2

The court has received notice that Plaintiff was paroled, and Plaintiff has filed a notice of
change of address to a street address in Fresno, California. (Court Record, Doc. 31.)
3

26
27
28

The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe
settlement is feasible.
4

The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make
every reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.
2