Edwards v. Desfosses, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/16/2015. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-01013-AWI-GSA-PC

STEVEN R. EDWARDS,

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

vs.
A. DESFOSSE, et al.,

15

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Steven R. Edwards (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

20

with the Complaint filed on July 1, 2013, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, against

21

defendants C/O A. Desfosse, C/O E. Saldivar, and C/O S. Zaccagnini for use of excessive

22

force, and against defendant Sergeant T. Verbeek for failure to decontaminate Plaintiff. (Doc.

23

1.)

24

On June 11, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

25

establishing a deadline of February 11, 2015 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a

26

deadline of April 20, 2015 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 27.) The pretrial

27

deadlines have now expired.

28

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

No dispositive motions were filed.

1

At this stage of the

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. 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.1

7

Defendants= counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that

8

would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall

9

notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred

10

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

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

13

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

14

order.2

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 16, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26

1

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

is feasible.
27
28

2
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