Bussiere v. Kokor et al

Filing 112

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/19/2017. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 1:13-cv-01565-AWI-SKO (PC) ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, Plaintiff, 8 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE v. 9 ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL Defendant. 7 TIGGS-BROWN, 10 11 Plaintiff, Arthur T. Bussiere, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 12 13 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was recently assigned to the 14 undersigned for all purposes. (Doc. 111.) While a settlement conference has been conducted 15 (Doc. 107), the parties were to continue negotiations after Plaintiff had an opportunity to review 16 case documents including District Judge Anthony W. Ishii’s order of April 4, 2017 (Doc. 94). 17 Thus, the parties shall notify the Court whether they feel further settlement conference would be 18 beneficial. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 19 20 service of this order, the parties shall file statements indicating whether they believe, in good 21 faith, that settlement is likely in this case and whether further settlement conference would be 22 beneficial. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Judge Ishii’s order of 23 April 4, 2017, (Doc. 94), with service of this order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: September 19, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 Sheila K. Oberto 1 .

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?