Blount v. Smith, et al

Filing 40

ORDER Requiring Defendants to Inform the Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/20/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEBASTIAN BLOUNT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

22

25

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
INFORM THE COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
TEN-DAY DEADLINE

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is
proceeding against Defendants Lopez and Abraham for violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Defendants did not file a dispositive motion prior to the February 12, 2015, dispositive motion
deadline. The Court therefore issued a Second Scheduling Order on February 19, 2015. Trial is set
for June 23, 2015.

23
24

Case No.: 1:13cv01705 AWI DLB (PC)

Plaintiff Sebastian Blount (“Plaintiff”) is a former California state prisoner proceeding pro se

20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Settlement Conference. He states that a
settlement conference would be beneficial at this time.
///

26
///
27
///
28
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s motion and inform the Court
whether they believe a settlement conference would be beneficial. Defendants’ response is due ten
days from the date of service of this order.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 20, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2