Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 83

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/8/18. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICK HAZELTINE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. FRANCES HICKS, et al., 15 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 18 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 21 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive 22 force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Ian Young, Benjamin 23 Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith, 24 and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.) 25 On June 8, 2017, the court issued an order re-opening discovery until July 14, 2017, for 26 Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, and extended the dispositive motions deadline to 27 September 31, 2017. (ECF No. 70.) 28 compel, which was resolved on November 8, 2017, and the deadline for filing dispositive On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely motion to 1 1 motions has expired. 2 schedule the case for trial. 3 II. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS 4 The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States 5 Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a 6 prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court 7 whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they 8 are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1 9 Defendants= counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that 10 would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall 11 notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred 12 for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from 15 the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this 16 order.2 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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

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?