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