Garcia, Jr. v. Tulare County Main Jail et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 25 Request for Ruling on Motion to Compel as MOOT; ORDER DIRECTING Defendants to FILE a Response to Request for Settlement Conference; Fifteen Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/20/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR GARCIA, JR.,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00476-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RULING
ON MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT

v.
M. O’RAFFERTY, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Defendants.
(ECF No. 25)
FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Omar Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

20

defendants O’Rafferty, Kaious and Doe 1 for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth

21

Amendment; against defendants Onstott and Doe 1 for failure to intervene in violation of the

22

Fourteenth Amendment; and against defendants O’Rafferty, Kaious, Flores, Avina, Meyers and

23

Ellis for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth

24

Amendment (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February

25

16, 2016, which has not been screened. (ECF No. 24.)

26

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants’ responses to a request

27

for production of documents. (ECF No. 22). On September 28, 2016, Defendants filed an

28

opposition to this motion. (ECF No. 26.) On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply entitled,
1

1

“closing argument.” (ECF No. 27.) On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for “ruling

2

on Motion to Compel and Motion for Settlement Conference.”

3

On March 17, 2017, the Court issued an order partially granting and partially denying

4

Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. 29.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a ruling on the

5

motion to compel is denied as moot.

6

Plaintiff also requested that the Court schedule a mandatory settlement conference. (Doc.

7

25, p.2.) In light of Plaintiff’s request, Defendants shall notify the Court whether they believe, in

8

good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a

9

settlement. 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 notify

11

the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed for purposes of the settlement

12

conference.

13
14

Accordingly, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants
shall file a written response to this order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 20, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2