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

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING Motion for Settlement Conference 25 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/6/17. (Hellings, J)

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

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00476-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
(ECF No. 25)
TULARE COUNTY MAIN JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Omar Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for “ruling on Motion to Compel and

26

Motion for Settlement Conference.” (ECF No. 25.) On March 17, 2017, the Court issued an

27

order partially granting and partially denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 29.)

28

Plaintiff also requested that the Court schedule a mandatory settlement conference. (ECF No. 25,
1

1

p. 2.) On March 21, 2017, the Court issued an order directing Defendants to file a written

2

response to Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 30.) On April 4, 2017,

3

Defendants filed a response indicating to the Court that they do not have an interest in a

4

settlement conference or feel that settlement is a possibility. (ECF No. 31, p. 2.)

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize settlement discussions at any pretrial

6

conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(I). While federal courts have the authority to require the

7

parties to engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss

8

Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001); Ackley v.

9

Carroll, No. 1:06-cv-00771-AWI-SMS PC, 2011 WL 2909891, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2011).

10

Defendants have indicated to the Court that they are not interested in participating in a settlement

11

conference. No settlement conference will be scheduled until such time as both parties agree to

12

participate.

13

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 6, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2