Selsor v. Weaver et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Attend Settlement Conference by Video, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/19/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY SELSOR,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CASTANEDA, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:15-cv-00918-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
TO ATTEND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
BY VIDEO
(ECF No. 29)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Jeffrey Selsor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This case is currently set for settlement conference on September 18, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.,
before the undersigned at California State Prison, Corcoran.

21

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 7, 2017

22

order setting a settlement conference, requesting to appear at the settlement conference by video.

23

(ECF No. 29.)

24

Generally, the Court allows inmates to appear telephonically for all pretrial proceedings,

25

however, the Court finds that settlement conferences are not productive without the ability to

26

have face to face contact with the participants. Therefore, the Court requires the parties to

27

personally appear for settlement conferences. Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to appear by

28

video, however, the Court’s past experience has demonstrated that the California Department of
1

1

Corrections video conferencing system can be unreliable; and therefore, is insufficient for the

2

purposes of conducting a settlement conference. Thus, the Court finds that it is not practicable to

3

allow an inmate to appear by video at a settlement conference. Plaintiff is advised that he is

4

obligated to litigate the action which may necessitate, among other things, transportation to the

5

court for proceedings.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to attend the settlement conference by video conference

6
7

(ECF No. 29), is DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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