Harris v. German et al

Filing 92

ORDER requiring parties to notify court whether a settlement would be beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/5/2020. 30-Day Filing Deadline. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVONTE HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY
COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

BACKGROUND
Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants Correctional
Officer (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Burnitzki (collectively,
“Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against
defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 8.)
1

1

On April 25, 2019, after Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied, the court

2

issued a new scheduling order reopening discovery and setting new deadlines for the parties. (ECF

3

No. 65.) The new deadline for completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to compel,

4

was August 30, 2019, along with the new deadline for filing dispositive motions on October 30, 2019.

5

(Id.) On October 15, 2019, the court extended the discovery deadline to December 18, 2019, for the

6

limited purpose of Plaintiff arranging and conducting depositions, and also extended the deadline for

7

filing dispositive motions to February 18, 2020. (ECF No. 80.) On January 30, 2020, the court

8

granted Plaintiff a 60-day extension time to file a motion to compel and conduct depositions. (ECF

9

No. 85.) These deadlines are now expired, and no motions are pending.

10

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for

11

trial.

12

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

13

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States

14

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a prison

15

in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court whether they

16

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

17

in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

18

Defendants’ counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would

19

prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the

20

Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement

21

only and then returned to prison for housing.

22

III.

CONCLUSION

23

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from

24

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall each file a written response to this

25

order, notifying the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a

26
27
28

1
The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe
settlement is feasible.

2

1

possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the

2

Court.2

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.

3