Bettencourt v. Parks et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 69 Demand for Trial and/or Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/05/2021. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PARKER, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00150-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND
FOR TRIAL AND/OR SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 69)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

20

Defendant Crooks for pulling two teeth that did not need to be pulled, and against Defendants

21

Parker and Guzman for filing down six healthy teeth with a dental tool used for drilling cavities.

22

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing, which appears to be a request for a jury

23

trial and/or a settlement conference in this action, filed April 2, 2021. (ECF No. 69.) In the

24

motion, Plaintiff alleges that he has written several letters to defense counsel in this action to

25

attempt to set up a settlement phone call, but defense counsel has not responded since December

26

22, 2020. Plaintiff also refers to “Discoveries One and Discoveries Two,” but it is not clear to the

27

Court whether Plaintiff is referring to discovery requests or responses. It appears that Plaintiff

28

remains interested in discussing a settlement in this action with defense counsel, but that he fears
1

1

that Defendants are pressuring defense counsel to go to a jury trial. Plaintiff therefore requests

2

that the Court act on his motion – but it is not clear from the motion what relief Plaintiff is

3

requesting. (Id.) Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the motion, but the

4

Court finds a response is unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

5

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting that the Court set this case for a jury trial the relief

6

requested is premature. The deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions have not yet expired,

7

and the Court declines to set a trial date until any dispositive motions are fully resolved.

8

If Plaintiff is requesting that the Court set this case for a settlement conference, Plaintiff is

9

reminded that without a clear indication from all parties to the action that they are at least willing

10

to discuss settlement, the Court does not find that it would be an efficient use of judicial resources

11

to set this case for a settlement conference. The parties may continue to discuss settlement of this

12

matter without the Court’s involvement. Plaintiff is further reminded that Defendants are under

13

no obligation to agree to attend a settlement conference rather than proceeding on dispositive

14

motions or to a jury trial.

15

If Plaintiff is raising an issue with discovery requests he has submitted or responses to

16

discovery requests, Plaintiff should file a separate motion to compel. Plaintiff is advised that any

17

motion to compel should include Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, Defendants’ responses (if

18

any), and an explanation of why those responses are not sufficient.

19
20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for trial by jury and/or settlement conference, (ECF No.
69), is HEREBY DENIED.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 5, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2