Holguin v. Wicks

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Request to Have Plaintiff Appear at Settlement Conference Via Video-Conference 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/29/17: 1. Defendants request to have Plaintiff appear at the November 14, 2017 s ettlement conference via video-conference (ECF No. 44) is granted; and 2. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff by video conference, and shall contact the Courtroom Deputy at [phone] to coordinate the video-conference no later than October 24, 2017. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PABLO HOLGUIN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
R. WICKS,

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
TO HAVE PLAINTIFF APPEAR AT
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE
(ECF No. 44)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Pablo Holguin is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Amendment due process claim against Defendant Wicks based on the alleged denial of Plaintiff’s right

20

to call an identified witness in his defense at his prison disciplinary hearing.

21

This matter is set for a settlement conference before the undersigned on November 14, 2017, at

22

9:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California. (ECF No.

23

41.) On September 25, 2017, Defendant filed the instant request to have Plaintiff appear at the

24

settlement conference via telephone conference. (ECF No. 44.) Defense counsel informs the Court

25

that Plaintiff is scheduled for a parole suitability hearing before the Board of Parole Hearing (“BPH”)

26

at CTF-Soledad on November 16, 2017. As a result, Plaintiff will not be allowed to transfer or be

27

transported anywhere that week because of the BPH hearing. Defendant therefore requests that

28
1

1

Plaintiff be allowed to appear via videoconference.

(Id.)

Although Plaintiff has not had an

2

opportunity to respond to this motion, the Court finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

3

Having considered the request, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to be transported

4

to the courthouse for the settlement conference, but that the parties remain willing to engage in

5

settlement negotiations. The Court finds good cause in this instance to allow Plaintiff to appear by

6

video-conference. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently

7

with this order.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Defendant’s request to have Plaintiff appear at the November 14, 2017 settlement
conference via video-conference (ECF No. 44) is granted; and

10
11

2. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff by video

12

conference, and shall contact the Courtroom Deputy at [phone] to coordinate the

13

video-conference no later than October 24, 2017.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

September 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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