Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 110

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would Be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/23/2018: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

11
12

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

STEWART MANAGO,

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

13

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

17

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

18

commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the

19

First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. Davey, A.

20

Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively, “Defendants”), on

21

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.) This case is currently in the

22

discovery phase.

23

On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he expressed willingness to

24

discuss settlement of this case, either between the parties or with the court’s assistance. (ECF

25

No. 109 at 3 ¶¶16, 17.)

26

II.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES

27

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

28

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the court or at a
1

1

prison in the Eastern District of California. The court will not schedule a settlement conference

2

without assurances by all of the parties that they are willing to participate and believe, in good

3

faith, that settlement in this case is more than a mere possibility.

4

The court shall require Plaintiff and Defendants to respond to this order within thirty

5

days, indicating whether they wish the court to schedule a settlement conference, notifying the

6

court of their willingness to participate, and stating whether they believe, in good faith, that

7

settlement of this case is more than a remote possibility.1 In this case, Defendants’ counsel

8

shall also notify the court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a

9

settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the court whether those

10

concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then

11

returned to prison for housing.

12

II.

CONCLUSION

13

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

14

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

15

order.2

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 23, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court previously scheduled a settlement conference in this case to be held at the court on January
18, 2018, before a Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 96.) However, due to disagreement between the parties about the
feasibility of settlement, the conference was cancelled on December 12, 2017. (ECF No. 102.) The court strongly
suggests that the parties discuss the possibility of settlement by telephone in determining whether they believe
settlement is feasible and whether they are certain they want the court to schedule another settlement conference.
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.

2