Jones v. Arnette, et al.

Filing 127

ORDER Requiring Defendants to Notify Court whether a Settlement Conference would be beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/7/2022. (Filing Deadline: 30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
ARNETTE, et al.,

15

1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

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

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act

23

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s ADA claims against

24

defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzalez, Flores, Arnett, Zamora, and Lopez; Plaintiff’s Eighth

25

Amendment claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener and Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s due

26
27
28

process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzalez.
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to schedule this case for a
settlement conference. (ECF No. 126.)
1

1

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

2

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

3

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

4

in the Eastern District of California. Defendants shall notify the Court whether they believe, in

5

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

6

settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

only and then returned to prison for housing.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

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

13

the date of service of this order, counsel for Defendants shall file a written response to this order,

14

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

15

and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 7, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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