Hearns v. Gonzales, et al.

Filing 59

ORDER Requiring Defendant to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/23/2020. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAR R. HEARNS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:17-cv-00038-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

ROSA GONZALES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Jamar Hearns (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First

21

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 9, 2018, against defendant Rosa Gonzales

22

(“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the

23

First Amendment, and violation of the Bane Act.1 (ECF No. 17.)

24

On July 16, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting out deadlines

25

for the parties, including a deadline of January 16, 2019 to complete discovery and a deadline of

26

February 14, 2019, to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 27.) On August 31, 2018, the court

27
28

1
On April 16, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action. (ECF No. 21.)

1

1

extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions to March 14, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) On

2

January 18, 2019, the court extended the discovery deadline to March 4, 2019, for a limited

3

purpose and the deadline to file dispositive motions to May 4, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) All of the

4

deadlines have now expired and no dispositive motions are pending.

5

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

6

trial. However, on May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to schedule a settlement

7

conference for this case. (ECF No. 58.)

8

II.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES

9

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

10

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

11

in the Eastern District of California. Defendant shall notify the court whether he believes,

12

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

13

settlement conference scheduled by the court.2

14

III.

15
16

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

the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a written response to this order.3

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 23, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

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

is feasible.
27
28

3 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