Singleton v. Fortune et al

Filing 74

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 56 62 Requests for the Court to Schedule a Settlement Conference at this Time signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/25/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMAR SINGLETON, SR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. FORTUNE, et al.,

1:17-cv-00124-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUESTS FOR THE COURT TO
SCHEDULE A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AT THIS TIME
(ECF Nos. 56, 62, 65.)

Defendants.

16
17

Lamar Singleton, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

19

with the First Amended Complaint filed on February 19, 2016, against defendant Fortune

20

(“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s medical claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 25.)

21
22

On January 22, 2018, February 1, 2018, and March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed requests for
the court to schedule a settlement conference in this case. (ECF Nos. 56, 62, 65.)

23

The court finds no good cause to schedule a settlement conference at this time. On

24

January 29, 2018, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff and Defendant to notify the court

25

whether they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial. (ECF No. 60.) On January

26

31, 2018, Defendant responded to the court’s order stating that he “does not believe in good

27

faith that a settlement in this case is a possibility at this time because he filed a summary-

28

judgment motion on January 23, 2018, setting forth extensive evidence that entitles him to
1

1

judgment as a matter of law.” (ECF No. 61 at 1:21-24.) On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff

2

responded to the court’s order, stating his belief that a settlement conference would be

3

beneficial.

4

conference would be beneficial and are willing to attempt settlement in good faith, the court

5

shall not schedule a settlement conference. Therefore, the court shall not schedule a settlement

6

conference at this time, and Plaintiff’s request shall be denied. The parties are not precluded

7

from discussing settlement at any time between them.

(ECF No. 63.)

Unless all of the parties to this action believe a settlement

8

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests for the

9

court to schedule a settlement conference at this time, filed on January 22, 2018, February 1,

10

2018, and March 23, 2018, are DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 25, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2