Cortinas v. Huerta et al

Filing 82

ORDER requiring Parties to notify court whether a Settlement Conference would be beneficial signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/16/2021. 30-Day Deadline. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL

vs.
M. HUERTA, et al.,

13

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

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

18

Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on January 30, 2017, against defendant Scalia for use of

19

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)

20

On December 4, 2017, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

21

deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of May 4, 2018, and a dispositive motion

22

filing deadline of July 5, 2018. (ECF No. 19.) On August 21, 2018, the court issued another

23

scheduling order establishing deadlines of February 21, 2019 for completion of discovery and

24

March 22, 2019, for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 39.) On August 31, 2018, the

25

court extended the dispositive motions deadline to April 22, 2019. (ECF No. 40.) On February

26

28, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order and extended the

27

discovery deadline to May 24, 2019 and the dispositive motions deadline to July 24, 2019. (ECF

28

No. 44.) All of the deadlines have now expired, and no motions are pending.
1

1

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

2

trial.

3

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

4

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

5

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

6

or at a prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendant Scalia shall notify the

7

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

8

they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

9

Defendant Scalia’s counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that

10

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

11

notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred

12

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

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

15

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendant Scalia shall each file a written response

16

to this order notifying the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case

17

is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by

18

the Court.2

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 16, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

1

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

is feasible.
27
28

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