Dickson v. Gomez et al

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING 92 Plaintiff's Request for Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/29/2023. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GOMEZ, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-ADA-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 92)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

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

19

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth

20

Amendment and against Defendants Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

21

Amendment due process rights.

22

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to set this matter for a video

23

settlement conference. (ECF No. 92.) The Court directed Defendants to file a brief written

24

response indicating whether they are also willing to participate in a settlement conference in this

25

matter. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants filed a response on March 28, 2023, stating that at this time, a

26

third formal settlement conference does not appear to be a worthwhile use of resources for the

27

parties or the Court. (ECF No. 94.) Defendants also indicate that they have sent Plaintiff

28

correspondence inviting a written settlement demand and have a teleconference scheduled with
1

1
2

Plaintiff on March 29, 2023. (Id.)
Without a clear indication from all parties to the action that they are willing to discuss

3

settlement, the Court does not find that it would be an efficient use of judicial resources to set this

4

case for a settlement conference at this time. The parties are reminded that they are free to settle

5

this matter without judicial involvement at any time by communicating among themselves. If in

6

the future the parties jointly decide that this action would benefit from a Court-facilitated

7

settlement conference, or if they are able to reach an independent settlement agreement, they may

8

so inform the Court.

9
10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference, (ECF No. 92), is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 29, 2023

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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