Garraway v. Ciufo et al

Filing 120

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/22/2021. Response due within thirty (30) days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MITCHELL GARRAWAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Mitchell Garraway (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

24

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388

25

(1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017,

26

against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and

27

Lieutenant J. Zaragoza (collectively, “Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of

28

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)
1

1

On November 27, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting out

2

deadlines for the parties including a discovery deadline of May 25, 2019, and a dispositive

3

motions deadline of July 27, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) On March 4, 2020, the court extended the

4

discovery deadline to June 5, 2020 and the dispositive motions deadline to August 5, 2020. (ECF

5

No. 97.) The deadlines are now expired.

6

On March 13, 2019, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

7

deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of September 13, 2019, and a dispositive

8

motion filing deadline of November 13, 2019. (ECF No. 15.) All of the deadlines have now

9

expired, and no motions are pending.

10

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

11

trial.

12

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

13

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

14

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

15

Eastern District of California.1 Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court whether they

16

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

17

in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

only and then returned to prison for housing.

22

III.

CONCLUSION

23

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

24

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall each file a written response to this

25
26
1

27

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, settlement conferences may be held remotely.

2

28

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

2

1

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

2

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

3

Court.3

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 22, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3

28

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.

3