Bowell v. Montoya et al

Filing 75

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial re 65 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/10/2020. Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES BOWELL,
Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13
14

F. MONTOYA, et al.,
Defendants.

15

1:17-cv-00605-NONE-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL
(ECF No. 65.)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

James Bowell (“Plaintiff”) is a state 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 Plaintiff’s

21

First Amended Complaint, filed on May 3, 2018, against defendants Montoya and Carter for

22

violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and against defendants Killmer and

23

Lopez for conspiracy to place Plaintiff at risk of serious harm and failure to protect Plaintiff under

24

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 16.)1 This case is now in the discovery phase.

25
26

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Advance Disposition Settlement
Conference,” in which he indicated a willingness to settle this case. (ECF No. 65.)

27
28

1
On October 25, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this case, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.)

1

1

II.

SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

only and then returned to prison for housing.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Court.3

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 10, 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