Bowell v. Montoya et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR COURT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 65 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/12/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES BOWELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
F. MONTOYA, et al.,

1:17-cv-00605-NONE-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COURT SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 65.)

Defendants.

16
17
18

James Bowell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to schedule a settlement

25

conference. (ECF No. 65.) On July 10, 2020, the court issued an order requiring the parties to

26

respond and notify the court whether they believed, in good faith, that a settlement conference

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

would be beneficial in this case. (ECF No. 75.) On August 10, 2020, Defendants notified the

2

court that they do not believe a settlement conference would be beneficial in this case at this time.

3

(ECF No. 78.)

4

The court will not at this point schedule a settlement conference unless all of the parties

5

have indicated their willingness to participate, in good faith, in a settlement conference. Because

6

Defendants have responded that they do not believe that a settlement conference would be a

7

productive use of time the court shall not schedule a settlement conference for this case.

8

However, the parties are not precluded from initiating and participating in settlement negotiations

9

themselves without the court’s assistance.

10
11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference to be scheduled by the court,
filed on June 17, 2020, is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 12, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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