Willard v. Waddle

Filing 25

ORDER REQUIRING Defendant to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference Would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/29/19. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSHUA A. WILLARD,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

C. WADDLE,

14

1:17-cv-01425-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

15
16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Joshua A. Willard (“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
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

original Complaint, which was filed on October 24, 2017, against defendant Lieutenant C.
Waddle, on Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation. (ECF No. 1.)
On October 16, 2018, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing
deadlines, including a discovery deadline of April 16, 2019, and a dispositive motion filing
deadline of June 16, 2019. (ECF No. 19.) All of the deadlines have now expired and no
dispositive motions are pending.
At this stage of the proceedings the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for
trial. On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to schedule a settlement conference
for this case. (ECF No. 24.)
1

1

II.

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES

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. Defendant shall notify the Court whether he believes,

5

in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility, and whether he is interested in having a

6

settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

11

III.

12
13

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

the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a written response to this order.2

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 29, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
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