(PC) Thomas v. Reyna et al

Filing 47

ORDER Requiring Parties to Notify Court whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/10/2022. ( Responses due within 30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS, Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. 14 REYNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 1:19-cv-01217-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Robert Quincy Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 20 commencing this action on September 4, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the 21 original Complaint against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) L. Reyna, C/O M. Podsakoff, 22 C/O P. Vellido, C/O J. Centeno, and Sergeant (Sgt.) N. Huerta (collectively, “Defendants”), for 23 use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) 24 On February 23, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action, 25 establishing a deadline of July 23, 2021 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a deadline of 26 September 23, 2021 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 23.) All dispositive 27 motions have been resolved and the pretrial deadlines have now expired. At this stage of the 28 proceedings the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial. 1 1 The Court is able to refer cases for mediation/settlement before a participating United 2 States Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at 3 a prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court 4 whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they 5 are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1 6 Defendants’ counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would 7 prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the 8 Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement 9 only and then returned to prison for housing. 10 II. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from 12 the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this 13 order.2 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement is feasible. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?