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