(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)

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