(PC) Lane v. Beach

Filing 32

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Notify Court Whether a Settlement Conference would be Beneficial; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/17/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETTE LANE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. DR. BEACH, 15 Defendant. 1:20-cv-00147-JLT-GSA-PC ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Everette Lane (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 21 commencing this action on January 29, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the 22 First Amended Complaint, filed on April 19, 2021, against defendant Dr. Beach for deliberate 23 indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 12.) 24 On March 30, 2022, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 25 deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of August 30, 2022, and a dispositive 26 motion filing deadline of October 30, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) All of the deadlines have now expired 27 and no dispositive motions have been filed. No other motions are pending. At this stage of the 28 proceedings the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial. 1 1 II. SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS 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. Plaintiff and Defendant shall notify the Court whether they 5 believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested 6 in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.1 7 Defendant’s counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns. If security 8 concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately 9 addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing. 10 III. 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 Defendant shall each file a written response to this 13 order, notifying the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a 14 possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the 15 Court.2 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?