(PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 34

ORDER Regarding 33 Plaintiff's Notice of Clarification as to Settlement Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/8/2024. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS M. MARTIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., 15 16 No. 1:23-cv-00822-JLT-SAB (PC) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CLARIFICATION AS TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 33) Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 20 21 McAuliffe on April 25, 2024; however, due to security concerns at California Correctional 22 Institution, Tehachapi, where Plaintiff is housed, the settlement conference could not proceed. 23 The Court therefore continued the settlement conference to take place in person at the California 24 State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR), 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212 on June 3, 2024 at 25 8:30 a.m.1 (ECF No. 30.) On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice regarding the settlement conference stating that 26 27 On May 3, 2024, the Court issued the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Plaintiff’s transportation for the in person conference. (ECF No. 32.) 1 28 1 1 the security concerns were exaggerated and he is “looking for clarification and wondering why 2 we couldn’t just schedule a new zoom videoconference from here.” (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff 3 submits that he is not endorsed to be housed at CSP-COR and questions whether he will be 4 “going out to court for the day?” so he does not lose his job, housing assignment, etc. (Id.) 5 Plaintiff is advised that the Court has determined that the case will benefit from an in- 6 person settlement conference to take place at CSP-COR during the post-screening ADR 7 (Alternative Dispute Resolution), and the conference will begin and conclude on June 3, 2024- 8 resulting in the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum being discharged. The Court must 9 schedule matters, such as this, in order to accommodate its calendar and to proceed with cases in 10 an efficient manner. To the extent Plaintiff objects to his transfer to CSP-COR for the 11 conference, Plaintiff is advised that should this case proceed to trial he will be required to be 12 transported to the Court to litigate this manner and he is required to do so with regard to all 13 matters scheduled in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to conduct the settlement 14 conference via Zoom videoconference is denied. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2024 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?