Freeland v. Sacramento City et al

Filing 190

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/20/10 ordering within 21 days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate j udge or if they wish to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. The clerk of the court shall send each party the consent forms for settlement conferences. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2010, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Perez and Renzelman be granted in part and denied in part. On the same day, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants Vu, Villegas, Hansen, Sanchez be granted in part and denied in part. On March 16, 2010, the assigned district judge adopted both findings and recommendations in full and granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment. In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling 1 ORDER vs. SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES T. FREELAND, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0187 LKK DAD P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to proceed before a randomly-assigned magistrate judge; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences. DATED: April 20, 2010.

DAD:9 free0187.sc

2