Spence v. Stambaugh et al

Filing 110

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/28/2019 ORDERING, within 7 days, counsel for defendants shall file and serve a non-confidential written statement informing the court and plaintiff whether they continue to believe a settlement c onference would be helpful in this case. If defendants wish to proceed with a settlement conference, they shall identify their combined black-out dates for the next four months, thus indicating all dates when all defense counsel are available to participate in a conference. Should defendants wish to proceed with a settlement conference, the court will again endeavor to schedule a conference at which plaintiff can appear telephonically. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALD SPENCE,

12

No. 2:14-cv-1170 WBS AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

STAMBAUGH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) challenges

19

plaintiff’s treatment when he was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on November 11,

20

2012.1 See ECF Nos. 47, 61. This case has been subject to numerous delays since its filing

21

through no fault of plaintiff. On June 7, 2019, the court stayed the action for a period of 120

22

days, and referred this case to the court’s Post-Screening ADR Pilot Project for the purpose of

23

scheduling a settlement conference. ECF No. 93. Despite the court’s efforts to schedule the

24

conference before a magistrate judge with whom plaintiff has had no prior interactions, and to

25
26
27
28

1

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s excessive force claims (Claims 2 through 4) against
defendants Southward, Stambaugh, Croley, Mrosinski, Ogle and Mundy, and on plaintiff’s failure
to intervene claims (Claims 5 and 6, in part) against defendants Mencias and Voss respectively.
See ECF No. 47 (SAC), ECF No. 61 (findings and recommendations), ECF No. 79 (order
adopting findings and recommendations).
1

1

enable plaintiff to appear telephonically to minimize the risks associated with being transported

2

temporarily to another facility, the scheduling of the conference proved problematic and plaintiff

3

was transported to another facility unnecessarily. Plaintiff has now filed a statement respectfully

4

expressing his frustrations and requesting that this action proceed with discovery. ECF No. 109.

5

Nevertheless, plaintiff “defers to the wisdom of the court to determine if an equitable settlement

6

can be reached.” ECF No. 109 at 2.

7

In a further effort to promote and achieve a fair process and result in this case, the court

8

orders as follows. Within seven (7) days after the filing date of this order, counsel for defendants

9

shall file and serve a non-confidential written statement informing the court and plaintiff whether

10

they continue to believe a settlement conference would be helpful in this case. If defendants wish

11

to proceed with a settlement conference, they shall identify their combined black-out dates for the

12

next four months, thus indicating all dates when all defense counsel are available to participate in

13

a conference. Should defendants wish to proceed with a settlement conference, the court will

14

again endeavor to schedule a conference at which plaintiff can appear telephonically.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2019

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2