Williams v. Daszko et al
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/15/16 ordering that within 14 days after service of this order, plaintiff and each defendant shall file separate statements that address the following: Whether a settlement conference may be hel pful in resolving this action and, if so, whether each party is amenable to participating in such conference. If affirmative, whether each party waives the disqualification of the undersigned magistrate judge to conduct the settlement conference, or requests that another magistrate judge be assigned for that purpose; and if affirmative, each party shall identify any date within the next 6 months when they are not available to participate in a settlement conference. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HILLIARD WILLIAMS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P
v.
ORDER
JAROM A. DASZKO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 14, 2016, the district judge
19
adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations, and thereby denied defendants’
20
respective motions for summary judgment premised on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his
21
administrative remedies. See ECF Nos. 37, 39. Accordingly, this case proceeds on plaintiff’s
22
Eighth Amendment claims that defendants Daszko and Mathis were deliberately indifferent to
23
plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
Before setting deadlines in this case for further discovery and dispositive motions, the
24
25
court would like to determine the parties’ willingness to participate in an early settlement
26
conference.
27
////
28
////
1
2
3
4
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days after service of
this order, plaintiff and each defendant shall file separate statements that address the following:
1. Whether a settlement conference may be helpful in resolving this action and, if so,
whether each party is amenable to participating in such conference;
2. If affirmative, whether each party waives the disqualification of the undersigned
6
magistrate judge to conduct the settlement conference, or requests that another magistrate judge
7
be assigned for that purpose; and
8
9
10
3. If affirmative, each party shall identify any dates within the next six months when they
are not available to participate in a settlement conference.
DATED: March 15, 2016
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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?