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