Randle v. Goodwin et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/16/2018 OVERRULING 26 Plaintiff's objections; DENYING without prejudice 26 Request for Appointment of Counsel; and SETTING case for settlement conference on 4/3/2018 at 9:00a.m.. Writ for plaintiff's attendance by videoconference on 4/3/2018 was issued in 2:17-cv-1700 KJN P on 1/10/2018. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2419 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. GOODWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. By order filed January 3, 2018, the instant

18

action was referred to the ADR project, and the parties were informed that it would be set for

19

settlement conference on the same day as plaintiff’s other pending case, Randle v. Elizarraras,

20

No. 2:17-cv-1700 KJN (E.D. Cal.), for purposes of judicial economy and to save the parties’ time

21

and resources. (ECF No. 24 at 1.) On January 9, 2018, plaintiff filed objections to defendants’

22

request to concurrently set such settlement conferences. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff argues that each

23

case involves different claims against different individuals and allege different constitutional

24

violations. Plaintiff states he is not trying to waste the court’s time, but wants to ensure he is

25

getting a fair value assessment of each case on its own merit. In the alternative, plaintiff asks the

26

court to appoint counsel to represent him during the negotiations.

27
28

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. It is not uncommon for the court to address all of a
litigant’s pending cases in connection with settlement negotiations in one case. The merits of
1

1

each case are discussed, and the value of each case is taken into consideration. Because the

2

settlement conference is set for April 3, 2018, plaintiff has sufficient time to review his cases and

3

determine each case’s value prior to the settlement conference. If plaintiff believes a settlement

4

offer is not fair, he is not required to accept such offer.

5

With regard to his request for counsel, plaintiff has not shown good cause for such

6

appointment or otherwise demonstrated exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of

7

counsel for settlement purposes. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

8

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Circumstances common to most prisoners,

9

such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

10

circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

11

Therefore, this matter is set for settlement conference on April 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in

12

Courtroom #25 before the undersigned. The parties are instructed to have a principal with full

13

settlement authority present for the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the

14

matter on any terms. The individual with full settlement authority to settle must also have

15

unfettered discretion and authority to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate.

16

The purpose behind requiring attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the

17

parties view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to

18

settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement

19

of full authority to settle. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement

20

conference statements seven days prior to this settlement conference. These statements shall be

21

simultaneously mailed or delivered to the Court using the following email address:

22

[e-mail]. These statements should not be filed on the case docket. If a party

23

desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the

24

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

25

As ordered in Randle v. Elizarraras, No. 2:17-cv-1700 KJN P, plaintiff shall appear via

26

videoconference. (Id., ECF No. 19.) Because a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued on

27

January 10, 2018, for plaintiff’s appearance on April 3, 2018, no additional writ is required. (Id.)

28

////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 26) are overruled;

3

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 26) is denied without

4
5

prejudice; and
3. This case is set for settlement conference on April 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., before the

6

undersigned. The writ for plaintiff’s attendance by videoconference on April 3, 2018, was issued

7

in No. 2:17-cv-1700 KJN P on January 10, 2018.

8

Dated: January 16, 2018

9
10
/rand2419.objs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3