Rojas v. Loza et al

Filing 49

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT; STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF TO CANCEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 3, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2010)

Rojas v. Loza et al

Doc. 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) R. LOZA, Correctional Officer, R. ) SINGH, Correctional Officer, D. SANDOVAL, Correctional Officer, ) ) ) Defendants. ______________________________ ) JAHIR ALBERTO ROJAS, No. C 07-4662 MMC (PR) ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT; STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF TO CANCEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK (Docket No. 45)

On September 10, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Tehachapi State Prison, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). Thereafter, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas to conduct settlement proceedings; on July 26, 2010, Magistrate Judge Vadas notified the Court that the case had not settled.1

The settlement conference was scheduled for the morning of Tuesday, July 6, 2010, the first work day after the long July 4th holiday weekend. On Friday, July 2, defendants 26 electronically filed a motion for administrative relief to cancel the settlement conference, on the ground defendants were not inclined to settle the case. (Docket No. 45.) In view of the 27 motion having been filed only one work day before the scheduled settlement conference, the motion was not reviewed by the Court until after the settlement conference had been held. 28 Consequently, the motion is hereby DENIED as moot.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Good cause appearing, plaintiff is hereby REFERRED to the Federal Pro Bono Project for the purpose of locating an attorney to represent plaintiff in this matter. The Clerk of the court shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (1) a copy of this order, (2) a memorandum outlining the facts and procedural posture of the action, and (3) a copy of the court file. Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the Court. All proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED until four weeks from the date an attorney is appointed to represent plaintiff in the instant action. This order terminates Docket No. 45. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 3, 2010 __________________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2