Walker v. Jones et al

Filing 193

Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding. Case Not Settled. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 10/18/12. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 JEFFREY WALKER, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v 15 OFFICER JONES, et al. Case No C 08-757 CRB REPORT OF PRO SE PRISONER EARLY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING Defendants. 16 17 18 A settlement conference in this matter was held on October 16, 2012 in San 19 20 Francisco. The results of that proceeding are indicated below: 21 (1) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives participated in the proceeding, each possessing the requisite settlement authority: : Plaintiff’s counsel Donald Brown and Robert Williams and Plaintiff by phone 9 Warden or warden’s representative 9 Office of the California Attorney General : Other: Office of the City Attorney, Michael Gerchow 1 (2) The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives did not appear: 2 (3) The outcome of the proceeding was: 3 4 9 The case has been completely settled. 9 The case has been partially resolved and, on or before 5 _______________________, counsel for defendants shall file a joint stipulation specifying 6 those claims which have been resolved and those that remain to be resolved by the Court. 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 The parties agree to an additional follow up settlement on ______________________________________________________________________. : The parties are unable to reach an agreement at this time. Date: 10/18/12 _______________________________ Nandor J Vadas United States Magistrate Judge

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?