Simental v. Adams et al

Filing 33

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM 29 31 32 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/4/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RUDY SIMENTAL, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 NANCY ADAMS, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00801-SI ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 31 12 13 This case was set for a settlement conference on November 9, 2017, before Magistrate 14 Judge Kellison in the Eastern District of California, who intended to make use of students from the 15 University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Prison Civil Rights Mediation Program in 16 conducting the settlement conference. The settlement conference did not go forward that day 17 because transportation problems arose (i.e., a wheelchair accessible van was not available to take 18 plaintiff to the courthouse) and plaintiff thereafter refused to participate by videoconference or 19 telephone. 20 Thereafter, the parties again expressed interest in having a settlement conference. 21 Plaintiff’s motion to reschedule a settlement conference is GRANTED. Docket No. 29. However, 22 the settlement conference will take place in the Northern District of California because the case no 23 longer fits with the schedule for the McGeorge School of Law Prison Civil Rights Mediation 24 Program. 25 Good cause appearing therefor, this case is now referred to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman 26 for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. (Although the 27 program is called a mediation program, Magistrate Judge Illman also may conduct settlement 28 conferences in his efforts to resolve cases referred through this program.) The proceedings will 1 take place within one hundred twenty days of the date this order is filed. Magistrate Judge 2 Illman will coordinate a time and date for a settlement proceeding with all interested parties and/or 3 their representatives and, within five days after the conclusion of the settlement proceedings, file 4 with the court a report for the proceedings. The court was dismayed to learn that plaintiff declined to speak with Magistrate Judge 6 Kellison by telephone and/or videoconference after the transportation problem arose on the day of 7 the earlier scheduled settlement conference. A fair amount of judicial resources are consumed 8 preparing for settlement conferences and are wasted when a scheduled conference does not 9 proceed. To avoid that happening again, plaintiff is now specifically ordered to attend and 10 participate in the settlement conference proceedings. He does not have to reach a settlement or 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 other resolution of his claims, but he absolutely must attend and participate in all the settlement 12 conference proceedings. The conference may be set up so that he will appear in person, by 13 videoconference or by telephone -- and he must attend whatever format Magistrate Judge Illman 14 chooses. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may be sanctioned for failure to comply with an order to 15 participate in a settlement conference, and such sanctions may include dismissal of part or all of 16 the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a), (f), and 41(b). 17 Defendants’ motion to file a long brief and to extend the deadline to file a summary 18 judgment motion is GRANTED. Docket No. 31. The court now VACATES the briefing schedule 19 for the motion for summary judgment. If the parties are unable to resolve this action during 20 settlement proceedings, the court will later set a new briefing schedule. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?