Riggs v. Grounds et al

Filing 81

ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; DENYING 78 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Isaac Riggs, DENYING 79 MOTION Requesting Rescheduling of Settlement Conference filed by Isaac Riggs. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/17/16. (Certificate of Service Attached) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ISAAC RIGGS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-05864-PJH
ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
R.T.C. GROUNDS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 79

Defendants.

12
13

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. Defendant’s motion

14

for summary judgment was denied and this case was referred for a settlement

15

conference with Magistrate Judge Vadas. The settlement conference was scheduled for

16

March 10, 2016, at Solano State Prison. A Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum was

17

issued for plaintiff to transfer him from his facility, Salinas Valley State Prison, to Solano

18

State Prison for the settlement conference. A conference call was held between plaintiff,

19

the attorney for defendant, and Magistrate Judge Vadas on March 1, 2016, and the

20

matter remained set for the settlement conference.

21

On March 3, 2016, plaintiff was to be transported to Solano State Prison for the

22

settlement conference the following week. Prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison

23

reported that plaintiff refused to board the bus to be transported to Solano State Prison.

24

Due to plaintiff’s refusal to participate in the settlement conference, Magistrate Judge

25

Vadas vacated the settlement conference and returned the case to the undersigned.

26

Plaintiff has filed a letter stating that he did not know that he was to be transported

27

to Solano State Prison on March 3, 2016, and prison officials came to transport him at

28

5:00 am. Plaintiff states he had not packed, he was not provided enough time to pack,

1

prison officials did not he him pac and he n
s
elp
ck,
needs extra time beca
a
ause he is d
disabled.

2

As a result, he was not transported. Plaintiff s
e
seeks for th settlement conferen to be
he
nce

3

res
scheduled.

4

In this case the Court and de
C
efendant’s a
attorney ex
xpended tim and effort to
me

5

pre
epare for th settlement conferen and pla
he
nce
aintiff was aware that h would be
he
e

6

transported based on the conferenc call on M
e
ce
March 1, 20
016. If plain wishes to continue
ntiff
e

7

wit this case he must fo
th
e
ollow Court orders. Th case wil again be referred to Magistrate
his
ll

8

Jud Vadas for settlem
dge
ment procee
edings pursu
uant to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement

9

Pro
ogram. The proceedin will take place with one hu
e
ngs
e
hin
undred and twenty da of the
d
ays
date this orde is filed. Magistrate Judge Vada will coor
er
M
J
as
rdinate a tim and date for a
me
e

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

set
ttlement pro
oceeding with all intere
w
ested partie and/or th represe
es
heir
entatives and, within

12

fiv days afte the conclusion of the proceedin
ve
er
ngs, file wit the court a report of the
th
t
f

13

pro
oceedings.

14

Lest th
here be any doubt as to the impor
y
o
rtance and mandatory nature of t
y
the

15

set
ttlement pro
oceedings, the parties are hereby ordered to attend the proceedin and
s
y
o
e
ngs

16

tak part in th
ke
hem. Plaint is now cautioned th failure to attend or take part in the
tiff
hat
o
n

17

set
ttlement co
onference may result in the dismis
m
n
ssal of this action. He is not requ
e
uired to

18

set the case, but he must attend and take p in settle
ttle
m
part
ement discu
ussions.

19

For the foregoing reasons, th case is r
e
he
re-referred to Magistra Judge V
ate
Vadas for

20

set
ttlement pro
oceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program. The Clerk
o
e

21

will send to Magistrate Judge Vada in the Eureka Divisio a copy of this orde In view
M
as
on,
er.

22

of the re-refer
rral, this cas is STAY
se
YED pendin the settle
ng
ement proce
eedings. P
Plaintiff’s

23

mo
otions (Docket Nos. 78 79) are DENIED.
8,
D

24
25

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: March 17, 2016
h

26
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

27
28

\\CA
ANDOAK\Data\Users\PJHALL\_p
psp\2013\2013_0
05864_Riggs_v_G
Grounds_(PSP)\
\13-cv-05864-PJ
JH-ord.docx

2

1
2

UNITED STATES D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CAL
N
RN
CT
LIFORNIA

4
5

IS
SAAC RIGG
GS,

Case No. 13-cv-058
864-PJH

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

R.T.C. GROUNDS, et al.,
R
a
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned hereby ce
u
d,
ertify that I am an emp
ployee in th Office of the Clerk,
he
f
U.S District Court, North
S.
C
hern Distric of Californ
ct
nia.
That on March 17 2016, I SERVED a t
7,
true and correct copy(ies) of the a
attached,
by placing said copy(ies) in a posta paid en velope add
age
dressed to t person(
the
(s)
hereinafter lis
sted, by dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing sa
d
e
y
aid
copy(ies) into an inter-of
o
ffice deliver receptaclle located in the Clerk office.
ry
k's

16
17
18

aac Riggs ID: E-26630
I
0
Isa
Sa
alinas Valley State Pris C7/126
y
son
6
P.O Box 105
O.
50
So
oledad, CA 93960

19
20

ated: March 17, 2016
h
Da

21
22
23

Susan Y. So
oong
Clerk, United States Dis
d
strict Court
C

24
25
26

y:________
_________
_________
By
Nichole Peric Deputy C
c,
Clerk to the
e
Honorable P
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
N

27
28
3