Ingram v. Sterling et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 20 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Court-Ordered Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 4/20/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

Case No.: 14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB)

CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM,
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION FOR COURTORDERED SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE

K. STERLING, ET AL.,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion seeking a Court-ordered

22

settlement conference pursuant to Rules 16(a), (c) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure. (ECF No. 20.) On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint

24

(“SAC”) against defendants K. Sterling, K. Balakian, K.A. Seibel, and Warden Paramo

25

(collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 18.) Defendants have not yet responded to the

26

SAC.

27

The Court will issue an order setting a Case Management Conference only after

28

Defendants file an answer to the SAC. Shortly after the Case Management Conference,
1
14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB)

1

the Court will issue a scheduling order. The scheduling order will set forth a date for a

2

Mandatory Settlement Conference before the magistrate judge.1

3

If the parties wish to stipulate to an earlier settlement conference before the

4

magistrate judge, the parties may do so. However, as Defendants have not yet filed an

5

answer to the SAC, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 20, 2016
_________________________
DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(e), an Early Neutral Evaluation
Conference will not be set in this matter. See Civ. L.R. 16.1(e)(8). In addition, a Rule
26(f) conference is not required because Plaintiff, who is in state custody, is bringing this
action pro se. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B), (f).
2
14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB)