Buckley v. High Desert State Prison

Full title: JULES BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 12, 2015

2:11-cv-01310 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2015)

Opinion

JULES BUCKLEY, Plaintiff, v. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-01310 KJM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. April 12, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendant A. E. Ritola violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting plaintiff to unconstitutional prison working conditions.

         On September 17, 2013, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order in this case that required the parties to file all pretrial motions on or before March 28, 2014. (ECF No. 28.) The court advised the parties that it would set pretrial conference and trial dates, as appropriate, after adjudication of any dispositive motion or upon expiration of the time for filing such a motion.

         On March 25, 2014, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) On November 26, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 36.) On February 9, 2015, the assigned district judge issued an order adopting those findings and recommendations in their entirety. (ECF No. 39.)

         In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of videoconferencing. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, the parties shall each inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating that they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program.

         2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences.