From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aubert v. Robles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 20, 2013
1:10-cv-00565-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)

Opinion

1:10-cv-00565-LJO-GSA-PC

12-20-2013

ESS'NN AUBERT, Plaintiff, v. H. ROBLES, Defendant.


ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO

NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD

BE BENEFICIAL


THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Ess'nn A. Aubert ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with the Complaint filed on April 1, 2010, against defendant Correctional Officer Hector Robles ("Defendant"), for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

On March 31, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order, establishing pretrial deadlines in this action. (Doc. 17.) On February 9, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the court on December 19, 2013. (Docs. 26, 39.) The pretrial deadlines have now expired. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendant shall notify the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.

The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement is feasible.

Defendant's counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendant shall file a written response to this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make every reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.
--------

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Aubert v. Robles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 20, 2013
1:10-cv-00565-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)
Case details for

Aubert v. Robles

Case Details

Full title:ESS'NN AUBERT, Plaintiff, v. H. ROBLES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 20, 2013

Citations

1:10-cv-00565-LJO-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)