Opinion
1:17-cv-00038-AWI-GSA-PC
05-23-2020
JAMAR R. HEARNS, Plaintiff, v. ROSA GONZALES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
I. BACKGROUND
Jamar Hearns ("Plaintiff") is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 9, 2018, against defendant Rosa Gonzales ("Defendant") on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation, violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and violation of the Bane Act. (ECF No. 17.)
On April 16, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action. (ECF No. 21.)
On July 16, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting out deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of January 16, 2019 to complete discovery and a deadline of February 14, 2019, to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 27.) On August 31, 2018, the court extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions to March 14, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) On January 18, 2019, the court extended the discovery deadline to March 4, 2019, for a limited purpose and the deadline to file dispositive motions to May 4, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) All of the deadlines have now expired and no dispositive motions are pending.
At this stage of the proceedings the court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial. However, on May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to schedule a settlement conference for this case. (ECF No. 58.)
II. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES
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. Defendant shall notify the court whether he believes, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether he is 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.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, 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. --------
Dated: May 23 , 2020
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE