From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Arnette

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)

Opinion

1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC

06-07-2022

JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. ARNETTE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

GARY S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. BACKGROUND

Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's ADA claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzalez, Flores, Arnett, Zamora, and Lopez; Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener and Gonzalez; and Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzalez.

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to schedule this case for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 126.)

II. SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

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. Defendants 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.

Defendants' 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.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, counsel for Defendants shall file a written response to this order, notifying 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jones v. Arnette

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Jones v. Arnette

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. ARNETTE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 7, 2022

Citations

1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)