Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 128)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on September 11, 2008. On May

27, 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel

and denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and denying Plaintiff’s motion for a status conference

and motion to conduct further discovery. (ECF No. 109.) Plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration

on July 1, 2011; July 15, 2011; and July 25, 2011, that are currently pending decision by the District

Court. (ECF No. 113, 115, 116.) On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to schedule pretrial

and trial dates. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied on September 7, 2011, and Plaintiff

was informed that once the District Court Judge has decided his motions for reconsideration a further

scheduling order would issue. (ECF No. 122.) Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification and

modification of the order for incamera review on September 15, 2011. (ECF No. 125.) Defendants 1

filed a motion for a protective order on October 3, 2011. (ECF No. 125.) On November 14, 2011,

The Court will address this motion once the District Court rules on Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration.

1

1

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 129 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff filed a motion for a telephonic conference, status conference and settlement conference. 

(ECF No. 128.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize settlement discussions at any pretrial

conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(9). While federal courts have the authority to require the parties to

engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss Graphic

Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001.) Defendants have not

indicated to the Court that they are willing to participate in a settlement conference. No settlement

conference will be scheduled until such time as both parties agree to participate in one. Plaintiff is

advised that this order does not preclude the parties from discussing settlement.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds it unnecessaryto conduct a status conference. 

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are addressed to the District Court and until the District Court

resolves the motions for reconsideration, there are no issues to be addressed at a hearing. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’smotion for a telephone conference, status conference, and settlement

conference, filed November 14, 2011, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 129 Filed 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2