Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-46/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

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

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Discovery closed on December 15, 2014, though there are numerous unopposed motions to 

compel pending.

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SETTLMENT CONFERENCE

(Document 129)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 131 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 2
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

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a Court-ordered settlement.

The Court will not order a settlement conference unless both parties agree that such a 

conference would be beneficial. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s 

motion within fourteen (14) days by informing the Court whether they believe a settlement conference 

would be beneficial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 131 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 2