Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124-30/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMY JAMISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHAHID, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-124-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER SETTING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Parties in their Stipulation requested a settlement conference be set for April 20, 

2016. ECF No. 224. Magistrate Judge Allison Claire was randomly selected to conduct the 

settlement conference. The requested date is not available for a settlement conference before 

Judge Claire, however, the date of April 21, 2016 is available. Therefore, this case will be 

referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom No. 26 on April 21, 2016 at 9:00 

a.m. 

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 

this order. 

///// 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 226 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 

April 21, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 

in Courtroom No. 26. 

 2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement on defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

 

 3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in person 

may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and will be 

reset to another date. 

 4. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement conference statement to the Court 

using the following email address: acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share 

additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of 

Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. 

 Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the court nor served on any 

other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time 

of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon. 

 1

While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district 

court has the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in 

mandatory settlement conferences... .” United States v. United States District Court for the 

Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012)(“the district court has 

broad authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conference[s].”). The term “full 

authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation conference must be 

authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms 

acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 

(7th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 

(9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion 

and authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. Pittman v. Brinker 

Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker 

Int’l, Inc., 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose behind requiring the attendance of a 

person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be altered during the 

face to face conference. Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar 

amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. 

Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F. 3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 226 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

 The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed 

or neatly printed, and include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case. 

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other 

grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of 

the parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a 

description of the major issues in dispute. 

c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, 

pretrial, and trial. 

e. The relief sought. 

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and 

offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands. 

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the 

settlement conference. 

DATED: July 27, 2015. 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 226 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 3