Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. L. DEAZEVEDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Date: 04/02/2015

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom 25 (KJN)

This case has been selected for inclusion in the Prisoner Settlement Program based on the 

parties’ agreement that a settlement conference may be beneficial. This case is referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25 on April 2, 2015, at 

1:00 p.m.

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

this order.

In accordance with the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follow:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge 

Kendall J. Newman on April 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25.

///

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 98 Filed 03/27/15 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

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

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.

1,2

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. The parties are requested to send Judge Newman a settlement conference statement as 

soon as possible but prior to April 2, 2015, so that he may ascertain each party’s 

expectations of the settlement conference.

5. The settlement conference statements shall address whether there have been any 

previous settlement negotiations.

6. The Court recognizes that the timeline is short. Therefore, Deputy Attorney General 

R. Lawrence Bragg is requested to send a copy of this order to the Litigation 

Coordinator at California State Prison-Sacramento by facsimile and request it be hand 

delivered to Plaintiff as soon as possible.

///

///

///

 

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 

Afull 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 by Official Airline 

Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have 

Aunfettered 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., No. 

CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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).

2 Defense counsel Susan Coleman may appear by telephone.

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 98 Filed 03/27/15 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

7. The Clerk’s Office shall serve this order and the other two concurrently issued orders 

on Plaintiff at his address of record and at California State Prison-Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 98 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3