Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01793/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01793-5/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

WILLIAM BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1793 KJM KJN P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through retained counsel, with a complaint filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California state law. The court has determined that this case will 

benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be set for a settlement conference

before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on November 9, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25. 

The parties will be required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification (included below)

no later than October 14, 2016. 

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

this order.

Case 2:13-cv-01793-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/01/16 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 Kendall J. 

Newman on November 9, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

2. Parties are required to file a signed Waiver of Disqualification, no later than October 

14, 2016. 

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

settlement shall attend in person.1

4. 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.

5. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 

to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@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).

Dated: July 1, 2016

/bark1793.med

 

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. Pitman 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 2:13-cv-01793-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/01/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1793 KJM KJN P

WAIVER OF DISQUALIFICATION

Under Local Rule 270(b) of the Eastern District of California, the parties to the herein 

action affirmatively request that Magistrate Judge Newman participate in the settlement 

conference scheduled for November 9, 2016. To the extent the parties consent to trial of the case 

before the assigned magistrate judge, they waive any claim of disqualification to the assigned 

magistrate judge trying the case thereafter. 

 

By: 

 Attorney for plaintiff

Dated:_________________

 

By: 

 Attorney for defendants

Dated:_________________

Case 2:13-cv-01793-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 3