Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01264-4/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 

ZACHARIAH DANIELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. FOX, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1264 GEB AC P 

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit 

from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Gregory 

G. Hollows to conduct a settlement conference at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #9 (13th Floor) on May 4, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. 

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

this order. 

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

1. A settlement conference is set for May 4, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #9 (13th 

Floor) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01264-GEB-AC Document 32 Filed 11/29/16 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

2. Each party is directed to have a principal capable of disposition at the Settlement 

Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms at the Settlement 

Conference1. 

3. Each party is directed to submit to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Gregory G. 

Hollows, not later than April 27, 2017, a confidential settlement conference statement 

via email to gghorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential 

settlement statement to arrive not later than April 27, 2017, addressed to Sujean Park, 

ADR & Pro Bono Program Director, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, 

Sacramento, California 95814. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential 

Settlement Statement.” Such statements are neither to be filed with the Clerk nor 

served on opposing counsel. However, each party shall file a “Notice of Submission 

of Confidential Settlement Statement.” See L.R. 270(d). 

4. 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 

 

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 2:15-cv-01264-GEB-AC Document 32 Filed 11/29/16 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

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. 

h. Any other matter relevant to settlement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01264-GEB-AC Document 32 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3