Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00865-16/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

ANTHONY D. WAFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. SUESBERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Anthony D. Wafer (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action 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 Sheila K. Oberto for the court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a 

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in 

Courtroom #7 on June 12, 2014, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto

on June 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, 

California 93721 in Courtroom #7.

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 76 Filed 05/01/14 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 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 statement to Sujean Park, ADR 

Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to 

spark@caed.uscourts.gov so they arrive no later than May 29, 2014, and file a Notice 

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

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.

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.

 

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 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 76 Filed 05/01/14 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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00865-AWI-BAM Document 76 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 3