Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01523/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01523-23/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 

DEVONTE B. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

L. ZAMUDIO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-1523 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 

On August 31, 2016, the court heard argument on defendants’ motion for leave to file a 

second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 136) and motion to compel (ECF No. 149).1 

During the hearing, the parties both stated that they were amenable to participating in a settlement 

conference and were directed to file notices advising the court whether they would waive 

disqualification of the undersigned acting as settlement judge. Due to this case being set for a 

settlement conference, the pretrial order and any deadlines contained therein (ECF No. 141), as 

well as the October 17, 2016 trial date, will be vacated. At the hearing the parties were advised 

that based on the assigned District Judge’s current availability, trial would be rescheduled for 

some time in fall of 2017 and would be subject to rescheduling should it conflict with a criminal 

trial. The parties were further advised that they could, if they so desired, consent to Magistrate 

 

1

 A separate order will issue addressing defendants’ motions. 

Case 2:09-cv-01523-TLN-AC Document 153 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Judge jurisdiction, which would likely result in an earlier trial date that would be more likely to 

proceed as scheduled. 

So that the trial may be rescheduled before the proper judge, the parties must each submit 

a notice advising the court whether they consent or decline to proceed before a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If all parties consent, trial will be rescheduled 

before the undersigned. If any party declines, trial will be rescheduled before the assigned 

District Judge. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. By close of business on September 2, 2016, the parties must each file a notice with the 

court advising whether they will waive disqualification of the undersigned acting as settlement 

judge. The matter will in any case be scheduled before the first available settlement judge. 

2. By close of business on September 2, 2016, the parties must each file a notice advising 

the court whether they consent or decline to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

3. The pretrial order and any deadlines contained therein (ECF No. 141) are vacated. A 

new pretrial order will issue, if necessary, after completion of the settlement conference. 

4. The October 17, 2016 trial is vacated. Trial will be rescheduled before the proper 

judge once the parties return notices advising whether they consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. 

DATED: September 1, 2016 

Case 2:09-cv-01523-TLN-AC Document 153 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2