Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00386-6/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNATHAN HILL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. CLARK, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00386-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD 

BE BENEFICIAL

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

I. BACKGROUND

Johnathan Hill ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's 

original Complaint, filed on March 18, 2013, against defendant C/O J. Clark for use of excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and C/O A. Rivas for failure to protect Plaintiff in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.1

On June 3, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action, 

establishing a deadline of February 3, 2015 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a deadline 

 

1 On January 24, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this 

action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 17.)

Case 1:13-cv-00386-EPG Document 32 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

of April 15, 2015 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 25.) The pretrial 

deadlines have now expired. No pretrial dispositive motions were filed. At this stage of the 

proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

II. SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States 

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a 

prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court 

whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they 

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2 

Defendants= counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that 

would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall 

notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred 

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this 

order.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement 

is feasible.

3 The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make every 

reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.

Case 1:13-cv-00386-EPG Document 32 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2