Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-66/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 

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

complaint against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza and Masiel for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure 

to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda 

and Garcia for assault and battery in violation of state law. A jury trial is scheduled for March 10, 

2015. 

On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request that this matter be set for a settlement 

conference. (ECF No. 209.) On August 14, 2014, the Court ordered Defendants to file a written 

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

TO RESPOND TO THE COURT’S ORDER 

BEYOND TIME (ECF No. 221)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENECE (ECF No. 209) 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 09/29/14 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

response to Plaintiff’s request within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 216.) Defendants did not file a 

timely response. 

On September 26, 2014, Defendants filed a request to respond to the Court’s order beyond the 

original deadline. Defendants explain that defense counsel was called out of the office due to a family 

emergency on August 19, 2014, and did not return to the office until September 2, 2014. Counsel 

failed to calendar the response deadline and did not realize that Defendants had failed to file a timely 

response until contacted on September 26, 2014. (ECF No. 221.) Concurrent with the request, 

Defendants also filed their response to the Court’s order of August 14, 2014. In the response, 

Defendants indicate that they do not believe that settlement of this matter is possible or that the parties 

would benefit from settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 222.) 

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ request to file a response beyond the Court-ordered 

deadline is GRANTED. Based on Defendants’ response, however, Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a 

settlement conference is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 29, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 223 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 2