Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02691/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02691-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

K. STERLING, ET AL., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR COURTORDERED SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion seeking a Court-ordered 

settlement conference pursuant to Rules 16(a), (c) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (ECF No. 20.) On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) against defendants K. Sterling, K. Balakian, K.A. Seibel, and Warden Paramo 

(collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 18.) Defendants have not yet responded to the 

SAC. 

 The Court will issue an order setting a Case Management Conference only after 

Defendants file an answer to the SAC. Shortly after the Case Management Conference, 

Case 3:14-cv-02691-GPC-DHB Document 21 Filed 04/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

14-cv-02691-GPC(DHB) 

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

the Court will issue a scheduling order. The scheduling order will set forth a date for a 

Mandatory Settlement Conference before the magistrate judge.1

 

If the parties wish to stipulate to an earlier settlement conference before the 

magistrate judge, the parties may do so. However, as Defendants have not yet filed an 

answer to the SAC, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 20, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

                                              

1

 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(e), an Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference will not be set in this matter. See Civ. L.R. 16.1(e)(8). In addition, a Rule 

26(f) conference is not required because Plaintiff, who is in state custody, is bringing this 

action pro se. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B), (f). 

Case 3:14-cv-02691-GPC-DHB Document 21 Filed 04/21/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2