Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01293-23/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

MACK A. WEST, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOEL DIZON,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-1293-MCE-DB P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The court determined that this case will benefit from a settlement conference and 

referred it to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #24 on October 24, 2016 

at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 169.) The settlement conference, and corresponding order and writ of 

habeas corpus ad testificandum, will be vacated and reset before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 

Delany to occur at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #24 on January 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.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 settlement conference in this case set for October 24, 2016 is vacated and reset 

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 172 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on January 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom #24 at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

2. The order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued on July 28, 2016 is 

vacated, and a new order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue 

concurrently with this order.

3. Parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the 

Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The 

individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and 

authority” to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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 settle1.

4. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than January 

3, 2017 to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential 

settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, USDC CAED, 501 I 

Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than January 3, 

2017. The envelope shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE STATEMENT.” If a party desires to share additional confidential 

 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 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 172 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 

270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to 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.

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.

////

////

////

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 172 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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 4

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 

at KVSP via facsimile at (661) 720-4949.

DATED: September 9, 2016 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-01293-MCE-DB Document 172 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 4