Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02076/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02076-1/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

CHARLES MCCLOUGH,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JIMMY KEENER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-02076-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD 

BE BENEFICIAL

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

I. BACKGROUND

Charles McClough ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the initial Complaint 

filed by Plaintiff on December 26, 2012, against defendants Keener, Gonzales, Longoria, 

Flores, Cahlander, and Felix (collectively “Defendants”) for use of excessive force against 

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)1

On April 1, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action, 

establishing a deadline of December 4, 2014 for the parties to conduct discovery, including 

filing motions to compel, and a deadline of February 9, 2015 for the filing of pretrial 

dispositive motions. (Doc. 21.) On December 17, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s request 

for a thirty-day extension of time to file a discovery motion. (Doc. 29.) The thirty-day time 

period passed, and Plaintiff did not file a discovery motion or request additional time. The 

pretrial deadlines have now expired, and no motions are pending. At this stage of the 

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

 

1 On September 16, 2013, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. 8.)

Case 1:12-cv-02076-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 02/26/15 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

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.2 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.3 

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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The court has received notice that Plaintiff was paroled, and Plaintiff has filed a notice of 

change of address to a street address in Fresno, California. (Court Record, Doc. 31.)

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

settlement is feasible.

4 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 1:12-cv-02076-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 2