Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00653-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. A. BAIRES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO PRISONER 

SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND SETTING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Date: June 9, 2014 

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 24 (CKD)

Plaintiff Alex Lamota Marti, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2008. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Baires, Garza, and Knight for retaliation, in 

violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Docs. 12, 13.) 

Upon review, the Court finds it appropriate to refer this action to the Prisoner Settlement 

Program and to set it for a settlement conference on June 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. before United 

States Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney in Courtroom #24 of United States District Court, 

501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. This case is referred to the Prisoner Settlement Program and is set for a settlement 

conference on June 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. at in Courtroom #24 of the United States District Court, 

501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814.

Case 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 108 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 3
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

2. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to 

negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on Defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1 

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and relief 

sought. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear in 

person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will not proceed and 

will be reset to another date. 

4. Each party shall (1) provide a confidential settlement conference statement, 

described below, to Sujean Park, ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California, 

95814, or via e-mail at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, to arrive no later than May 27, 2014, and (2) file 

a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement (See Local Rule 270(d)).

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court or 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, e.g., 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.

 

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 by 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. Pittman 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., 

No. CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 108 Filed 04/01/14 Page 2 of 3
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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00653-AWI-SKO Document 108 Filed 04/01/14 Page 3 of 3