Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01867-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

TRAVARE GRANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1867 MCE KJN P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from a settlement 

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone to 

conduct a settlement conference at California State Prison, Corcoran, 4001 King Avenue, 

Corcoran, California 93212 on June 24, 2016.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone

on June 24, 2016, at California State Prison, Corcoran, 4001 King Avenue, Corcoran, 

California 93212. The start time for the settlement conference will be determined at a 

later date and will be set by separate order. 

////

Case 2:14-cv-01867-MCE-KJN Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 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. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

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

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 provide a confidential settlement statement to the following email 

address: saborders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement 

statement to Sujean Park, ADR & Pro Bono Program Director, USDC CAED, 501 I 

Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814. The envelope shall be marked 

“Confidential Settlement Statement”. Settlement statements shall arrive no later than 

June 17, 2016. Parties shall also 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 nor served on 

any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked Aconfidential@ 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:

 

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 2:14-cv-01867-MCE-KJN Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 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

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.

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

Coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran, via facsimile at (559) 992-7372.

Dated: May 25, 2016

Gran1867.med

Case 2:14-cv-01867-MCE-KJN Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 3