Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01346/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01346-5/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 

DANIEL J. NORMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DR. RIAZ, 

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1346 GEB AC P 

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

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

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison to 

conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95814, in Courtroom #4, on March 9, 2017, at 9:00 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 case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison 

on March 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814, in Courtroom #4. 

Case 2:15-cv-01346-GEB-AC Document 31 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 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 

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. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 

either by telephone or in person, approximately two weeks prior to the settlement 

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference. 

5. The dispositive motion deadline in this case, currently March 17, 2017, is vacated 

pending further order of this court following the settlement conference. 

DATED: January 17, 2017 

 

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 2:15-cv-01346-GEB-AC Document 31 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 2