Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HUTTON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-99-6613 OWW SMS P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S STATUS

REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT (Doc.

100) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF COURTESY COPY OF

DOCUMENTS 99 AND 100. 

On April 18, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff, Robert M. Parker, Counsel for Defendants,

Jennifer Perkell and Mr. Mike Hanready, Representative for the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, appeared telephonically for a settlement conference before the

undersigned and settlement was reached. Counsel for Defendants indicated that Plaintiff would

be required to sign certain documents before he would receive his monetary settlement, less any

restitution before the settlement would conclude. In addition to the agreement to settle, Plaintiff

indicated to the Court that he was recently transferred from California Men’s Colony East in San

Luis Obispo to Pleasant Valley State Prison and is in the process of filing a Notice of Change of

Address with the Court. The Court received that Notice of Change of Address on April 27,

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 101 Filed 07/05/06 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

2006. The Notice indicated that the change of address was also sent to Jennifer Perkell, Deputy

Attorney General assigned to this case. 

On May 19, 2006, pursuant to a Court Order, Defendants filed a Status report indicating

that they had not received the documents previously sent to Plaintiff for his signature and return

nor had there been any form of contact by Plaintiff to Defendants. 

On June 22, 2006, Defendants filed a second Status Report again indicating that there had

been no contact by Plaintiff regarding the documents and the documents had not been signed by

Plaintiff and returned to the Attorney General’s office for processing and the issuance of a check

for Plaintiff’s monetary settlement. In light of the lack of contact by Plaintiff with the Court and

the opposing party in this matter, the Court finds it necessary to issue the following Order

requiring Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Status Report. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff shall RESPOND to Defendant’s Status Reports within TWENTY (20)

days of the date of service of this Order and SHALL address specifically why he

has not returned the necessary documents to the Defendants for completion of the

settlement. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff courtesy copies of

Documents 99 and 100 (Defendant’s Status Reports). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 101 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2