Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302-8/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

CLARENCE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2302 WBS KJN P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have indicated that further settlement conference is appropriate. 

Therefore, this case is set for further settlement conference before the undersigned on Tuesday, 

October 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95814 in Courtroom #25. 

In light of the above, defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. 

Discovery is closed. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to thirty days after the further 

settlement conference is held, provided the case does not settle. 

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

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 48 Filed 09/15/15 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

1. This case is set for settlement conference before the undersigned on Tuesday, October 

20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #25.

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement 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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the 

court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his 

non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement 

conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 

4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked “Settlement Statement.” If a party 

desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the 

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

 

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-02302-WBS-KJN Document 48 Filed 09/15/15 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

5. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 45) is granted.

6. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to thirty days after October 20, 2015, if the 

case does not settle.

Dated: September 14, 2015

robe2302.med2

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 48 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3