Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06572/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06572-8/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 At the time defendants electronically filed their request, the Clerk’s Office had not yet docketed plaintiff’s 1

pre-trial statement.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN R. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. R. BUSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06572 LJO P

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNSIGNED

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT (Doc. 88) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST, VACATING SECOND

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND DIRECTING

PARTIES TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT

ISSUES AND NOTIFY COURT WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS IF A SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE BEFORE THE COURT IS

NECESSARY (Docs. 85 and 86)

On August 17, 2006, the Court issued the Second Scheduling Order and set this matter for

telephonic trial confirmation hearing on September 28, 2006, and jury trial on November 9, 2006.

Plaintiff was ordered to file a pre-trial statement by September 5, 2006, and defendants were ordered

to file a pre-trial statement by September 18, 2006.

On September 7, 2006, plaintiff filed an unsigned pre-trial statement, and on September 8,

2006, defendants filed a request for relief from the scheduling order and a continuance of the trial

date. The basis for defendants’ request is the possibility that the parties might be able to settle this

1

matter.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06572-LJO Document 90 Filed 09/12/06 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 The settlement conference will be set before a judge other than the undersigned. 2

2

Because plaintiff failed to sign his pre-trial statement, it must be stricken from the record.

Local Rule 7-131; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); First Informational Order, ¶2. The Court notes, however,

that the statement expresses plaintiff’s possible amenability to settlement.

The Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to allow the parties to explore settlement

without expending further resources on trial preparation. The parties shall have thirty days to discuss

the possibility of settlement and determine whether a settlement conference before a judge is

necessary or would be helpful in resolving this matter. If plaintiff and defendants both desire a

settlement conference, the Court will set one. The Court is aware that it may take more than thirty 2

days for defendants’ counsel to obtain settlement authority. However, thirty days should be

sufficient for the parties to confer and determine whether a settlement conference before the Court

is necessary. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s pre-trial statement is STRICKEN for lack of signature;

2. Defendants’ request is GRANTED and the Second Scheduling Order is VACATED;

and

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the parties shall, after

conferring, notify the Court whether or not a settlement conference before the Court

is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06572-LJO Document 90 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2