Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MINER, et al.,

Defendants.

No 2:11-cv-2548 TLN DAD P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the court’s April 22, 2014 order, the 

parties have informed the court that they wish to refer this matter to the court’s mediation 

program for a settlement conference. After consultation with the court’s A.D.R. and Pro Bono 

Coordinator, the court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan to conduct a 

settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #8 on July 31, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff will appear at that settlement conference 

via video-conference.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 

this order.

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 56 Filed 06/12/14 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

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. 

Brennan on July 31, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #8.

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. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR 

Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814, or by email to 

spark@caed.uscourts.gov so they arrive no later than July 24, 2014 and file a Notice 

of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement (See L.R. 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 “confidential” with the date and 

 

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. Pittman 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 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 56 Filed 06/12/14 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

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:

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. Plaintiff’s motion to appear via video-conference (Doc. No. 54) is granted.

Dated: June 11, 2014

DAD:9

long2548.med

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 56 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 3