Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-26/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 92)

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and against Defendants Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment due process rights.

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to set this matter for a video 

settlement conference. (ECF No. 92.) The Court directed Defendants to file a brief written 

response indicating whether they are also willing to participate in a settlement conference in this 

matter. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants filed a response on March 28, 2023, stating that at this time, a 

third formal settlement conference does not appear to be a worthwhile use of resources for the 

parties or the Court. (ECF No. 94.) Defendants also indicate that they have sent Plaintiff 

correspondence inviting a written settlement demand and have a teleconference scheduled with 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 95 Filed 03/29/23 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

Plaintiff on March 29, 2023. (Id.)

Without a clear indication from all parties to the action that they are willing to discuss 

settlement, the Court does not find that it would be an efficient use of judicial resources to set this 

case for a settlement conference at this time. The parties are reminded that they are free to settle 

this matter without judicial involvement at any time by communicating among themselves. If in 

the future the parties jointly decide that this action would benefit from a Court-facilitated 

settlement conference, or if they are able to reach an independent settlement agreement, they may 

so inform the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference, (ECF No. 92), is HEREBY 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 95 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 2