Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN D. SHEAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VANG,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Date: February 22, 2016

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 24 (CKD)

Plaintiff Herman D. Shead (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 5, 2009. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant Vang (“Defendant”) for excessive force, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s motion to set 

aside judgment and reopen the case was granted on August 13, 2015; and on August 17, 2015, 

parties were ordered to notify the Court if either party believed a settlement conference would be 

beneficial. (Doc. 112.) Both parties filed a response indicating they each believe a settlement 

conference will be beneficial in this case. (Docs. 114, 118.) Therefore, this case will be referred 

to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #24 on February 22, 2016, at 

9:30 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will be issued.

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 119 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

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

1. A settlement conference is set for February 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 

#24 before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California, 95814.

2. Defendant is instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at 

the Settlement Conference or to have full authority to settle the matter on any terms. The 

individual with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to 

change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. 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. 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.1

3. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than 

February 1, 2016, to jcrouch@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement 

statement to U. S. District Court, ADR Division, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California,

95814, and ensure it is received no later than February 1, 2016. If a party desires to share 

additional confidential information with the Court, he may do so pursuant to the provisions of 

Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of

Confidential Settlement Statement” (see Local Rule 270(d)).

///

 

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 

Afull 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 by Official Airline 

Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have 

Aunfettered 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., No. 

CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 119 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

4. Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court or served on 

the other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and 

time of the settlement conference indicated prominently thereon.

5. 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 pretrial proceedings

and trial;

e. The amount of restitution owed by the plaintiff;

f. The relief sought;

g. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands; and

h. A brief statement of the party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 119 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3