Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05893/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05893-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05893-EMC 

ORDER

Docket Nos. 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288

On August 19, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and referred this action to Magistrate Judge Vadas for mediation proceedings 

pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. (Although actions are referred to the Pro Se

Prisoner Mediation Program, Magistrate Judge Vadas can and often does utilize the related 

procedure of a settlement conference instead of a mediation proceeding in the action.) Magistrate 

Judge Vadas has set this action for a settlement conference on November 19, 2015, and a 

telephonic status conference for November 10, 2015. See Docket No. 279. Magistrate Judge 

Vadas denied Mr. Toscano’s request for an order to CDCR officials to escort him to the 

conference because the conference was going to be done by videoconference and that did not 

require Mr. Toscano being brought to the courthouse. Docket # 280.

Mr. Toscano then filed five motions for his “case to go to trial.” Docket Nos. 282, 283, 

284, 285, and 288. In the first motion, Mr. Toscano stated that he wanted to proceed directly to a 

trial because he did not want to settle, and because prison officials “have an ongoing issue with 

escorting [him] to [his] appointments and since the court is not going to issue an order to escort 

[him] to this mediation conference.” Docket # 282. In his second motion, he asserted that, by 

denying summary judgment on the excessive force claim, the court determined that his case had to 

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 289 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

go to a jury and that he has no intention of settling the case because he wants his case to be 

presented to a jury. See Docket No. 283. In the third motion, filed just eight days after the first 

motion, Mr. Toscano asserted: “I’m going to file a motion for trial everyday until the judge files 

and rule on my motion for trial. I don’t want a settlement. I want a jury to hear my case.” Docket 

No. 284 (errors in source). Mr. Toscano’s fourth motion repeated his position that he did not want 

to settle and only wanted a jury trial. Docket # 285. Mr. Toscano also filed a proposed “order for 

judge to be removed from case,” seeking the removal of Magistrate Judge Vadas, who Mr. 

Toscano thought was setting him up for failure by refusing to order prison officials to escort him 

to the settlement conference. Docket No. 285.

Mr. Toscano’s motions present two different concerns. First, the repetitious filing of the 

same motion needlessly wastes judicial resources and therefore may subject the movant to 

sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. By presenting a motion to the court, “an 

attorney or an unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, 

and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being 

presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly 

increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). A party may be sanctioned for violating 

Rule 11(b), with the sanction being limited to that which suffices to deter repetition of the conduct 

or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Mr. Toscano may be 

sanctioned under Rule 11 if he persists in filing repetitious motions. The sanctions that may be 

imposed for this wasteful pattern include an order imposing a monetary sanction and/or an order 

restricting Mr. Toscano to filing one motion per month. 

Second, Mr. Toscano’s apparent plan to thwart any effort to settle this case may result in 

sanctions of a different sort. In denying summary judgment on the excessive force claim, the 

Court wrote that there were triable issues of fact, but that did not mean that the parties were 

excused from trying to settle the action. The Court made very clear in that order that the case had 

to proceed to mediation (or settlement, as selected by Magistrate Judge Vadas). See Docket No. 

270 at 47 (“Lest there be any doubt as to the importance and mandatory nature of the mediation 

proceedings, the parties are hereby ordered to attend the mediation proceedings and take part in 

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 289 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

them. Mr. Toscano is now cautioned that failure to attend or take part in the mediation 

proceedings will result in the dismissal of this action.”) When the Court has issued a pretrial order 

for the parties “to appear for one or more pretrial conferences for such purposes as . . . facilitating 

settlement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5), the Court “may issue any just orders, including those 

authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney: (A) fails to appear at a 

scheduling or other pretrial conference; (B) is substantially unprepared to participate -- or does not 

participate in good faith -- in the conference; or (C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial 

order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). The sanctions authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) include: 

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting his claims, striking pleadings, staying further 

proceedings until the order is obeyed, and dismissing the action in whole or in part. Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b) also authorizes dismissal if Mr. Toscano “fails to prosecute or to comply 

with these rules or a court order.” 

Mr. Toscano is now ordered to attend and participate in the settlement conference 

proceedings.1 Mr. Toscano does not have to reach a settlement or other resolution of his claims, 

but he absolutely must attend and participate in all the settlement conference proceedings. It is no 

excuse for non-attendance that Mr. Toscano has not been issued his property at his new prison, or 

has any other complaint about the conditions of confinement. If Mr. Toscano fails to attend any or 

all of the settlement conference proceedings, or fails to participate in good faith, he may be subject 

to sanctions, including dismissal, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) or 41(b).

With regard to Mr. Toscano’s argument that he is being denied his jury trial rights, Mr. 

Toscano misunderstands what is required of him. Mr. Toscano is not being ordered to settle this 

action; he is only being ordered to attend and participate in the settlement conference proceedings. 

Many litigants do not want to attend settlement conferences or other alternative dispute resolution 

proceedings, but the path to trial requires that they first attempt to settle or otherwise resolve their 

 

1 Due to Magistrate Judge Vadas’ order that the proceedings will be held via videoconference, the 

requirement that Plaintiff attend means that Plaintiff needs to show up at the place prison officials 

have set up for the videoconference; Plaintiff does not need to physically travel to the courthouse. 

If prison officials refuse to let him attend the videoconference, he can file a motion then, but 

cannot complain in advance that they will not do so. If Plaintiff refuses to be escorted to the 

settlement conference proceedings, defense counsel should consider having such refusal 

videotaped.

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 289 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

For the Northern District of California

differences. Although a party may be convinced of the correctness of his position, sometimes he 

can learn things in settlement that indicate a compromise is a better approach. Not only might a 

party learn of the weaknesses in his case that he has not considered, he also might learn about the 

procedural problems he faces at trial and potential costs. For example, Mr. Toscano may think he 

has nothing to lose by going to trial, but that is not correct. Mr. Toscano must pay witness fees for 

every witness he subpoenas for trial. If Defendants prevail at trial, Defendants may be entitled to 

an award of costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Also, under certain circumstances, a prevailing

defendant in a civil rights action can recover attorneys' fees, which are usually significantly larger 

than costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2215 (2011) (when civil rights 

action includes both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a prevailing defendant may "receive only 

the portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim"). 

Mr. Toscano’s motions “for case to go to trial” are DENIED. Docket Nos. 282, 283, 284, 

285, and 288. Mr. Toscano’s request for an order for Magistrate Judge Vadas to be removed from 

the case is DENIED. Docket No. 285.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05893-EMC Document 289 Filed 11/04/15 Page 4 of 4