Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20070/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20070-0/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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Order Directing Defendant to Schedule Date for Settlement Conference;

Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.01\Reed070misc4 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE REED, III, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER ROMANS, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 01-20070 RMW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

PENDING MOTIONS; ORDER

DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

SCHEDULE DATE FOR

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 

(Docket Nos. 91, 93, 104)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a claim of excessive force at the time of his arrest. On

September 25, 2007, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part 

as to defendant Oakland Police Department and denied defendants’ motion for summary

judgment in part as to defendant Officer Romans. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for

depositions, referred the instant case to the court’s Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program

and stayed the case pending settlement proceedings. 

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions. Plaintiff also has filed a letter

with the court regarding settlement and a proposed settlement request. 

*E-FILED - 3/20/08*

Case 5:01-cv-20070-RMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Order Directing Defendant to Schedule Date for Settlement Conference;

Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.01\Reed070misc4 2

The court denies plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 91), denies plaintiff’s motion

for extension of time (docket no. 93) as moot, and denies plaintiff’s settlement request

(docket no. 104) without prejudice. The court notes that the settlement conference has

not taken place as of the date of this order and will refer plaintiff’s request and letter to

Magistrate Judge Vadas. The court orders defendant’s counsel to contact Judge Vadas

within seven days of the date this order is filed in order to schedule a date for the

settlement conference in this matter. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions against defendants based upon

defendants’ failure to complete an investigation in this case and failure to provide

discovery to plaintiff. As stated in its prior orders addressing discovery, the court

concludes that a majority of plaintiff’s requested discovery is irrelevant to the issues

presented in the previous motion for summary judgment and therefore premature at this

time. The court directed defendants to provide relevant discovery to plaintiff. Plaintiff

has not shown that any delay in his receiving documents was based on any bad faith on

the part of defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 91) is

DENIED without prejudice. The court notes that the instant action is stayed pending

settlement proceedings, therefore any pending discovery requests are also stayed at this

time. 

B. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opposition to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, plaintiff filed his opposition on

May 14, 2007. The court notes that plaintiff’s opposition was timely filed within the

court’s deadline. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 93) is

DENIED as moot. 

/// 

Case 5:01-cv-20070-RMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Order Directing Defendant to Schedule Date for Settlement Conference;

Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.01\Reed070misc4 3

C. Plaintiff’s Settlement Requests

Plaintiff has filed a request for a settlement proposal and a letter with the court

regarding settlement. The court has referred this action to the court’s Pro Se Prisoner

Settlement Program with Magistrate Judge Vadas. As of the date of this order, the

settlement proceedings are pending scheduling with Judge Vadas. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s settlement request (docket no. 104) is DENIED without prejudice as premature. 

The court orders defendant’s counsel to contact Judge Vadas within seven days of the

date this order is filed in order to schedule a date for the settlement conference in this

matter. The instant action is STAYED pending the settlement conference proceedings. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 91) is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 93) is DENIED as 

moot. 

3. Plaintiff’s proposed settlement request (docket no. 104) is DENIED without 

prejudice as premature.

4. Defendant’s counsel shall contact Judge Vadas within seven days of the 

date this order is filed in order to schedule a date for the settlement conference in this

matter. 

5. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to Magistrate Judge Vadas. 

6. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff is reminded 

that all communications with the court must be served on defendant by mailing a true

copy of the document to defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff must keep the court and all parties

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change

of Address.” 

///

///

Case 5:01-cv-20070-RMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions; Order Directing Defendant to Schedule Date for Settlement Conference;

Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.01\Reed070misc4 4

Plaintiff must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

3/19/08

Case 5:01-cv-20070-RMW Document 107 Filed 03/20/08 Page 4 of 4