Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00474-13/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

PAUL D. ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.D. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-0474 MCE DAD P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties in this action have filed a joint motion requesting a referral to the 

court’s prisoner settlement program and a stay of these proceedings pending the results of 

mediation. (Doc. No. 83) Good cause appearing, the court will refer this case to Magistrate 

Judge Gregory G. Hollows to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #9 on August 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The court 

will also stay these proceedings pending the results of mediation.

The court will issue a separate writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum concurrently with 

this order.

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

1. The parties motion for referral of this case to the court’s prisoner settlement program 

(Doc. No. 83) is granted, and this case is set for a settlement conference before 

Case 2:11-cv-00474-MCE-DAD Document 85 Filed 07/01/14 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

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on August 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. 

District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #9.

2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by telephone, from California 

Institution for Men, as directed by separate order.

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement shall attend in person.1

4. 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.

5. 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 August 6, 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 

 

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., No. CV 02-1886 PHX DGC, 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-00474-MCE-DAD Document 85 Filed 07/01/14 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

the date and 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.

6. The parties’ motion to stay these proceedings pending the results of mediation (Doc. 

No. 83) is granted.

Dated: July 1, 2014

/robe0474.med

Case 2:11-cv-00474-MCE-DAD Document 85 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 3