Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768-27/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

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-HBK (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff LaKeith L. McCoy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this this civil rights 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that this case will benefit from 

another settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall 

J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on December 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The 

settlement conference will be conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom 

video conference. The court will issue the necessary transportation order in due course. In 

accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 

Newman on December 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 

conducted by remote means, with all parties appearing by Zoom video conference.

/////

/////

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 10/12/21 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

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

binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3. 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.

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven 

days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be 

delivered to the court using the following email address: 

kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his non-confidential settlement 

statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, 

Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it arrives at least seven (7) days prior 

to the settlement conference. The envelope shall be marked “SETTLEMENT 

STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement conference shall be 

prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party desires to share 

additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the 

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

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. Pitman 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., 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 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 10/12/21 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

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation 

Office at Kern Valley State Prison via facsimile at (661) 721-4949 or via email.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 165 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 3