Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD BOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND ORDER SETTING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 54)

Plaintiff James Edward Bowell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed August 15, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for a settlement conference. (ECF No. 

54.) The court has determined that this case would benefit from a settlement 

conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison 

to conduct a settlement conference at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814 in Courtroom #9 on February 26, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue 

concurrently with this order.

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

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference is granted. 

2. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. 

Kellison on February 26, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #9.

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 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

2

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

binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf 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. Judge Kellison or another representative from the court will be contacting the 

parties either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the 

settlement conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement 

conference.

6. In light of the pending settlement conference, the dispositive motion deadline, 

currently set for December 13, 2014, is hereby extended to March 26, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

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., 

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 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 2