Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392-23/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. NIX, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT (ECF No. 

90);

(2) DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE (ECF Nos. 90, 91);

(3) DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

REQUEST TO SET JURY TRIAL (ECF Nos. 

90, 91);

(4) GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS 

UPDATE (ECF No. 91);

(5) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL AS MOOT (ECF No. 91).

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and, formerly, pro se in 

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Akano on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (ECF No. 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 101 Filed 02/17/16 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

19.)

On November 2, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff then submitted a request for 

reconsideration of that denial, along with a request that a second settlement conference 

be held1or, alternatively, that the matter be set for trial. (ECF No. 90.) Shortly thereafter, 

Plaintiff submitted another request for settlement conference and trial setting, along with 

a request for the status of his previously filed motion to amend the complaint and a 

request for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 91.)

While these requests were pending, Plaintiff’s motion to amend was denied. (ECF 

Nos. 93 & 97.) In anticipation of the matter being set for trial, the Court arranged for 

potential volunteer counsel to speak with Plaintiff by phone. (ECF No. 92.) In the 

meantime, and although the deadline for filing dispositive motions has long passed, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication. (ECF No. 

94.) Simultaneous with the filing of the instant order, the Court appointed volunteer 

counsel for Plaintiff.

Volunteer counsel has been appointed for Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration (ECF No. 90) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 91)

are HEREBY DENIED as moot.

Absent indications from defense counsel that further settlement negotiations 

might be productive, the Court will not refer the case for a second settlement conference. 

See Local Rule 271(b)(4). Plaintiff’s requests for a second settlement conference (ECF 

Nos. 90, 91) are HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s requests to set a trial date (ECF No. 90, 91) are HEREBY DENIED

without prejudice. The Court will set this matter for trial upon resolution of Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment.

 

1

An initial settlement conference on November 4, 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the dispute.

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 101 Filed 02/17/16 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

Plaintiff’s request for an update on the status of his motion to amend (ECF No. 

91) is HEREBY GRANTED. The motion to amend was denied on February 12, 2016. 

(ECF No. 97.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 101 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 3