Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896-20/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

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

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. WANG, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND

TRIAL SCHEDULE, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 94.)

Jamisi Jermaine Calloway ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on December 10, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third Amended 

Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on October 5, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officers

(C/O) Oaks and Hayward (“Defendants”), for use of excessive force.

1

(Doc. 20.) On August 

11, 2011, defendants Oaks and Hayward filed a motion for summary judgment, which is 

pending. (Doc. 38.)

 

1 On March 17, 2011, the court dismissed all of the defendants from this action except defendants Dr. 

Wang, C/O Oaks, and C/O Hayward, based on violation of Rule 18(a) and Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 

(Doc. 24.) On April 22, 2013, summary judgment was entered in favor of defendant Dr. Wang. (Doc. 85.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 97 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 2
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

On July 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court to schedule a settlement 

conference and trial in this action. (Doc. 94.) On July 25, 2013, Defendants filed an 

opposition. (Doc. 95.)

Plaintiff requests a settlement conference and trial schedule “as soon as possible,” 

stating that “summary judgment has been ruled on in favor of Plaintiff on Defendants Oaks and 

Hayward.” (Motion, Doc. 94.) Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s statement is inaccurate, 

because the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Oaks and Hayward on August 

11, 2011 is still pending and there has been no finding in favor of Plaintiff. Defendants request 

that Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference and trial be denied due to their pending 

motion for summary judgment.

Defendants are correct. The court’s record reflects that the motion for summary 

judgment filed by defendants Oaks and Hayward on August 11, 2011, is presently pending on 

the court’s calendar. (Doc. 38.) The court shall not schedule a settlement conference unless all 

of the parties to the action have agreed that it will be beneficial. A trial schedule for this action, 

if any, shall not be set until after the motion for summary judgment is resolved. Defendants 

have indicated that they are not amenable to a settlement at this stage of the proceedings. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a 

later stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the court to 

schedule a settlement conference and trial for this action, filed on July 25, 2013, is DENIED 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 97 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 2