Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-40/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

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint, filed on November 11, 2011, against Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and 

Omos for excessive force in pepper spraying Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against 

Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering that Plaintiff’s property be 

removed from his cell and that Plaintiff be placed back into a contaminated cell without means to 

decontaminate from the pepper spray in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants 

Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

This matter is set for trial on April 15, 2014.

The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a United States Magistrate Judge. A 

settlement conference will only be set if the parties are willing to make a meaningful attempt to 

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY 

COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 282 Filed 11/12/13 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

resolve this action and are willing to compromise. Settlement conferences may be held by video 

conference or in person at the court. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court whether they 

believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in 

having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court. 

If the parties wish to have a settlement conference scheduled, Defendants’ counsel shall notify 

the Court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. 

If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately 

addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

Accordingly, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and 

Defendants shall file a written response to this order. If a settlement conference is set by the Court, 

then the Court will issue a separate order indicating each of the parties’ responsibilities regarding the

settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 282 Filed 11/12/13 Page 2 of 2