Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-25/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

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Date: November 13, 2014 

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 9 (CMK)

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, 

Byers, Doe, and Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims.

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 November 13, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum will issue concurrently with this order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

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

on November 13, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #9.

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 153 Filed 09/26/14 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

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. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

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 by 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., 

No. CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 153 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 2