Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE R. SCOTT, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

KELLER, et al., ) (Request to Refer to Settlement - Dkt. #130)

)

Defendants. )

 )

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

matter is before the court on Defendant’s request to refer the case to the Pro Se Settlement

Program (Dkt. #130). 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 #26 on March 17, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 

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

this order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request that this matter be referred to the Eastern District of

California’s Pro Se Settlement Program (Dkt. #130) is granted. 

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

Kellison on March 17, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street,

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #26.

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 139 Filed 01/25/11 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

The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation 1

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 (7 Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 th

F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9 Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have th

“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

(8 Cir. 2001). th

2

3. Defendants’ lead counsel and a person with full and unlimited authority to

negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on 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. 

DATED this 24 day of January 2011. th

_____________________________

Kent J. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 139 Filed 01/25/11 Page 2 of 2