Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599-6/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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Settlement Conference: May 04, 2016 at 

9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court 

has determined this case will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case 

will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement 

conference at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #25, on May 4, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. 

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure Plaintiff’s 

attendance at the settlement conference via video conference will issue concurrently with 

this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall 

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 60 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

J. Newman on May 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom #25.

2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by video conference, from 

his place of confinement, as directed by separate order.

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter 

into a binding settlement on the 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.

5. The parties are directed to exchange with each other non-confidential 

settlement statements on or before April 20, 2016. Defendants shall simultaneously send 

a copy of their statement(s) to the court using the following email address: 

kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall also mail a copy of his non-confidential 

settlement statement addressed to “Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 

501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814.” Plaintiff’s envelope shall be marked 

“Settlement Statement.” If a party desires to share additional confidential information 

only with the court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and 

(e).

 

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 in 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. Pitman 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 (8th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 60 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by email to 

DPS_AC_Prisons_Attph@ncdps.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 60 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3