Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HILLIARD WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAROM A. DASZKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 14, 2016, the district judge 

adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations, and thereby denied defendants’ 

respective motions for summary judgment premised on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. See ECF Nos. 37, 39. Accordingly, this case proceeds on plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment claims that defendants Daszko and Mathis were deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

Before setting deadlines in this case for further discovery and dispositive motions, the 

court would like to determine the parties’ willingness to participate in an early settlement 

conference. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 41 Filed 03/16/16 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days after service of 

this order, plaintiff and each defendant shall file separate statements that address the following: 

 1. Whether a settlement conference may be helpful in resolving this action and, if so, 

whether each party is amenable to participating in such conference; 

 2. If affirmative, whether each party waives the disqualification of the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct the settlement conference, or requests that another magistrate judge 

be assigned for that purpose; and 

 3. If affirmative, each party shall identify any dates within the next six months when they 

are not available to participate in a settlement conference. 

DATED: March 15, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 41 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2