Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01284/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01284-30/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN CORCORAN STATE 

PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:05-cv-01284-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

(ECF No. 138)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. On December 4, 2013, the Court issued an Amended Second Scheduling Order, 

which set a telephonic trial confirmation hearing for January 16, 2014, and a jury trial for 

February 25, 2014. (ECF No. 127.) The Court also directed the parties to notify the Court 

whether a settlement conference would be beneficial. (ECF No. 128.) Subsequent to those 

orders, Plaintiff retained pro bono counsel. Counsel appeared in this action on December 16, 

2013. 

On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff, through counsel, notified the Court of his belief that the 

parties would benefit from a settlement conference scheduled no sooner than February 2014. 

(ECF No. 132.) On December 19, 2013, Defendants notified the Court of their belief that further 

Case 1:05-cv-01284-BAM Document 139 Filed 01/02/14 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

attempts at settlement would not likely be successful. (ECF No. 134.) Thereafter, on December 

26, 2013, Plaintiff, on his own motion, requested that the Court schedule a settlement conference 

in this matter as soon as possible. (ECF No. 138.)

Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference shall be denied. Defendants have 

represented to the Court that attempts at settlement likely would not be successful. The Court 

will not force the parties to participate in a settlement conference in such circumstances and no 

settlement conference will be scheduled unless all parties agree to participate. Plaintiff is advised 

that this order does not preclude the parties from discussing settlement. Should the parties be 

willing to participate in a settlement conference in a good faith effort to settle this action in the 

future, they may file a joint request for a settlement conference. Further, as Plaintiff is now 

represented by counsel, all future communications with the Court should be through such counsel. 

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion requesting settlement conference, filed on 

December 26, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

270bb

Case 1:05-cv-01284-BAM Document 139 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2