Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-44/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN P

ORDER

On January 16, 2014, this court denied defendant Brockett’s motion for summary 

judgment, and granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed separately by the other 

defendants. (ECF No. 277.) Pursuant to that order, defendants C. Gold, R. Hill, B. Joseph, R. 

Marrow, S. Shannon, J. Tenseth, J. Watcher, Brad Williams, and R. Garcia were dismissed from 

this action. This action now proceeds against defendants Brockett, Kelly, Jaffee, Martin, Vance 

and Kennedy. 

Pursuant to this order, the court invites the parties to consider whether a settlement 

conference may be helpful in resolving this action and, if so, to identify black-out dates when the 

parties are not available to participate in a settlement conference.1 The parties are also directed to 

 

1

 The court notes that the decision to participate in settlement may independently be made by 

defendant Brockett, and the remainder of the defendants. Defendant Brockett is represented by 

separate counsel, and the claims against Brockett are distinct from the claims against the other 

defendants.

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 279 Filed 02/27/14 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

identify black-out dates for pretrial and trial proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within 30 days after the filing date of this 

order, all parties shall file their respective statements informing the court of the following:

1. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled and, if so: (a) whether the 

parties agree that the undersigned may preside over the settlement conference, OR request that 

another magistrate judge do so; and (b) identify any dates within the next six months when any 

party may not be available for a settlement conference.

2. The parties shall also identify: (a) the anticipated length of trial; and (b) any dates 

within the next year when any party may not be available for trial or pretrial proceedings.

Upon review of the parties’ respective statements, the court will issue an order further 

scheduling this action.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2014

/mana2290.next

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 279 Filed 02/27/14 Page 2 of 2