Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00711-7/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

ADAM SHARPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CRYER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Adam Sharpe (“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. The Court has determined that this case 

will benefit from a settlement conference, and at the June 8, 2020 scheduling conference, the 

parties agreed. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to 

conduct a settlement on September 23, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 

conducted by remote means to be determined later. The Court will issue the necessary 

transportation order in due course.

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

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

Newman on September 23, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The settlement conference will be 

conducted by remote means to be determined later. 

Case 1:19-cv-00711-KES-EPG Document 34 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 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

2

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement on the Defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3. 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.

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered 

to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff 

shall mail his non-confidential settlement statement Attn: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 

Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814 so that it 

arrives at least seven (7) days prior to the settlement conference. The envelope shall 

be marked “SETTLEMENT STATEMENT.” The date and time of the settlement 

conference shall be prominently indicated on the settlement statement. If a party 

desires to share additional confidential information 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 1:19-cv-00711-KES-EPG Document 34 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 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

3

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation Office 

at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, via email or facsimile.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00711-KES-EPG Document 34 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 3