Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896-27/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

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. VEAL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD 

BE BENEFICIAL

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

I. BACKGROUND

Jamisi Jermaine Calloway (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on December 10, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Third Amended Complaint filed on October 5, 2009, against defendants C/O Hayward and C/O 

Oaks, for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1(Doc. 20.)

On June 14, 2011, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action, 

establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties to amend pleadings, conduct discovery, and file

pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 31.) On April 23, 2012, defendants Hayward and Oaks 

 

1

On March 19, 2011, the Court found that Plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Wang, Oaks, and Hayward, and dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). (Doc. 24.) On April 22, 2013, the Court granted defendant Wang’s motion for summary judgment 

and entered judgment in favor of defendant Wang. (Docs. 84, 85.)

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 123 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 2
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

filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 56.) On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for summary judgment. (Doc. 57.) On December 2, 2013, the court entered an order denying 

the parties’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 121.) The pretrial deadlines have now 

expired. At this stage of the proceedings, the court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for 

trial.

The court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States 

Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a 

prison in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the court 

whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they 

are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the court.2 

Defendants= counsel shall notify the court whether there are security concerns that 

would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall 

notify the court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred 

for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall file a written response to this 

order.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

 

2 The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement 

is feasible.

3 The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make every 

reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 123 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2