Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00878-34/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2009, the assigned district judge

granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter,

defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s equal protection claim. On January

11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to

defendants Kissinger, Peery, Qualls, and Money but reversed as to defendant Ingwerson. The

Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for

pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling

order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court

1

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 207 Filed 07/06/12 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

may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of video-conferencing.

Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to

whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate

judge or if they wish to be referred to the court’s mediation program. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court

in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the

undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to wish to be referred to the court’s mediation

program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall

return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the

parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each

party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court’s mediation program;

and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for

settlement conferences.

DATED: July 5, 2012.

DAD:9

davi0878.sc

2

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 207 Filed 07/06/12 Page 2 of 2