Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01310/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01310-10/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

JULES BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01310 KJM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendant A. E. Ritola violated the Eighth Amendment’s 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting plaintiff to unconstitutional prison

working conditions.

On September 17, 2013, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order in this 

case that required the parties to file all pretrial motions on or before March 28, 2014. (ECF 

No. 28.) The court advised the parties that it would set pretrial conference and trial dates, as 

appropriate, after adjudication of any dispositive motion or upon expiration of the time for filing 

such a motion. 

On March 25, 2014, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) On 

November 26, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 36.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01310-KJM-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/13/15 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

On February 9, 2015, the assigned district judge issued an order adopting those findings and 

recommendations in their entirety. (ECF No. 39.)

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 may order 

that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of videoconferencing. 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 twenty-one days of the date of this order, the parties shall each 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. 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 that they wish to be referred to the court’s mediation program.

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

conferences.

Dated: April 12, 2015

DAD:10

buck1310.sc

Case 2:11-cv-01310-KJM-DAD Document 40 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2