Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02366-10/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 

DANIEL A. MENDOZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEAL P. SWANN, D.D.S., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-02366 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against sole defendant Neal P. Swann, 

D.D.S., on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim that defendant was deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs when plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Mule Creek State 

Prison. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 50, which 

defendant timely answered, ECF No. 51. The deadline for conducting discovery is December 5, 

2015, and the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is April 15, 2016. See ECF No. 47. 

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Local Rule 305(a); ECF No. 42. 

Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Statement filed June 5, 2015, both parties expressed the 

opinion that an early settlement conference may be mutually beneficial. See ECF No. 46. 

Plaintiff intended to provide defendant with a demand by July 20, 2015, and defendant reserved 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 55 Filed 08/27/15 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

committing to a settlement conference until after receipt of the demand. Id. at 2. 

 Although discovery remains pending in this action, and a settlement conference is not 

required, the scheduling of a settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or 

another magistrate judge should be requested at the earliest opportunity. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days after the filing date 

of this order, counsel for both parties shall file a joint statement advising the court whether they 

request that a settlement conference be scheduled and, if so, whether the parties agree that the 

conference may be mediated by the undersigned magistrate judge or should be scheduled before 

another magistrate judge. 

DATED: August 26, 2015 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 55 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 2