Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225-0/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

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record 1 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE NOE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J G GRIMM, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION REQUESTING AN

ORDER MANDATING

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS;

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.

(Doc. No. 68.)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR THE

PRODUCTION OF MAILING

ADDRESSES. (Doc. No. 60.)

In a filing dated March 26, 2007, titled “Plaintiff’s Conference Statement”, Plaintiff seemingly

makes two motions. (Doc. No. 68.) First, Plaintiff requests an order from this Court mandating that the

parties meet and discuss settlement. (Id.) Second, Plaintiff, in a single passing phrase without facts or

law, motions for the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff has already petitioned the Court for the

appoint of counsel, see docket number sixty-three, a request the Court denied, thus the Court construes

Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration.

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 71 Filed 04/03/07 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

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record 2 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

As to Plaintiff’s first request, settlement was recently discussed at the Early Neutral Evaluation

Conference (ENE), held March 13, 2007. At the time, settlement seemed unlikely – impossible is a

more accurate state of affairs, but the Court is forever optimistic. That one of the parties has so

dramatically changed their position in the past three weeks to make settlement discussions worthwhile,

too, is unlikely. Accordingly, the Court will not order additional settlement discussions. However,

Plaintiff is free, and encouraged, to contact the Defendants to negotiate settlement on his own. 

Moreover, if the case progresses that far, settlement discussions will be held at the Case Management

Conference and Mandatory Settlement Conference. For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

Plaintiff also makes a motion for reconsideration on the question of appoint of counsel. Doc. No.

68.) A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where (1) the court is presented with newlydiscovered evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, (3)

or there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J v. Multnomah County v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). When filing a motion for reconsideration, it is the

moving party’s duty to show what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which

did not exist, or were not shown, upon the prior application. Local Rule SD CA 7.1(I)(1).

Here, Plaintiff’s motion, a naked request without support, fails to address any of three criteria. 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 71 Filed 04/03/07 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

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

 All Counsel of Record 3 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Finally, Plaintiff, on February 1, 2007, made a motion for an order to the San Diego County Sheriff

Department to produce the mailing address of Defendants Massey, Neagles, and Lonsdale. (Doc. No.

60.) However, Massey and Neagles have filed an answer, accepting service, and Lonsdale has filed a

motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 69, 70.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is moot, and now DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2007

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 71 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 3