Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

ORDER STRICKING MOTION FOR RULE 26f

MOTION (Doc. 43.) 

Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”) 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 instant action on December 17, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California. The action was transferred and received in this Court on January

14, 2004. 

On December 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Rule 26(f) Meeting” in

which he requests that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff is not entitled to

receive damages. In addition, Plaintiff demands that the Defendants be required to meet with

him to discuss the possibility of settlement and to exchange some discovery. (Motion at 4.) 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants with a

copy of the Motion filed with the Court. Pursuant to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, all pleadings filed with the Court must be served on the opposing party. Local

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/13/05 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

Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. Plaintiff did not do so in this case warranting the Court’s striking

the document from the record. 

The Court wishes to inform Plaintiff, however, that even had he properly served

Defendants, his Motion would be denied. Rule 26(f) calls for a conference wherein the parties

meet to set forth a discovery plan and schedule. However, here, the Court issued the scheduling

order which sets forth the deadlines for the completion of discovery as well as the deadlines for

other dispositive motions on November 2, 2005. Thus, a conference in the nature requested by

Plaintiff is unnecessary. 

In addition, with respect to the parties meeting to discuss the possibility of settlement, the

Court will set up such a meeting in the event the Defendants indicate in their pretrial statement,

that they wish to engage in settlement negotiations. However, the Court will not force the parties

to negotiate or to settle. Such a meeting will only take place upon the consent of all parties and

not simply at Plaintiff’s demand. 

Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s request for an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff

should not be awarded damages, such a request is improper in that legal proceedings in this

matter have already begun. The Court’s initial order finding the Complaint stated a cognizable

claim is analogous to Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause in that it required Defendants to Answer to

Plaintiff’s allegations. The case is proceeding according to the legal requirements set forth in the

Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event this action survives summary judgment and is scheduled

for trial, a trier of fact will determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief and if so, the amount

of damages. 

Accordingly, in light of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Motion for Rule

26(f) meeting is STRICKEN from the record for lack of service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2