Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-55/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN X. SINGLETON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. HEDGEPATH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-00095-EPG-PC

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE BEFORE THE 

HONORABLE KENDALL J. 

NEWMAN

Date: March 29, 2016

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: U.S. District Court, 501 I Street,

 Sacramento, CA 95814

Courtroom: #25

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS DUE: 

 March 22, 2016

Plaintiff, Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that this case 

will benefit from a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate 

Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference at the United States District

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25 on March 29, 2016 at 1:30 

p.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently 

with this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 

Newman on March 29, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 267 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a 

binding settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person.1

3. Those in attendance must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and damages. 

The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear 

in person may result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, the conference will 

not proceed and will be reset to another date.

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven 

days prior to the settlement conference, no later than March 22, 2016. These 

statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the Court using the following email 

address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share additional 

confidential information with the Court, he or she may do so pursuant to the 

provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 While the exercise of its authority is subject to abuse of discretion review, “the district court 

has the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement 

conferences. . .” United States v. United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 

1053, 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the district court has broad authority to compel participation in mandatory 

settlement conference[s].”). The term “full authority to settle” means that the individuals attending the mediation 

conference must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms 

acceptable to the parties. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989), 

cited with approval in Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual 

with full authority to settle must also have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position 

of the party, if appropriate. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485-86 (D. Ariz. 2003), amended on 

recon. in part, Pitman v. Brinker Int’l., Inc., 2003 WL 23353478 (D. Ariz. 2003). The purpose behind requiring 

the attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties’ view of the case may be altered during 

the face to face conference. Pitman, 216 F.R.D. at 486. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or 

sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, 

Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 596-97 (8th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 267 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2