Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503-14/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

DIJON KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought 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 Barbara A. McAuliffe to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. 

District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 on December 5, 2016 at 

9:30 a.m. 

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure Plaintiff’s 

attendance will issue approximately thirty days prior to the settlement conference.

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

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

A. McAuliffe on December 5, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 

2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #8.

2. Plaintiff will appear at the settlement conference by video conference, from his 

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 69 Filed 09/29/16 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 2

present place of confinement, as directed by separate order.

3. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a 

binding settlement shall attend in person.1

4. 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.

5. Each party shall provide a confidential settlement statement to the following 

email address: bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his 

confidential settlement statement to Sujean Park, ADR & Pro Bono Program 

Director, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 

95814. The envelope shall be marked “Confidential Settlement Statement”. 

Settlement statements shall arrive no later than November 28, 2016. Parties 

shall also file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Statement”

(See L.R. 270(d)).

Settlement statements should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor 

served on any other party. Settlement statements shall be clearly marked 

“confidential” with the date and time of the settlement conference indicated 

 

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 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 69 Filed 09/29/16 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 3

prominently thereon.

The confidential settlement statement shall be no longer than five pages in 

length, typed or neatly printed, and include the following:

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other 

grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the 

parties’ likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a 

description of the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, 

pretrial, and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers 

and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 69 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 3