Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00819/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00819-9/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 

IRA DON PARTHEMORE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. KISSELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00819 KJM AC P 

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

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

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 Dale A. Drozd 

for the Court’s Settlement Week program to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #27 on June 2, 2015, 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. A settlement conference has been set for June 2, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom #27 

before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814. 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-00819-KJM-AC Document 54 Filed 05/05/15 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

2. Each party is directed to have a principal capable of disposition at the Settlement 

Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms at the Settlement 

Conference.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 submit confidential settlement conference statements on or 

before May 26, 2015, to the following email address: dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Plaintiff shall mail his confidential settlement statement addressed to Magistrate Judge 

Dale A. Drozd, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 

95814 so it arrives no later than May 26, 2015. The envelope shall be marked 

“Confidential Settlement Statement.” Additionally, each party shall file a “Notice of 

Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.” (Rule 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 prominently thereon. 

 

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. Pittman 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 2:13-cv-00819-KJM-AC Document 54 Filed 05/05/15 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

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. 

DATED: May 4, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00819-KJM-AC Document 54 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3