Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01674/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01674-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE LLOYD HADDIX, JR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O SEAN BURRIS; et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-1674 EMC (pr)

ORDER REFERRING ACTION TO PRO

SE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AGAIN 

On March 10, 2015, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas for mediation or

settlement proceedings in the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Dkt. No. 65. Magistrate Judge

Vadas then set a settlement conference for June 19, 2015 at the California State Prison - Solano, and

issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to obtain Plaintiff’s appearance at the settlement

conference. On June 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Vadas held a telephonic status conference regarding

the upcoming settlement conference, at which time Plaintiff stated that he would refuse to go to the

scheduled settlement conference. Dkt. No. 73. Magistrate Judge Vadas then informed Plaintiff that

his failure to attend the settlement conference “may be grounds for dismissal.” Id. On June 17,

2015, prison officials informed Magistrate Judge Vadas that Plaintiff (who currently is housed at

Corcoran) refused to be transported to the California State Prison - Solano to attend the settlement

conference. Dkt. No. 74. Due to Plaintiff’s non-appearance, Magistrate Judge Vadas was unable to

conduct the June 19, 2015 settlement conference and returned the action to the undersigned. Id. 

The Court then issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for

failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order due to Plaintiff’s apparent refusal to

attend the settlement conference. Dkt. No. 76. 

Case 3:12-cv-01674-EMC Document 84 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause in which he blamed his non-attendance

on the fact that he did not have all his documents and the absence of a transportation order for him. 

Dkt. No. 77. He also argued that compelling him to attend a settlement conference would violate his

jury trial rights. Id. at 3. Defendant filed a reply, arguing that the action should be dismissed

because Plaintiff had declared his intention to refuse to attend the settlement conference long before

the settlement conference and actually refused to be transported on June 8 and on June 11. Dkt No.

78 at 3-4. Defendant explained that inmates are transported about a week before the scheduled court

date so the receiving institution has sufficient time to process their paperwork. Id. at 4. Plaintiff

later filed a supplemental reply stating that he had been asked only once to be transported, and that

was on June 8. Dkt. No. 83.

The Court finds that, even though Plaintiff’s behavior has caused an unwarranted waste of

judicial resources, the record is not clear enough to support a dismissal today for failure to comply

with a court order. Specifically, (1) it cannot be determined with certainty that Plaintiff was

informed that his case would be – not just could be – dismissed if he did not attend the settlement

conference and (2) it cannot be determined that he refused to be transported to the settlement

conference after Magistrate Judge Vadas warned him of the potential for dismissal if he did not

attend. Although the parties agree that Plaintiff refused to be transported on June 8, Plaintiff states

that prison officials did not attempt to transport him thereafter and Defendant’s documentary

evidence does not include an entry clearly showing that Plaintiff refused to be transported on June

11 or any other date after June 8.

The Court will give Plaintiff one more chance to participate in the settlement conference

proceedings. Plaintiff is now specifically ordered to attend and participate in the settlement

conference proceedings. He does not have to reach a settlement or other resolution of his claims, but

he absolutely must attend and participate in all the settlement conference proceedings. It is no

excuse for non-attendance that Plaintiff has not been issued his property at his new prison, or has

any other complaint about the conditions of confinement. If Plaintiff fails to attend any or all of the

settlement proceedings calendared, this action will be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Case 3:12-cv-01674-EMC Document 84 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

With regard to Plaintiff’s argument that he is being denied his jury trial rights, Plaintiff

misunderstands what is required of him. Plaintiff is not being ordered to settle this action; he is only

being ordered to attend and participate in the settlement conference. Many litigants do not want to

attend settlement conferences or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings, but the path to trial

requires that they first attempt to settle or otherwise resolve their differences. Although a party may

be convinced of the correctness of his position, sometimes he can learn things in settlement that

indicate a compromise is a better approach. Not only might a party learn of the weaknesses in his

case that he has not considered, he also might learn about the procedural problems he faces at trial

and potential costs. For example, Plaintiff may think he has nothing to lose by going to trial, but that

is not correct. Plaintiff must pay witness fees for every witness he subpoenas for trial. If Defendant

prevails at trial, Defendant will be entitled to an award of costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Also,

under certain circumstances, a prevailing defendant in a civil rights action can recover attorneys’

fees, which are usually significantly larger than costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Fox v. Vice, 131 S.

Ct. 2205, 2215 (2011) (when civil rights action includes both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a

prevailing defendant may “receive only the portion of his fees that he would not have paid but for

the frivolous claim”). 

This case is now referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas again for a settlement conference

pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The proceedings will take place within ninety 

days of the date this order is filed. Magistrate Judge Vadas will coordinate a time and date for a

settlement conference with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within seven days

after the conclusion of the settlement conference, file with the Court a report for the proceedings. 

The Clerk will send to Magistrate Judge Vadas a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01674-EMC Document 84 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3