Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

TIMOTHY WATTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. RUGGIERO, 

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1749 TLN AC P 

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

This prisoner civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeds on plaintiff’s 

First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Ruggiero, a Correctional Sergeant and 

Assistant Institutional Gang Investigator at High Desert State Prison. See ECF Nos. 43, 47. 

By order filed April 20, 2016, the parties were directed to notify the court whether a 

settlement conference would be helpful in this case. See ECF No. 48. In response, the parties 

agree that a settlement conference should be scheduled. See ECF Nos. 49-51. 

Accordingly, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct 

a settlement conference on Monday, June 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Courtroom No. 25. 

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: 

Case 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 52 Filed 05/23/16 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

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

Newman, on Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom No.25. 

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. 

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

prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be delivered to the 

court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his 

non-confidential settlement statement to arrive not less than seven days prior to the settlement 

conference, addressed to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, USDC CAED, 501 I Street, Suite 

4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. The envelope shall be marked “Settlement Statement”. If a party 

desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so pursuant to the 

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

DATED: May 23, 2016 

 

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 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 52 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2