Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-25/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 92)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and against Defendants Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment due process rights.

Currently pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by 

Defendants Esparza and Duncan on the grounds that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment due process rights. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on December 10, 

2021, and Defendants’ reply was filed on December 16, 2021. (ECF Nos. 88, 89.)

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to set this matter for a video 

settlement conference. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff states that although this Court has set this case for 

a settlement conference twice before, Defendants now have new counsel and Plaintiff would like 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 93 Filed 03/10/23 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

to meet and possibly settle this case while Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending 

before the Court. (Id.)

The Court generally will not grant motions to set a settlement conference without 

confirmation that all parties feel that a settlement conference would be a beneficial use of 

resources of the parties and the Court. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to obtain a brief 

response from Defendants regarding Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference, indicating 

whether Defendants are also willing to participate in a settlement conference in this matter. The 

parties are further reminded that they are free to communicate regarding a possible settlement, 

without judicial involvement.

Accordingly, Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to file a brief written response to 

Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference, (ECF No. 92), within twenty-one (21) days from 

the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 93 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 2