Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00759-19/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

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING 

PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

DEADLINE

Date: 04/02/2015

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 25 (KJN)

This case has been selected for inclusion in the Prisoner Settlement Program. This case is 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference 

at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25 on 

April 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue concurrently with 

this order.

In accordance with the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follow:

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

Kendall J. Newman on April 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I 

Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, in Courtroom #25.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/04/15 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

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.

4. Judge Newman or another representative from the court will be contacting the parties 

either by telephone or in person, approximately one week prior to the settlement 

conference, to ascertain each party’s expectations of the settlement conference.

5. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline set for March 6, 2015, is extended to May 6, 

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

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 

Afull 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 by Official Airline 

Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F. 3d 1385, 1396 (9th Cir. 1993). The individual with full authority to settle must also have 

Aunfettered 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., No. 

CV02-1886PHX DGC, 2003 WL 23353478, at *3 (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 1:10-cv-00759-LJO-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2