Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082-14/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

MICHAEL TENORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHANAEL GOODGAME, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-1082 WBS CKD P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action 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 Kendall J. Newman 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 #25 on June 12, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.

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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

Newman on June 12, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, 

Sacramento, California 95814 in Courtroom #25.

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 04/24/14 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 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. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements seven days 

prior to this settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be 

delivered to the court using the following email address: 

kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff shall mail his statement so it arrives no later 

than seven days prior to the settlement conference to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 

Newman, U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. 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: April 24, 2014

2/sp/teno1082.med

 

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).

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 2