Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02076/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02076-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES McCLOUGH, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JIMMY KEENER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-02076-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Charles McClough (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2015, parties were ordered to 

inform the Court if they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial. (Doc. 32.) 

After a review of parties’ submissions, the Court has determined that this case will benefit from 

a settlement conference. Therefore, this case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. 

Boone to conduct a settlement conference at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, 

Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9 on December 11, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

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

1. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. 

Boone on December 11, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. at the U. S. District Court, 2500 Tulare 

Street, Fresno, California 93721 in Courtroom #9.

Case 1:12-cv-02076-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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. 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. Parties are directed to submit confidential settlement statements no later than 

December 4, 2015 to saborders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff may mail his 

confidential settlement statement to U. S. District Court, ADR Director, 501 I 

Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, California 95814 so it arrives no later than 

December 4, 2015. 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). Parties are also directed to file a “Notice of Submission of Confidential 

Settlement Statement” (See L.R. 270(d)). Settlement statements should not be filed

with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Settlement statements 

shall be clearly marked “confidential” with the date and time of the settlement 

conference indicated prominently thereon. The confidential settlement statement

///

///

 

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 1:12-cv-02076-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

shall be no longer than five pages in length, typed or neatly printed, and include 

the following:

a. A brief statement of the facts of the case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds 

upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties’ 

likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the 

major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further discovery, pretrial, 

and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The party’s position on settlement, including present demands and offers and a 

history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.

g. A brief statement of each party’s expectations and goals for the settlement 

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02076-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 3