Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02466-7/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

OBIE LEE CRISP,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2466 KJN P

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

AMENDING ECF No. 31

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2016, this case was referred to the Post-Screening ADR Project. 

Parties were ordered to file their response to the attached NOTICE RE: Judge Election for 

Settlement Conference (Post Screening ADR Project) within 30 days. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff 

filed his response on June 14, 2016 (ECF No. 27) and defendants filed their response on July 6, 

2016 (ECF No. 29). Both parties filed responses indicating that they affirmatively request that 

the assigned magistrate judge participate in the settlement conference and, further, waive any 

claim of disqualification to the assigned magistrate judge trying the case thereafter. A settlement 

conference has been set in this case for November 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., before Magistrate Judge 

Kendall J. Newman at the U. S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 in 

Courtroom #25. (ECF No. 31.) Parties will no longer be directed to exchange non-confidential 

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 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 2

settlement conference statements and simultaneously deliver them to the court. The court will 

contact parties prior to the settlement conference to ascertain each party’s expectations of the 

settlement conference. 

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:

1. The settlement conference is confirmed for November 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom #25 before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman at the U. S. District 

Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

2. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding 

settlement on the defendants’ behalf shall attend in person1.

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.

////

////

////

////

 

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 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 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 3

4. Parties are no longer directed to exchange non-confidential settlement conference 

statements and simultaneously deliver a copy to the court. Rather, 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. 

Dated: August 4, 2016

Cris2466.med

kc

Case 2:15-cv-02466-KJN Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 3