Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01896-13/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

Plaintiff Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to order a mandatory settlement 

conference. Plaintiff’s request must be denied as premature. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize settlement discussions at any pretrial 

conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(I). While federal courts have the authority to require the parties to 

engage in settlement conferences, they have no authority to coerce settlements. Goss Graphic 

Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 267 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2001). 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Martinez and Vidaurri for deliberate indifference 

to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Both Defendants have filed an 

answer to the complaint, and the dispositive motion deadline is June 13, 2016. (ECF Nos. 15, 54, 55.) 

TYRONE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VIDURRIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COURT TO ORDER A MANDATORY 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

[ECF No. 58]

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff is advised there is no basis for settlement at this juncture. Plaintiff should contact 

defense counsel with any settlement offers and should both parties be interested in a settlement 

conference, the Court will coordinate a settlement conference as requested by the parties. At this time, 

however, such an order would be premature, and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 2