Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01271-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baker
Defendant
William Houston
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

WILLIAM HOUSTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BAKER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:18-cv-1271-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL 

SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS FOR 

PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

“MANDATORY PHONE ACCESS” 

The parties to this action shall each, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the 

order, submit confidential statements as described below. The confidential statements shall not 

be served on the opposing party or filed with the court, but instead, delivered by mail, fax, email 

or personal delivery to the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) division at the address, 

fax number or email address below and marked “Confidential.” Such statements shall be limited 

to five (5) pages and shall include the following: 

1. The party’s assessment of whether the instant action is of the type that would 

benefit from a settlement proceeding; 

2. The party’s assessment of what factors, if any, will prevent settlement of this 

matter prior to trial; and 

3. Any additional information the court may find useful in determining whether to set 

this matter for a settlement conference. 

Case 2:18-cv-01271-KJM-JDP Document 49 Filed 03/06/20 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 

 Should the court determine that this action is appropriate for referral to the Prisoner 

Settlement Program, it will set this matter for settlement conference before a magistrate judge or 

district judge. If not, the court will direct the parties to file pretrial statements. 

 Further, the court declines to interfere with the day-today operation of the prison where 

plaintiff is confined; therefore, plaintiff’s motion for “mandatory phone access” (ECF No. 48) is 

denied. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-86 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 

(9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing themselves in minutiae of prison operations in 

name of constitution). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 5, 2020. 

cc: ADR Division, Attention: Sujean Park 

 US District Court 

 501 I Street, Suite 4-200 

 Sacramento, CA 95814 

 Fax: (916) 491-3912 

 email: spark@caed.uscourts.gov 

 

Case 2:18-cv-01271-KJM-JDP Document 49 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2