Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-31/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Anderson
Defendant
Sylester Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

This case is currently set for jury trial on August 25, 2015. 

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third request for a court settlement and request for a court 

order forcing Defendant Anderson to respond to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 132.) On May 26, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a fourth request for a court settlement. (ECF No. 133.) 

Plaintiff previously filed two separate requests for a settlement conference which were both 

denied. (ECF Nos. 116, 118, 128, 131.) As Plaintiff was previously advised, the Court is available to 

assist with settlement of this action at the request of both parties. Should the parties agree that the 

Court’s assistance would be beneficial in settlement of this action, they may file a request for a 

settlement conference and a magistrate judge will be assigned to conduct a settlement conference. 

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AND 

FOURTH REQUESTS FOR COURT 

SETTLEMENT AND DENYING REQUEST FOR 

COURT ORDER RELATING TO DISCOVERY

[ECF Nos. 132, 133]

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 135 Filed 05/28/15 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

Absent a request by both parties demonstrating that a settlement conference may be beneficial, the 

Court will not order a settlement conference and Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

As to Plaintiff’s request for a court order to compel Defendant to file a response to his 

discovery requests, it must be denied. Plaintiff is advised that discovery in this action is closed and 

any and all pending discovery matters have been resolved. See ECF No. 31. Thus, Plaintiff cannot 

now propound discovery and compel a response, and his request must be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a court settlement conference is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant to respond to his discovery requests is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 135 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2