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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-0878 TLN DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2009, the then-assigned district judge

adopted the undersigned’s July 14, 2009 findings and recommendations and granted in part and

denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed an

interlocutory appeal, arguing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that they were entitled to

qualified immunity on plaintiff’s equal protection claim. On January 11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit

affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to defendants Kissinger, Peery,

Qualls, and Money but reversed the denial of qualified immunity as to defendant Ingwerson. The

Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

On remand, the court ordered that the parties participate in a settlement

conference. On September 14, 2012, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Gregory H.

1

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 253 Filed 06/25/13 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

Hollows for a settlement conference. The case did not settle at that time. Since then, the court

has issued a scheduling order setting the dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and

trial. The court has also found that appointment of counsel is warranted and has referred this

matter to the court’s ADR and Pro Bono Director Sujean Park to locate an attorney who is

admitted to practice in the court and is willing to accept appointment. Director Park has not yet

located an attorney willing to undertake plaintiff’s representation. In addition, in light of the

court’s decision to appoint counsel as well as the reassignment of this case on April 3, 2013 to

District Judge Troy L. Nunley, the court has relieved the parties of filing pretrial statements at

this time, and the trial date in this case has been vacated. (See Doc. Nos. 247 and 251.)

Both parties appear to remain interested in settling this matter. In the interest of

justice and judicial economy, the court will order the parties to participate in a second settlement

conference. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in

writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned

magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court’s mediation program for assignment to

another judge of this court to preside over that settlement conference. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court

in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the

undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to wish to be referred to the court’s mediation

program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall

return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the

parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each

party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court’s mediation program;

and

/////

/////

2

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 253 Filed 06/25/13 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for

settlement conferences.

DATED: June 25, 2013.

DAD:9

davi0878.sc(2)

3

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 253 Filed 06/25/13 Page 3 of 3