UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 3, 2010
DOCTOR E. CAPOT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 47)
Plaintiff Leonard Farley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed August 28, 2007 (ECF No. 15). Plainitff's complaint alleges Defendant Harold Tate was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On August 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a settlement conference. (ECF No. 47.) In this type of action, settlement conferences are not set automatically. Local Rule 240(c)(8). A settlement conference will set only if both sides notify the Court that they believe a settlement conference may be beneficial or desirable. Local Rule 270(a). Defendant Tate has not so notified the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference is denied, albeit without prejudice.
This court encourages settlement conferences. If, as the case progresses, both sides come to agree that a settlement conference could be productive, the Court will undertake to accommodate them.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Settlement Conference is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.