Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Charles T. Davis v. C/O Kissinger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 5, 2012

CHARLES T. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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 assigned district judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the defendants 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 as to defendant Ingwerson. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of video-conferencing. 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.

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

20120705

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.