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.

Jesse Washington v. J. Brown

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


October 12, 2012

JESSE WASHINGTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. BROWN, 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 August 25, 2010, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claims of inadequate medical care and violation of his right to free exercise of religion, as well as claims raised under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. On August 24, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's RLUIPA claims be granted. On October 9, 2012, the assigned district judge adopted those findings and recommendations and granted defendants' renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to plaintiff's RLUIPA claims .

This action is now proceeding on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force against defendants Brown and Madrigal and plaintiff's First Amendment claim of violation to free exercise of religion against defendants Brewer and Kissinger. In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial on the remaining claims. 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 waive disqualification and proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish instead to be referred to the court's mediation program.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one 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.

20121012

© 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.