UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 24, 2013
MONTE L. HANEY,
ADAMS, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MEDIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Doc. 131)
Plaintiff Monte Haney ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2007 and is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint, filed on July 16, 2008.
On November 27, 2012, an order issued requiring the parties in this action to notify the court within thirty (30) days whether a settlement conference would be beneficial. (Doc. 113.) Plaintiff complied in a timely fashion. (Doc. 116.) When defendants did not respond, Plaintiff filed a motion to hold defense counsel in contempt for failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. 123.) Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a notice of amenability to settlement conference. (Doc. 125.)
On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution" which is currently before the Court. (Doc. 131.) In that motion, Plaintiff requests that this case be set for a settlement conference and now seeks that Defendants' attorney be sanctioned for their untimely response. (Id.) However, on the same date, and prior to the filing of Plaintiff's current motion, an order issued setting this case for settlement conference on February 21, 2013 in front of Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison (Doc. 127) and another order issued denying Plaintiff's motion to hold defense counsel in contempt for the tardy response regarding his client's willingness to participate in a settlement conference (Doc. 129).
Thus, Plaintiff's request that the case be set for a settlement conference is moot. Further, Plaintiff's request that sanctions be imposed against defense counsel under Rule 16(f)(1)(C) of the Civil Rules of Procedure is denied for reasons similar to those stated in the order denying his motion to hold defense counsel in contempt. A stated in that prior order, Defense counsel, while slightly tardy, did ultimately comply with the court's order by filing the notice of amenability and Plaintiff has not been harmed by this delay as the matter is set for a settlement conference.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, filed January 16, 2013 (Doc. 131), is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.