(PC) Garraway v. Ciufo

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MITCHELL GARRAWAY, 1:17-cv-00533-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A 13 vs. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL JACQUILINE CIUFO, et al., THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Mitchell Garraway (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 25 (1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint filed on April 17, 2017, against defendants Jacqueline Ciufo (Unit Manager), K. Miller (Corrections Officer), and Lieutenant J. Zaragoza (collectively, “Defendants”), for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)

1 On November 27, 2018, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting out deadlines for the parties including a discovery deadline of May 25, 2019, and a dispositive motions deadline of July 27, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) On March 4, 2020, the court extended the discovery deadline to June 5, 2020 and the dispositive motions deadline to August 5, 2020. (ECF No. 97.) The deadlines are now expired.

6 On March 13, 2019, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of September 13, 2019, and a dispositive motion filing deadline of November 13, 2019. (ECF No. 15.) All of the deadlines have now expired, and no motions are pending.

10 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court ordinarily proceeds to schedule the case for trial.

12 II. SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS 13 The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held at the Court or at a prison in the Eastern District of California.1 Plaintiff and Defendants shall notify the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2 18 Defendants’ counsel shall notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.

22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff and Defendants shall each file a written response to this Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, settlement conferences may be held remotely.

2 The parties may wish to discuss the issue by telephone in determining whether they believe settlement is feasible.

1 order, notifying the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: January 22, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3 The issuance of this order does not guarantee referral for settlement, but the Court will make every reasonable attempt to secure the referral should both parties desire a settlement conference.