Houston v. Baker, 2:18-cv-1271-KJM-EFB P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200309675
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS FOR PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR "MANDATORY PHONE ACCESS" EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . The parties to this action shall each, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the order, submit confidential statements as described below. The confidential statements shall not be served on the opposing party or filed with the court, but instead, delivered by mail, fax, email or personal delivery to
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS FOR PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR "MANDATORY PHONE ACCESS" EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . The parties to this action shall each, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the order, submit confidential statements as described below. The confidential statements shall not be served on the opposing party or filed with the court, but instead, delivered by mail, fax, email or personal delivery to t..
More
ORDER REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS FOR PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR "MANDATORY PHONE ACCESS"
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
The parties to this action shall each, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the order, submit confidential statements as described below. The confidential statements shall not be served on the opposing party or filed with the court, but instead, delivered by mail, fax, email or personal delivery to the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) division at the address, fax number or email address below and marked "Confidential." Such statements shall be limited to five (5) pages and shall include the following:
1. The party's assessment of whether the instant action is of the type that would benefit from a settlement proceeding;
2. The party's assessment of what factors, if any, will prevent settlement of this matter prior to trial; and
3. Any additional information the court may find useful in determining whether to set this matter for a settlement conference.
Should the court determine that this action is appropriate for referral to the Prisoner Settlement Program, it will set this matter for settlement conference before a magistrate judge or district judge. If not, the court will direct the parties to file pretrial statements.
Further, the court declines to interfere with the day-today operation of the prison where plaintiff is confined; therefore, plaintiff's motion for "mandatory phone access" (ECF No. 48) is denied. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-86 (1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing themselves in minutiae of prison operations in name of constitution).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
