ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR VIDEO SETTLEMENT COFERENCE

(ECF No. 28)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's March 05, 2018, request for clarification (ECF No. 28) regarding transportation for his up-coming settlement conference March 23, 2018. (See ECF No. 22.)

Plaintiff asks (1) if he will have a layover at California State Prison at Corcoran ("CSP-COR") or if he will be transported directly back to North Kern State Prison ("NKSP") without having to undergo Orientation; (2) if Plaintiff will be able to retain his Porter job; and (3) if Plaintiff will be able to retain his good time credits.

Regrettably, the Court has no control over any of these issues or even any information sufficient to enable it to answer Plaintiff's questions. Plaintiff should inquire of the litigation coordinator at his institution.

Plaintiff also requests a video conference as an alternative to an in person settlement hearing.

The Court has found that settlement conferences are rarely productive without face to face contact with the participants. Moreover, the time and adjustment necessary to attending a settlement conference will be substantially less burdensome to Plaintiff than that required for conducting a trial of his case if the matter is not settled. As an alternative, Plaintiff may directly contact counsel for the Defendant and undertake to negotiate a resolution of this case before, and without the need for, the in person settlement conference with the judge.

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a video settlement conference is DENIED, but his motion for clarification is GRANTED by provision of the above information to him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.