Jones v. County of Sacramento, 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180802763
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He contends defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial is currently set for October 15, 2018. ( See ECF No. 57.) In March 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No. 65.) At that time, plaintiff was represented by counsel. However, shortly after defendants fil
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He contends defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial is currently set for October 15, 2018. ( See ECF No. 57.) In March 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No. 65.) At that time, plaintiff was represented by counsel. However, shortly after defendants file..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial is currently set for October 15, 2018. (See ECF No. 57.) In March 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No. 65.) At that time, plaintiff was represented by counsel. However, shortly after defendants filed their motion, plaintiff terminated his counsel and substituted himself in pro per. (ECF No. 66.) He then filed an opposition to the motion in which he stated he had not agreed to the settlement terms. (ECF No. 72.)
In an order filed June 26, 2018, the court found an evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve factual disputes regarding whether the parties had, in fact, settled. (ECF No. 74.) On July 2, plaintiff filed a notice that he wished to settle on the terms previously set out as long as he did not owe either the courts or his prior counsel any money. (ECF No. 75.) On July 13, defendants filed requests for a status conference regarding settlement and for a continuance of the trial date. The court finds good cause supports both requests.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The court will hold a status conference on August 31, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom #27. By separate order, the court will direct the Sacramento County Sheriff to transport plaintiff to the court so that he may participate in the conference.
2. The August 17, 2018 pretrial conference and the October 15, 2018 trial date are vacated. If necessary, the court will re-set those dates at a later time.
3. All other dates and deadlines set out in the court's December 30, 2016 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 57) are vacated.
Source: Leagle
