(PC) Dent v. Pierette

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 BRIAN KEITH DENT, No. 2:19-cv-01962-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LENOIOR PIERETTE, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Discovery has closed and the March 5, 2021 19 dispositive motions deadline has passed. See ECF No. 25 (Discovery and Scheduling Order). 20 Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions requesting a settlement 21 conference. ECF Nos. 28, 31. Defendants have filed a response thereto requesting an extension 22 of time to file a motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 29, 30. For the reasons explained 23 below, the court will grant plaintiff’s motions and deny defendants’ request for an extension of 24 time. The court will refer this case to the ADR Coordinator for the purpose of scheduling a 25 settlement conference. 26 On April 13, 2021, defendants filed their request for an extension of the summary 27 judgment deadline in this case. However, rather than properly file the request as a motion with an 28 accompanying proposed order as required by the Local Rules, defendants styled the matter as a 1 response to plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference. See ECF Nos. 29, 30; see also Local 2 Rule 137(b), 144. Setting aside the procedural deficiencies with defendants’ request, the court 3 finds the substance of the request to be unpersuasive. First and foremost, the only basis for the 4 request is defense counsel’s oversight in neglecting to add the dispositive motions deadline to her 5 personal calendar. ECF No. 29-1 at 2. While human error is understandable, what remains 6 perplexing to the court is the acknowledgement that the case deadlines were entered into the 7 Attorney General’s document management system. ECF No. 29-1 at 2. Therefore, the deadline 8 should not have been overlooked. Additionally, while the error was discovered “on or about 9 March 26, 2021,” defense counsel waited until April 13, 2021 to file a request for an extension of 10 time. ECF No. 29-1 at 2. Local Rule 144(d) requires counsel to seek an extension “as soon as the 11 need for one becomes apparent.” Based on these deficiencies, defendants have failed to 12 demonstrate good cause and the court will deny defendants’ request for an extension of time to 13 file a motion for summary judgment. 14 The remaining pending matter before the court is plaintiff’s motions requesting a 15 settlement conference in this case. ECF Nos. 28, 31. In his motion, plaintiff points out that 16 defendants’ basis for opting out of the court’s Post-Screening ADR project was based on the lack 17 of sufficient discovery to effectively evaluate plaintiff’s medical claims. See ECF No. 20. 18 Because discovery has now been completed, plaintiff requests that the case be set for a settlement 19 conference. Based on the procedural posture of this case, the court will grant plaintiff’s requests 20 to set a settlement conference. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (emphasizing 21 that the district court has the inherent power to manage its docket in order to conserve the time 22 and resources of the court and the litigants); United States v. United States Dist. Ct. for N. 23 Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that the district court has 24 the authority to compel participation in mandatory settlement conferences). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s motions requesting a settlement conference (ECF Nos. 28, 31) are granted. 27 2. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment is 28 denied. 1 3. The court will refer this matter to the ADR Coordinator for the purposes of scheduling 2 a settlement conference. 3 4. Defense counsel shall contact the court’s ADR coordinator, Sujean Park, at 4 spark@caed.uscourts.gov to schedule this matter for a settlement conference during 5 the court’s Settlement Week (May 24-28, 2021). 6 | Dated: April 21, 2021 Card ht fa □□ he CAROLYN K.DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 9 — — 10 — 1] — 12 — — 13 — 14 12/dent1962.adr.docx — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —