Courtney Motley v. B. Jones

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Courtney Motley, Case No. 2:25-cv-00237-GMN-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER Vv. 8] B. Jones, [Docket Nos. 20, 27] 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to “enforce settlement and video 11] conference.” Docket No. 20.' Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 21. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to “enforce settlement and video 13] conference.” Docket No. 27. The Court does not discern the relief that Plaintiff is seeking. To be 14] clear, there was no settlement at the recent mediation, see Docket No. 15 (minutes of proceeding 15] indicating that “a settlement was NOT reached”), so there is no settlement to enforce. If Plaintiff 16] is asking the Court to hold a settlement conference, that request is denied. The parties very recently 17] attended a mediation. Docket No. 15. No reason has been advanced as to why settlement is likely 18] now if it was not achievable a few weeks ago. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions to 19] enforce settlement and video conference. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: November 18, 2025 .

Nancy J. Koppe 23 United States\Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27), ————_____ ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are 28] prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).