Leach v. Lowe, et al

Filing 131

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 129 Motion to Compel as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/11/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DONALD R. LEACH,

11

1:00-cv-06139-LJO-GSA PC

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO COMPEL AS MOOT

vs.
(Doc. 129.)

13

TOM CAREY, T. DREW,
D. SCHROEDER, and HAWS,

14
Defendants.
15
16
17

/
I.

BACKGROUND
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Donald R. Leach

18

(“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Kern

19

Valley State Prison in Delano, California. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

20

on August 2, 2000. (Doc. 1.) On December 17, 2010, Plaintiff and Defendants participated in

21

settlement proceedings before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, and the case was settled.

22

(Doc. 125.) On January 3, 2011, the case was dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to the parties'

23

stipulation. (Doc. 127.)

24

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to honor the confidential

25

settlement agreement. (Doc. 129.) On June 24, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition to

26

Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. 130.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
1

1

II.

2

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendants to honor the confidential

3

settlement agreement. Plaintiff asserts that as of May 31, 2011, Defendants had not paid the

4

agreed-upon settlement amount.

5

In opposition, Defendants argue that on June 3, 2011, the settlement funds were deposited

6

into Plaintiff's trust account, well within the time allotted under the settlement agreement.

7

Defendants have provided a copy of Plaintiff's Inmate CDCR Transaction List showing financial

8

transactions from December 7, 2010 to June 21, 2011, containing an entry on June 3, 2011 of an

9

Inmate Deposit in the amount of $5,000. (Doc. 130, Exh. A.)

10

Defendants have provided evidence that the settlement funds have been paid. In light of

11

the fact that more than forty-five days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants'

12

opposition or evidence, the Court finds good cause to deny Plaintiff's motion as moot.

13

III.

14
15

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to

compel, filed on June 7, 2011, is DENIED as moot.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

August 11, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2