Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 315

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny 312 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement as Moot re 146 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 10/12/2022. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-HBK (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AS MOOT

T. MOORE, ET. AL.,
FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 312)

17
18

Plaintiff Michael Harrison is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se in this closed civil

19

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, on July 22, 2016, the Court

20

directed the Clerk of Court to close the action based upon the parties’ notice of voluntary

21

dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 311). Pending before

22

the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Request for Settlement Payment,” filed 67 months later on

23

February 24, 2022, in which Plaintiff claims he has not received the settlement monies agreed

24

upon in the settlement agreement reached in this case. (Doc. No. 312). The Court, noting it

25

retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, construed Plaintiff’s pro se motion as a

26

motion to enforce the settlement agreement and directed a response from Defendants. (Doc. No.

27

313). Defendants filed an opposition, attaching a declaration from attorney Susan E. Coleman in

28

support, as well as the settlement agreement, memorandum from attorney Peter G. Thyberg with

1

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Legal Affairs, and

2

Plaintiff’s inmate statement report showing a deposit of $2,000.00 on October 25, 2016. (Doc.

3

No. 314). Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. (See docket). Because

4

the facts demonstrate Plaintiff timely received the full amount of the settlement funds set forth in

5

the agreement, the undersigned recommends that the district court deny Plaintiff’s construed

6

motion to enforce the settlement agreement as moot.

7

Plaintiff contends that he did not receive the $3,000.00 settlement payment that

8

Defendants agreed to pay him. (Doc. No. 312). Defendants responded and confirmed a

9

warrant/check for $2,000.00, as agreed to by the parties, was issued on September 27, 2016, and

10

deposited into Plaintiff’s trust fund account on October 25, 2016, at his place of institution

11

without any deduction for restitution. (Doc. No. 314 at 2). Defense counsel also attests under

12

oath that the settlement funds were paid in full to Plaintiff on October 25, 2016. (Id. at 4).

13

Further, while Plaintiff claims he was owed $3,000.00 as settlement, the settlement agreement

14

attached as an exhibit to Defendants’ opposition, which Plaintiff signed, evidences the parties

15

agreed Defendants would pay Plaintiff a total amount of $2,000.00 as a settlement payment. (Id.

16

at Exhibit A).

17

With respect to Plaintiff’s claims that he did not timely receive the settlement funds, a

18

review of the docket shows the case settled after a settlement conference on July 6, 2016. (Doc.

19

No. 309). The parties had until July 8, 2016 file dispositional documents with the Court. (Id.).

20

On July 6, 2016, Defendants filed an executed stipulation for voluntary dismissal containing both

21

Plaintiff and defense counsel’s signatures. (Doc. No. 310). Thus, the parties timely filed

22

dispositional documents with the Court.

23

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and Release, CDCR had 180 days from the date

24

Plaintiff delivered the signed notice of voluntary dismissal, the Settlement Agreement, and

25

completed the Payee Data Form, to pay Plaintiff the settlement amount. (Doc. No. 314 at Exhibit

26

A). While defense counsel did not inform the Court in the opposition the date the completed,

27

signed settlement papers were received, 180 days after the date of the July 6, 2016 Settlement

28

Conference was January 2, 2017. The declaration submitted under oath confirms the settlement
2

1

funds were deposited into Plaintiff’s account on October 25, 2016, well before the 180 day grace

2

period. (Doc. No. 314 at 4). Moreover, Plaintiff’s inmate trust fund account statement provided

3

with Defendants’ opposition reflects the settlement funds were deposited in Plaintiff’s account on

4

October 25, 2016. (See Doc. No. 314 at Exhibit C). Based upon a review of the docket and the

5

uncontroverted evidence submitted by Defendants, Defendants deposited $2,000.00 into

6

Plaintiff’s inmate trust fund account before the 180 days expired and did not breach the settlement

7

agreement. Because the settlement funds were timely deposited and received into Plaintiff’s

8

inmate trust fund account, there is nothing left in the settlement agreement to enforce.

9

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
Plaintiff’s construed motion to enforce the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 312) be

10
11

DENIED as MOOT.

12

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

13

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

14

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

15

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

16

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

17

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and

18

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

19

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

20

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

21

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23

Dated:

October 12, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3