Gradford v. Stanislaus Public Safety Center et al

Filing 52

ORDER RE Defense Counsel's 51 Response to Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/26/2020. ( Motions due within 30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER RE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S
RESPONSE TO ORDER
(ECF No. 51.)

STANISLAUS PUBLIC SAFETY
CENTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

21

against defendant Sergeant Flores1 (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the

22

Eighth Amendment.

23

On August 6, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to notify the Court

24

whether they believed a settlement conference would be beneficial in this case. (ECF No. 47.)

25

On August 12, 2020, defense counsel filed a response to the Court’s order notifying the Court

26

that Defendant’s employer, the County of Stanislaus, had already settled this and several other

27
28
1

Named by Plaintiff as Sergeant Florres.
1

1

pending cases brought by Plaintiff, but that Plaintiff takes the position the settlement is not valid.

2

(ECF No. 48.) On August 21, 2020, the court issued an order for defense counsel to provide

3

evidence of the settlement. (ECF No. 50.) On August 24, 2020, Defendant, through counsel,

4

responded to the court’s order. (ECF No. 51.)

5

II.

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE

6

Defendant represents that on May 7, 2019, Plaintiff settled all outstanding claims against

7

Stanislaus County and its employees in exchange for payment of $3000. Defense counsel, Dan

8

Farrar, has represented Stanislaus County custodial personnel in a number of cases filed by

9

Plaintiff William Gradford. (Decl. of Dan Farrar ¶ 3.) As of May 1, 2019, Mr. Farrar was

10

attorney of record in three cases: Gradford v. Lignoski, 1:17-cv-01460-DAD-GSA, Gradford v.

11

Tiexiera, 1:17-cv-00201, and Gradford v. McDougall, 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA. (Id.) Mr.

12

Farrar was aware of at least three other cases which had not been served, including the instant

13

case. (Id.) The unserved cases were Gradford v. Guiltron, 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA, Gradford

14

v. Chan, 1:18-cv-00710-DAD-GSA, and Gradford v. Florres, 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA.

15

In Gradford v. Tiexiera, 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, as the settlement conference date

16

(May 15, 2019) approached, Mr. Gradford filed a request with the court that all of his federal

17

lawsuits be discussed at the settlement conference. (Id. ¶ 4.) The request was granted and the

18

court’s order identified six active cases. (Id.) In late April or early May of 2019, Mr. Gradford

19

approached Mr. Farrar about settling all of his cases at once. (Id. ¶ 5.) Mr. Farrar does not recall

20

the specifics of the negotiations, but the County of Stanislaus ultimately offered to pay Mr.

21

Gradford a total of $3,000, in exchange for a dismissal of all pending actions and a release of all

22

claims. (Id.) Mr. Gradford accepted the offer. (Id.)

23

On May 7, 2019, Mr. Farrar met with Mr. Gradford in Modesto. (Id. ¶ 6.) Mr. Farrar

24

provided him with the settlement check in the sum of $3,000.00. (Id.) Mr. Gradford signed a

25

release as well as stipulations and proposed orders of dismissal of the cases in which defendants

26

had appeared. (Id.) Mr. Farrar provided him requests for dismissal for filing in the cases in

27

which defendants had not been served. (Id.) Mr. Farrar filed the stipulations of dismissal in the

28

three cases in which he was attorney of record and orders of dismissal were issued. (Id. ¶ 7.)
2

1

Mr. Gradford did not dismiss the three unserved cases, including the instant case. (Id. ¶ 8.) Over

2

the last several months Mr. Gradford has contacted Mr. Farrar asking/offering to settle all cases,

3

including the cases they already settled. (Id.)

4

Attached to Mr. Farrar’s declaration as Exhibit A is the settlement agreement (Release of

5

Claims) signed by Mr. Gradford on May 7, 2019. (Id. ¶ 6.) In the May 7, 2019 Release of All

6

Claims, Mr. Gradford agreed:

7

“ . . . to release and discharge the County of Stanislaus, its employees, and/or

8

representatives of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of

9

action, known or unknown, which William Gradford may have against the County

10

of Stanislaus, its employees, and/or representatives and to dismiss all pending

11

actions, . . .”

12

(ECF No. 51 at 6.) Mr. Farrar asserts that on the same day, Plaintiff was given a check from the

13

County of Stanislaus in the sum of $3,000.00, which he accepted and apparently cashed.

14

III.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

15

Of the six cases referred to by defense counsel, four of them have been dismissed:

16

(1)

Gradford v. Tiexiera, 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, dismissed 5/8/19;

17

(2)

Gradford v. McDougall, 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA, dismissed 5/8/19;

18

(3)

Gradford v. Lignoski, 1:17-cv-01460-DAD-GSA, dismissed 5/8/19; and

19

(4)

Gradford v. Chan, 1:18-cv-00710-DAD-GSA, dismissed 5/9/19.

20

Two of the cases are still pending:

21

(1)

Gradford v. Florres,1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA; and

22

(2)

Gradford v. Guiltron, 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA.

23

Case 17-01248 (the present case) now proceeds against sole defendant Sergeant Flores,

24

who was employed at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center during the time at issue in the

25

case. Case 18-01364-DAD-GSA now proceeds against sole defendant Deputy Guiltron, who

26

also was employed at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center during the time at issue in that

27

case. The undersigned is the Magistrate Judge assigned to both of these cases; Dan Farrar is now

28

defense counsel of record in both of these cases; and, both of the defendants in these cases fit the
3

1

criteria identifying defendants whose claims were released by William Gradford pursuant to the

2

May 7, 2019 Release of Claims.

3

To resolve these two pending cases at this stage of the proceedings, the appropriate action

4

is for the Defendant, in each case, to bring a formal motion to dismiss based on the

5

representations of defense counsel, Dan Farrar, and the May 7, 2019 Release of Claims. Said

6

motion(s) is/are to be filed within thirty days of the filing of this order, otherwise this case, and

7

the other above referenced case, will proceed in compliance with their respective scheduling

8

orders.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4