(PC) Gradford v. Freddie
Filing
68
ORDER GRANTING Voluntary Dismissal and CLOSING CASE signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/4/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:19-cv-01252-DAD-EPG
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL AND CLOSING CASE
DEPUTY FREDDIE,
(Doc. Nos. 46, 47, 56, 63, 65, 67)
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff William J. Gradford, is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a difficult-to-decipher, handwritten motion seeking, on
21
its face, “to dismiss this case and all other cases or motions involved in this ‘settlement
22
agreement’ on May 7, 2019 with prejudice.” (Doc. No. 46.) Defendant did not file a response to
23
that filing. Plaintiff had previously filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2020, which the
24
court had allowed plaintiff to withdraw after he had stated that he filed that motion based on his
25
confusion between this case and his other cases pending before this court that had already been
26
settled. (Doc. Nos. 31 at 12, 8; 33.) On April 19, 2021, after filing his motion to dismiss this
27
action, plaintiff filed another difficult-to-decipher document entitled “Order of Electronic Filing
28
(Notice)” in which he states that he has filed a motion to vacate the parties’ dismissal and
1
1
settlement agreement and to reschedule a settlement conference with a reference to another case
2
number and to a docket number 87, a docket numbered document that does not appear on the
3
docket of this case. (Doc. No. 49 at 1.)
The court struggled to understand plaintiff’s seemingly contradictory requests.1 Thus, on
4
5
April 22, 2021, the undersigned directed defendant Freddie to file supplemental briefing and
6
documentation addressing whether it is defendant’s contention that this case should be dismissed
7
pursuant to the terms of the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement and, if so, to explain why within
8
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of that order. (Doc. No. 50.) On April 28, 2021,
9
counsel on behalf of defendant Freddie filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s March
10
22, 2021 motion for voluntary dismissal and a response to the court’s April 22, 2021 order. (Doc.
11
Nos. 51, 52.)
12
On April 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to extend all “dispositive” and
13
necessary deadlines in this case purportedly so that he would be able to collect and re-file
14
unspecified documents and evidence.2 (Doc. No. 53.) On May 4, 2021, the court construed
15
plaintiff’s motion as a request to file a reply in support of his pending motion to dismiss and
16
directing plaintiff to file any such reply by May 17, 2021. (Doc. No. 59.) On May 13, 2021,
17
plaintiff filed a reply brief. (Doc. No. 64.)
18
DISCUSSION
19
20
Defendant asserts that the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement included the claims giving
rise to this action. (Doc. No. 52 at 1.) Defendant states the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement
21
1
27
Plaintiff has also filed several other motions, which are now pending before this court. On
April 16, 2021, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration, which consisted of a single sentence,
seemingly seeking to challenge all of the assigned magistrate judge’s rulings after the filing of
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this action and wherein plaintiff neither identified which rulings he
sought to have reconsidered nor provided any basis why this court should do so. (Doc. No. 47.)
On May 3 and June 1, 2021, plaintiff filed additional difficult-to-decipher motions, an “amended
schedule,” and a notice. (Doc. Nos. 56, 57, 63, 65, 67.) Also on May 3, 2021, plaintiff filed a
notice of in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 58), and then on May 17, 2021, filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 65), a status which had previously been granted to plaintiff
in this case on December 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 10).
28
2
22
23
24
25
26
This motion was denied by the magistrate judge on May 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 55.)
2
1
included a release of “all claims, demands, actions and causes of action, known or unknown,
2
which plaintiff might have against the County of Stanislaus.” (Id.) This language appears in the
3
release plaintiff signed, which is attached to defendant’s response. (Id. at 3–6.) Plaintiff’s
4
claims in this action relate to the alleged conditions of the showers at the Stanislaus County Jail
5
between April and August 2017 (Doc. No. 1 at 3), which are claims that defendant contends
6
clearly would have been known to plaintiff at the time he signed the settlement agreement and
7
signed release form on May 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 52 at 1.)
8
9
In his reply, plaintiff acknowledges that he did sign the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement
and signed release form but he asserts he was “uneducated in law” and asks the court to “re-
10
examine all of his records, files, and cases, and deny Defendant’s3 motion to dismiss and
11
reschedule a settlement conference.” (Doc. No. 64 at 1–2)(emphasis added). Therein he argues
12
that the copy of the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement and release form provided by counsel for
13
the defendant did not contain all the relevant pages, and plaintiff includes an additional copy of
14
the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement and release form. (Id. at 2, 4–7.)
15
In his supplementary briefing, plaintiff does not contend that this case was not covered by
16
the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement and signed release form. Neither does plaintiff argue that
17
any of the allegedly missing pages of the documents submitted to this court suggest this action
18
was not settled as part of the parties’ agreement in 2019.4 Because the claims giving rise to this
19
action arose in 2017, the court finds that they would have been known to plaintiff at the time of
20
the signing on May 7, 2019 of the settlement agreement and release form. The court previously
21
determined that plaintiff’s settlement and signed release form constituted a valid, clear, and
22
unambiguous waiver of plaintiff’s legal claims. See Gradford v. Stanislaus Pub. Safety Ctr., No.
23
1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA (PC), Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations (Mar. 23,
24
2021) (Doc. No. 63). Accordingly, the court will construe plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
25
46) as a request for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) will
26
3
27
28
4
The pending motion to dismiss, however, has been brought by plaintiff himself.
The court reviewed all the copies of the May 7, 2019 settlement agreement and signed release
form provided, and they appear to be identical. (Cf. Doc. Nos. 46 at 3–4; 55 at 3–6; 64 at 4–7.)
3
1
dismiss this action pursuant to the terms of the parties’ May 2019 settlement and signed release
2
form, which constituted a valid, clear, and unambiguous waiver of plaintiff’s legal claims brought
3
in this action.
PLAINTIFF’S OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
4
5
Because the court will dismiss this action pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement
6
and signed release form, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 47), motion requesting
7
items be disclosed (Doc. No. 56), motion for miscellaneous relief (Doc. No. 63), motion to
8
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 65), and motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 67) are
9
rendered moot and will not be addressed.
10
Accordingly,
11
1. Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal (Doc. No. 46) is granted;
12
2. This action is dismissed pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement and
13
signed release form, which constituted a valid, clear, and unambiguous waiver
14
of plaintiff’s legal claims brought in this action;
15
3. All of plaintiff’s pending motions (Doc. Nos. 47, 56, 63, 65, 67) are denied as
16
having been rendered moot; and
17
18
19
20
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?