(PC) Redix v. Navarro et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to enforce settlement 39 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/15/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01647-JLT-SAB (PC)

ESAU REDIX,

v.

(ECF No. 39)

NAVARRO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Esau Redix (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 9, 2021, a settlement conference was held before the undersigned. The

19
20

terms and conditions of the settlement agreement were placed on the record and the Court

21

retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. (ECF No. 35.)
On November 19, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants Campos and Gonzales filed a stipulation

22
23

to dismiss Defendants Campos and Gonzales, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (ECF No. 36.) The same date, the remaining parties filed a stipulation

25

to dismiss this action, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and indicating that the

26

Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for one year for enforcement of settlement purposes

27

only. (ECF No. 37.) The action was then closed. (ECF No. 38.)

28

///
1

1

On February 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter to the undersigned, stating that as of January

2

18, 2022, he had not received any funds and requesting an explanation. (ECF No. 39.) The Court

3

construed Plaintiff’s letter as a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and directed

4

Defendants to file a response within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants filed an

5

opposition on February 4, 2022, arguing that Plaintiff’s motion was premature, as it was filed

6

prior to the 180-day deadline for Defendants to disburse Plaintiff’s settlement funds. (ECF No.

7

41.)

8
9

On August 31, 2022, noting that more than 180 days had passed since the filing of
dispositional documents, and the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to one year from November

10

19, 2021, the Court issued an order holding Plaintiff’s motion in abeyance and directed

11

Defendants to file a status report regarding payment of the settlement amount. (ECF No. 43.)

12

On September 13, 2022, Defendants filed a status report indicating that defense counsel

13

was informed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) that the

14

settlement proceeds were paid to Plaintiff on February 15, 2022. (ECF No. 44.)

15

In light of Defendants’ status report indicating that payment was made in full shortly after

16

the filing of Plaintiff’s motion, and the lack of any communication from Plaintiff, it appears that

17

CDCR has disbursed the settlement proceeds to Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the

18

settlement agreement.

19
20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, (ECF No. 39), is
HEREBY DENIED.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 15, 2022

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2