(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)

Download PDF
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

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?