Ortiz v. Reynolds et al

Filing 179

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/27/2018 RECOMMENDING the 7/31/2017 171 motion to enforce the settlement agreement be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE B. ORTIZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-1380-MCE-EFB P
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REYNOLDS et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel who filed this action under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties agreed to settle all remaining claims on February 22, 2017. ECF No.

19

163. The case was accordingly dismissed on March 14, 2017. ECF No. 169.

20

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff submitted a letter to the court complaining that defendants had

21

not complied with the settlement agreement. ECF No. 171. The court found that defendants had

22

complied regarding some terms, but ordered defense counsel to provide evidence showing the

23

application of settlement funds to plaintiff’s restitution fines and make a further good faith effort

24

to replace plaintiff’s radio. ECF No. 176. Defense counsel has done so. ECF Nos. 177, 178.

25

Plaintiff has had ample time to respond to that evidence but has not responded.

26

Courts treat settlement agreements as contracts. Rouser v. White, 825 F.3d 1076, 1081

27

(9th Cir. 2016). The court has construed plaintiff’s letter as a motion to enforce the settlement

28

agreement. Accordingly, the question before the court is whether defendants have substantially
1

1

complied with the agreement. Id. at 1081-82. Defendants have substantially complied if any

2

deviation from the terms of the agreement is unintentional and so minor or trivial as to not

3

substantially defeat the object of the agreement. Id. at 1082. The court has already concluded

4

that defendants have substantially complied with much of the agreement. ECF No. 176 at 5. The

5

court now finds that defendants have substantially complied with the remaining terms. They have

6

submitted evidence showing the application of the settlement funds to plaintiff’s restitution fines

7

and inform the court that plaintiff has been offered and has accepted a replacement radio.

8
9

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the July 31, 2017 motion to enforce the
settlement agreement (ECF No. 171) be DENIED.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

14

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

15

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

16

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

DATED: August 27, 2018.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2