Gastile v. Virga et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/19/14 ORDERING that plaintiffs request to set aside the settlement (ECF No. 47 ) is DENIED. Dispositional documents remain due in accordance with the six month deadline imposed by Judge Newman on April 17, 2014.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY L. GASTILE,

12

No. 2:11-cv-2829-JAM-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

T. VIRGA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action brought

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman

19

presided over a settlement conference, which resulted in the parties’ agreement to settle this case.

20

ECF No. 46. On April 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the undersigned, claiming that

21

he was heavily medicated on the day of the settlement conference, which caused him to be

22

confused during the proceedings. ECF No. 47. He claims he felt pressured, coerced, and afraid

23

because nobody would hear his side of the story. Id. He asks that he be permitted to “recall” the

24

document he signed at the settlement conference. Id. The court construes plaintiff’s filing as a

25

request to set aside the settlement. So construed, the request is denied.

26

After the parties reached a settlement, Judge Newman went on record to confirm that the

27

parties had settled. The undersigned has listened to the audio recording of this proceeding, and is

28

satisfied that plaintiff voluntarily agreed to, and understood, the terms of the settlement
1

1

agreement. Judge Newman began the proceeding by reminding plaintiff that it was important that

2

he understood what was happening and that if he was confused at any time, Judge Newman

3

would provide him with clarification. Judge Newman then stated the terms of the settlement and

4

asked plaintiff (through individual questions): (1) if he had accurately stated the terms of the

5

settlement; (2) if plaintiff understood the terms; and (3) if plaintiff agreed to the terms. Plaintiff

6

responded affirmatively to each question. Judge Newman also asked if plaintiff had any

7

questions regarding the terms. Plaintiff responded that he did not. Judge Newman, who

8

acknowledged that the settlement terms were not what plaintiff had hoped for, confirmed that

9

plaintiff had not been forced into settling and that it was plaintiff’s desire to settle under the

10

agreed upon terms. Judge Newman even cautioned plaintiff that he could not come back to the

11

court with “buyer’s remorse,” claiming to be entitled to more than what was agreed upon by the

12

parties on that date. When asked if he understood this, plaintiff said he did. On this record,

13

plaintiff’s claims of confusion and coercion plainly lack merit.

14

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to set aside the

15

settlement (ECF No. 47) is denied. Dispositional documents remain due in accordance with the

16

six month deadline imposed by Judge Newman on April 17, 2014.

17

DATED: June 19, 2014.

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