Rushdan v. Hamkar et al

Filing 126

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/19/19 DENYING 124 Motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement. This case shall remain closed. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ROBERT STANLEY WOODS aka SALADIN RUSHDAN, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 ORDER v. HAMKAR, et al., Defendants. 16 17 No. 2:12-cv-00562 MCE CKD P Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action that was filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was closed on March 30, 2016. Currently pending before the 19 court is plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement and request to hold 20 defendants in contempt of court. ECF No. 124. Defendants have not filed a response. For the 21 reasons explained herein, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion. 22 I. Procedural History 23 This action was commenced on March 2, 2012 against five physicians at California State 24 Prison-Sacramento alleging deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s ongoing medical needs for his 25 keloidal condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See ECF No. 6 (screening order). The 26 parties reached a settlement agreement on or about February 16, 2016 and the case was 27 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on March 29, 2016 pursuant to the terms of the settlement 28 agreement. See ECF No. 117. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 1 1 agreement for a period of twelve months “from the date the agreement is executed by all 2 parties….” See ECF No. 124 at 7. On August 11, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s prior motion 3 to enforce the settlement agreement. ECF No. 123. 4 On December 11, 2018, plaintiff filed a second motion to enforce the terms of the 5 settlement agreement including a request that defendants be held in contempt of court. ECF No. 6 124. The motion describes several prison transfers that have occurred to plaintiff after the 7 settlement agreement was reached. Id. at 1-2. Although plaintiff was dissatisfied with the 8 medical care he received at California Men’s Colony-East1, he was willing to “sign a disclaimer 9 that would allow Plaintiff to be seen by any dermatologist not just one on CDCR’s list” in order 10 to remain at that prison which offers “Parole Board accredited programs that would help Plaintiff 11 gain a parole date.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also indicates that his transfer out of CMC-East would 12 result in him losing a single cell as well as “many personal items.” Id. at 3. By way of relief, 13 plaintiff requests a court order preventing his transfer from CMC-East and requiring the medical 14 unit at that prison to “obey the settlement as written.” Id. at 4. In the event of his transfer, 15 plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages against defendants. Id. 16 A review of the docket in this case indicates that plaintiff was transferred to R.J. Donovan 17 Correctional Facility on or about January 14, 2019. ECF No. 125 (Notice of Change of Address). 18 II. Analysis 19 Based on the express terms of the settlement agreement in this case, the court no longer 20 has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. See ECF No. 124 at 7. The agreement 21 provides that the court would retain jurisdiction for “twelve months from the date the agreement 22 is executed by all parties…” which occurred on February 24, 2016. Id. Thus, the court was 23 divested of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement on February 24, 2017. Plaintiff was 24 not transferred to CMC-East until August 30, 2018. ECF No. 124 at 2. Even using this date as 25 the purported breach of the settlement agreement, the court would not have jurisdiction over 26 plaintiff’s motion. Moreover, it appears that plaintiff preemptively filed the motion to enforce the 27 28 1 Hereinafter “CMC-East.” 2 1 settlement agreement before he was actually transferred out of CMC-East. See ECF No. 125. As 2 a result of the lack of jurisdiction, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement (ECF No. 124) is 5 6 7 denied; and, 2. This case shall remain closed. Dated: March 19, 2019 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/wood0562.motion2enforce.docx 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?