Springfield v. Singh et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/27/17 ORDERING plaintiff's objections 78 are untimely and disregarded. Within 10 days, counsel for defendants shall file a certified copy of the receipt reflecting payment of the settlement proceeds herein, and, if there is a discrepancy as to the date the funds were credited, shall also address such discrepancy. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:13-cv-1442 MCE KJN P

ORDER

L. BENDER,

15

Defendants.

16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Both parties consented to proceed before

18
19

the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On October 22, 2015, another

20

magistrate judge settled this action, and on January 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to

21

voluntarily dismiss this action. On August 31, 2017, plaintiff’s motion to re-open this case was

22

denied.
On September 15, 2017, under the mailbox rule,1 plaintiff filed a document styled,

23
24

“Objection to Defendant[s’] Response to Plaintiff[’s] Motion to Reopen Case.” (ECF No. 61.)

25

However, under Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ opposition was due August 30,

26

2017. Thus, plaintiff’s filing is untimely and is disregarded.

27
28

1

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (under the mailbox rule, pro se prisoner filing is
dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).
1

1

On September 19, 2017, counsel for defendants filed a notice of posting settlement fees.

2

Counsel states “that as of September 19, 2017, the settlement proceeds have been posted to

3

Plaintiff’s inmate restitution fund.” (ECF No. 59 at 1.) However, on October 13, 2017, plaintiff

4

filed a document styled, “Notice to Court that Settlement Agreement Has Not Been Fulfilled.”

5

(ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff disputes that any funds have been deposited in his trust account or in his

6

restitution fund, and provides a copy of his inmate statement report dated October 3, 2017, at

7

12:47 p.m. Plaintiff claims he also filed a four page document as Exhibit C, which would

8

demonstrate that there have been no transactions with his trust account since August 8, 2017, but

9

no such document is appended to his Exhibit C page.

10

Review of the October 3, 2017 Inmate Statement Report does not reflect a credit of

11

$5,300.00. However, it is unclear whether the $5,300.00 deposit would reflect on this statement

12

or whether it would be reflected on a different statement.

13

Moreover, in plaintiff’s initial trust account statement, filed July 12, 2013, his restitution

14

list reflected obligations of $12,284.95; $1,599.34; and $200.00 (ECF No. 2 at 3), for a total

15

restitution due of $14,084.29. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2017 restitution list reflects obligations of

16

$12,168.03; $646.96; and $200.00 (ECF No. 62 at 12), for a total restitution due of $13,014.99.

17

The difference between these totals does not equal $5,300.00.

18

In this court’s August 31, 2017 order, the undersigned noted the unprecedented delay in

19

paying plaintiff the settlement proceeds in a case settled in October of 2015. DSH staff counsel

20

received plaintiff’s completed payee data record on June 8, 2017, and as of August 22, 2017,

21

DSH’s chief counsel authorized the settlement payment, and the DSH accounting department was

22

in the process of coordinating with the CDCR to submit the payment to the state controller’s

23

office for final processing. (ECF No. 58 at 3.) Defense counsel was ordered to notify the court

24

when the proceeds were paid to plaintiff, and cautioned that any further delay, separate and apart

25

from the internal delay resulting from the processing of the payment through the appropriate

26

channels, may result in the imposition of sanctions. (ECF no. 58 at 4.)

27

It appears from plaintiff’s October 3, 2017 statement, as well as the lack of variance

28

between his two trust account statements filed herein, that he may not have been credited with the
2

1

$5,300.00 settlement “as of September 19, 2017.” (ECF No. 59 at 1.) Thus, within ten days from

2

the date of this order, defendants’ counsel shall file a certified copy of the receipt reflecting

3

payment of the settlement proceeds herein. If the proceeds were not credited to plaintiff’s

4

restitution balance “as of September 19, 2017,” counsel shall address such discrepancy.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 78) are untimely and disregarded; and

7

2. Within ten days, counsel for defendants shall file a certified copy of the receipt

8

reflecting payment of the settlement proceeds herein, and, if there is a discrepancy as to the date

9

the funds were credited, shall also address such discrepancy.

10

Dated: November 27, 2017

11
12
/spri1442.rec

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3