Berry v. Evans et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 77 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 30, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2010)

Download PDF
Berry v. Evans et al Doc. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WAYMON MICKIANGELO BERRY, III, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden, et al., ) ) Defendants. __________________________________ ) No. C 06-3795 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Docket No. 77) On June 16, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in 2005. On February 3, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for the amount of $4,500. (Docket No. 72.) On February 5, 2010, the Court entered an order of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. (Docket No. 74.) On July 21, 2010, plaintiff filed the instant motion to enforce the settlement agreement on the ground he has not yet been paid. Thereafter, on July 28, 2010, defendants opposed the motion, stating they were unable to enforce the settlement agreement because the State of California did not have a budget and, consequently, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was prohibited from issuing any payments to vendors or paying settlements. Defendants further stated that settlement payments usually take approximately six months to process. (Docket No. 78.) Subsequently, on October 8, 2010, the State of California passed Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a budget. Based on the above, plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement is hereby DENIED without prejudice. If, by May 1, 2011, plaintiff still has not received payment, he may renew the instant motion. This order terminates Docket No. 77. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 30, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?