Buck v. Young et al

Filing 356

ORDER: The 329 motion to intervene and the 341 motion to have Defendants pay the settlement are DENIED. IDOC Defendants are DIRECTED to send a new clean copy of the settlement agreement to Buck by December 5, 2022. Buck must complete and return the settlement paperwork without modification to IDOC Defendants no later than December 19, 2022. IDOC Defendants shall file a status report with the Court on or before January 16, 2023, advising the Court of whether the settlement agreement has been fully executed and submitted to Central Management Services for creation of a payment voucher. Buck is WARNED that the refusal to sign and return the documents is grounds for sanctions. The Court may vacate the settlement agreement and dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/21/2022. (jrj)

Case 3:17-cv-00270-SPM Document 356 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #2967

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM BUCK,
#R21689,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00270-SPM

v.
DENNIS YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This action was commenced by pro se Plaintiff William Buck pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983
for alleged violations of his constitutional right during the time of his incarceration at Menard
Correctional Center. Following summary judgment, Buck was recruited counsel. After several
months of further discovery, recruited counsel informed the Court that there was a fundamental
disagreement about the actions that should be taken in prosecuting this case between he and Buck.
The Court allowed counsel to withdraw, and Buck proceeded to trial representing himself on the
following claims:
Count 1:

Defendants Witthoft, Pappas, Meyer and Weatherford subjected
Buck to unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was on
suicide watch between October 27, 2016 and December 12, 2016, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. This claim is limited to the
unsanitary conditions allegedly present in the cells and excludes
issues concerning lights and the provision of hygiene items.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim against Slavens and Callais for using
excessive force against Buck on or about November 20, 2016

Count 3:

Eighth Amendment claim against Young for using excessive force
against Buck on or about November 21, 2016.

Count 4:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim to serious medical
Page 1 of 5

Case 3:17-cv-00270-SPM Document 356 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #2968

needs against Defendants Young, Slavens, Tripp, Hanna, Crane for
refusing to treat and/or inadequately treating Buck’s injuries related
to excessive force incidents.
On the first day of trial, prior to jury selection, Buck reached a settlement agreement with
Defendants Slavens, Callais, Young, Hanna, Crane, and Witthoft (“IDOC Defendants”), and the
trial was conducted on Counts 1 and 4 against Defendants Pappas, Meyer, Weatherford, and Tripp
(“Wexford Defendants”). (Doc. 307).
This matter is before the Court regarding issues with the settlement agreement. Buck has
filed two motions asking the Court to intervene and compel IDOC Defendants to pay the settlement
amount. (Doc. 329, 341). He states that Defendants are attempting to add language to the
agreement that would allow them to retake the settlement money. Buck asks the Court to order
Defendants to pay the settlement in thirty days or set this matter for trial.
IDOC Defendants filed responses in opposition to the motions. (Doc. 331, 342). They argue
that they have not paid the settlement funds because Buck made unagreed modifications to the
settlement agreement prior to signing. He crossed out language in paragraph 2 concerning the State
Comptroller’s ability to withhold funds that he may owe to other persons or state agencies and that
Buck would submit W-9 forms or any other documents requested in order to effectuate the
payment. Buck also added language stating that Defendants agree not to disclose or speak about
the payment he received and that neither IDOC nor the Illinois Attorney General may seize, freeze,
or confiscate the settlement funds. IDOC Defendants recount that they sent Buck a letter stating
that they could not sign or process the payment due to the changes he made. They explained that
they are barred from agreeing to such terms pursuant to 15 ILCS 405/10.05, which outlines the
State Comptroller’s duty to withhold funds from settlement proceeds, if necessary. Buck was sent
a clean version of the settlement agreement. Buck has not, however, responded to the letter or
returned the settlement agreement signed.
Page 2 of 5

Case 3:17-cv-00270-SPM Document 356 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #2969

The Court directed IDOC Defendants to file a copy of the settlement agreement as amended
by Buck and signed March 15, 2022. IDOC Defendants were further instructed to inquire with the
Office of the Illinois Comptroller to determine if Buck owes any funds outstanding that would be
withheld from his settlement payment, pursuant to 15 ILCS 405/10.05 et seq. (Doc. 354). IDOC
Defendants have informed the Court that Buck does not owe any funds that would be withheld
from the settlement payment by the Office of the Illinois Comptroller’s Office. (Doc. 355).
For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED. (Doc. 329, 341).
MOTIONS TO ENFORCE
Oral settlement agreements are enforceable under Illinois law if “there is clearly an offer
and acceptance of the compromise and a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 600 (7th Cir. 1994)(quoting Brewer v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
628 N.E.2d 331, 335 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)). “The essential terms must be definite and certain so that
a court can ascertain the parties’ agreement from the stated terms and provisions.” Dillard v.
STarcon Intern., Inc., 483 F. 3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Quinlan v. Stouffe, 823 N.E. 2d
597, 603 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)). Furthermore, “a settlement agreement may be enforceable despite
the omission of certain terms so long as those terms are not material.” Beverly v. Abbott Lab., 817
F. 3d 328, 334 (7th Cir. 2016). See also Higbee v. Sentry, 253 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir. 2001) (“a
lack of agreement on minor, immaterial terms…do not preclude a finding that a contract has been
formed”).
On February 22, 2022, the parties reached a valid and enforceable settlement, even though
the paperwork had not been drafted and signed. Before this Court and on the record, Buck agreed
to dismiss the claims against IDOC Defendants in exchange for $2,500. The parties do not dispute
these essential terms or whether they were properly included in the settlement agreement. See
Elustra v. Mineo, 959 F. 699, 709 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding material terms were definite and certain
Page 3 of 5

Case 3:17-cv-00270-SPM Document 356 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #2970

were defendants agreed to pay a specified sum in exchange for the dismissal of the lawsuit).While
during the settlement conference, the parties did not discuss the provision at issue regarding the
State Comptroller’s ability to withhold funds, in this specific case, the language does not alter any
of the material terms agreed upon by the parties. This is boilerplate language included in most, if
not all, settlement agreements entered into between prisoner plaintiffs and defendants who are
employed by IDOC. Most notably, the language has no impact on Buck’s settlement award. As
been confirmed by IDOC Defendants, Buck does not owe any money to the state and so no
reduction will occur in order to offset any debt. Furthermore, regardless of whether the boilerplate
language is included in the settlement agreement, the settlement funds are subject to state law.
Accordingly, the oral settlement agreement entered into by the parties is enforceable, but the Court
will not direct IDOC Defendants to pay the settlement amount until Buck has signed the settlement
agreement as originally sent, unamended.
For these reasons, Buck’s motions asking the Court to intervene and direct IDOC
Defendants to submit payment are DENIED. IDOC Defendants are DIRECTED to send a new
clean copy of the settlement agreement to Buck by December 5, 2022. Buck must complete and
return the settlement paperwork without modification to IDOC Defendants no later than
December 19, 2022. IDOC Defendants shall file a status report with the Court on or before
January 16, 2023, advising the Court of whether the settlement agreement has been fully executed
and submitted to Central Management Services for creation of a payment voucher.
Buck is WARNED that refusal to sign and return the documents is grounds for sanctions.
The Court may vacate the settlement agreement and dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to
comply with an order of the court pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Givens v. Vaughn, No. 16-cv-00303-NJR (S.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2019) (dismissing case due to
plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and sign the settlement documents), aff’d, No. 20-2555,
Page 4 of 5

Case 3:17-cv-00270-SPM Document 356 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #2971

2021 WL 3661206, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2021). See also Lewis v. School Dist. #70, 648 F. 3d
484, 488 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[w]hen a district court judge is unable to dispose of a matter because a
recalcitrant plaintiff systematically refuses to obey the court’s order, dismissal is justified”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 21, 2022
Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5