Yeldon v. Fisher et al

Filing 113

DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to vacate 103 is denied, and his motion to appoint counsel 104 is denied as moot. A copy of this entry has been mailed to Willie James Yeldon, C-97716, CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, Box 300, Marcy, NY 13403. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 11/23/16. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
WILLIE JAMES YELDON (97B1012),
Plaintiff,
07-CV-370
ORDER

v.
BRIAN FISHER, et. al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________

On March 8, 2016, the parties in this case filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Docket No. 101. The stipulation was signed
by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and Defendants’ counsel. The next day, based on the
parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action.
See Docket No. 102. Several months later, Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, filed a
“Petition Against Illegal and Unconstitutional Stipulation of Dismissal Without
Jurisdiction, of Northern District in Western District Case.” Docket No. 103.
Plaintiff’s motion appears to contest the stipulation of dismissal filed in this case.
The parties’ stipulation was part of a global settlement agreement that also disposed of
a case brought by Plaintiff in the Northern District of New York.

That settlement

agreement was signed in open court following a settlement conference conducted by
United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Baxter in the Northern District of New York.
See Docket No. 107, Ex. B (Tr. of Settlement Conference).
After signing the global settlement, Plaintiff filed a motion in the Northern District
of New York similar to the one he has filed in this case. Magistrate Judge Baxter issued
a thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be
1

denied and that the settlement agreement be enforced. Id. Ex. E. Magistrate Judge
Baxter construed Plaintiff’s motion as one seeking relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) and proceeded to analyze whether Plaintiff might be entitled to
relief based on Rule 60(b)(1) (“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”);
Rule 60(b)(3) (“fraud”); or Rule 60(b)(6) (“any other reason that justifies relief”). After
analyzing each possible basis for relief, Magistrate Judge Baxter concluded that
“plaintiff, represented by competent counsel, and recognizing his poor prospects for
success at trial, executed a clear and unambiguous written settlement agreement on the
record, in open court.

He has stated no basis to withdraw from his settlement

agreement or to vacate the stipulated dismissal of his action under Rule 60(b).” Id. at
10. Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation, but
after de novo review, District Judge Mordue adopted the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety. See Yeldon v. Caulkin, 9:12-CV-1564 (NAM/ATB), Docket No. 106 (Aug.
2, 2016).
As Magistrate Judge Baxter did, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one
seeking relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). And as Magistrate
Judge Baxter concluded, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion in this case (Docket No. 103)
should be denied. The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Baxter’s reasoning as its own
and denies Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No.
104) is denied as moot.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (Docket No. 103) is
denied, and his motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 104) is denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016
Buffalo, New York

_s/Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3