Young v. Lacy et al

Filing 162

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 152 MOTION by Larry Arnold Young to Retain Case on Active Docket and granting 156 CROSS-MOTION by T. A. Lacy to Enforce Settlement. Plaintiff has the right to appeal this order. If he chooses to do so, he must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/3/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mk)

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1059

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-03633

T.A. LACY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion to retain
the case on its active docket and defendant’s cross-motion to
enforce the settlement agreement.

For the reasons that follow,

plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
I.

Background
This case arises from plaintiff’s interaction with police

officers on July 20, 2016, and his subsequent detention.
Plaintiff says that the police illegally searched his house,
falsely arrested him, and used excessive force both during the
arrest and during his subsequent detention while his charges
were pending.

On September 28, 2018, the court granted summary

judgment in favor of defendants 1 as to all claims except
plaintiff’s illegal search claim.
At that
Richmond,
judgment,
Plaintiff
1

(See ECF No. 65.)

time, there were multiple defendants: T.A. Lacy, Perry
and Aaron Young. After the court’s ruling on summary
T.A. Lacy became the only remaining defendant.
attempted to add Steven Sommers as a defendant by a

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1060

The court held a final pretrial conference on August 3,
2020, but plaintiff did not appear.

Noting that plaintiff had

previously had trouble receiving mail, the court continued the
hearing to August 31, 2020, and directed that plaintiff receive
notice by certified mail.

At the August 31 hearing, plaintiff

appeared but stated that he could not hear.

He further stated

that he would have hearing aids in ten days and would then be
able to hear, so the court continued the hearing to September
14, 2020.
At the September 14 final pretrial conference (the third
one), the court inquired as to whether the parties had attempted
to settle the case.

Defendant’s counsel responded that they

had, but that he and plaintiff had a significant difference of
opinion as to the value of the case, and they had not come to a
resolution.

The court informed plaintiff that the most that he

could recover, should he prevail at trial, was $1.00.

See

Norwood v. Bain, 143 F.3d 843, 855-56 (4th Cir. 1998), reh’g en
banc granted, opinion vacated (July 9, 1998), on reh’g en banc,
166 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that when an illegal
search results in “annoyance, humiliation, and indignity” but
not in “actual harm,” an award of only nominal damages is
appropriate).

The court stated this because, even construed

separate complaint (ECF No. 115), which the court dismissed on
July 24, 2020. (ECF No. 138.)
2

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1061

liberally, as this court must construe pro se pleadings,
plaintiff’s complaint does not allege actual harm resulting from
the alleged illegal search. 2

Likewise, even construed liberally,

plaintiff’s complaint does not allege “evil motive or intent” or
“reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected
rights of others” in relation to his illegal search claim that
would support a claim for punitive damages.
461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

See Smith v. Wade,

Moreover, even if plaintiff had

properly alleged actual harm, there was nothing in the record to
support actual harm.

As a result, the only damages that

plaintiff could recover at trial in this matter would be nominal
damages.
Plaintiff initially responded that he wanted to take the
case to trial, but then he quickly reversed course and asked
about the status of defendant’s settlement offer.

Counsel for

defendant stated that the offer of $500 was still on the table.
Plaintiff responded that he would accept the offer.

The court

engaged in a colloquy with plaintiff to make sure he understood
the consequences of accepting the settlement offer:
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Young, you need to understand
that if you accept this -- if this case is settled today,
you can’t appeal it. It’s over. Do you understand that?
While plaintiff had alleged physical harm, this was in relation
to his claim of excessive force, which the court dismissed.
Plaintiff also claimed that he was put in a life-threatening
situation, but this related to his claim of false arrest, which
the court also dismissed.
2

3

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1062

MR. YOUNG: I can’t bring up charges for 19 months
of confinement in a life-threatening situation 24/7?
THE COURT: No, because those counts have all been
dismissed by the Court.
MR. YOUNG:

Okay.

THE COURT: Now, you can appeal my order on that
if you wish, but you can’t appeal it if you accept the
settlement. I want you to understand that this $500
settlement is going to end this case once and for all.
MR. YOUNG: But I still have the right to appeal
the fact that I was illegally detained, unlawfully
detained?
THE COURT: If this case settles today, you don’t have a
right to appeal. The case is over.
MR. YOUNG: So if he pays me $500, then this case is
closed; is that correct?
THE COURT:

That’s right.

MR. YOUNG:

Okay.

THE COURT:

Do you agree to that?

MR. ADKINS:
THE COURT:

Let’s go that route.

He’s asking you.
Is that acceptable to you?

MR. YOUNG: I can’t make it out, Your Honor. I got my
hearing aids today, and they need to do some adjusting on
them.
THE COURT: Is the $500 settlement acceptable to you with
the understanding that this case is over, and you
don’t have a right to appeal, all your claims are gone,
this case is finished?
Do you understand that?
MR. YOUNG: This case is closed, and I forfeit any rights I
have to appeal; is that correct?
4

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1063

THE COURT:

That’s correct.

MR. YOUNG:

Okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand that?
$500, right?

And you accept the

MR. YOUNG:

I’m giving up those rights; is that correct?

THE COURT:

That’s right.

MR. YOUNG: Well, if he’s going to give me the $500, then
I’ll make a motion to have this case resolved and dismissed
from the docket.
THE COURT:

All right.

This case is settled, and this hearing is concluded. And
I’ll enter our standard settlement order, Mr. Adkins, and
if you want to add anything else to the record, you have a
right to do so.
(Tr. of Final Pretrial Conf., 6:10-8:8, ECF No. 154.)
II.

Discussion 3

Among the inherent powers of district courts is the power
to enforce a settlement agreement.

Hensley v. Alcon Labs.,

Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2002).

Neither a party’s

regret over agreeing to settlement nor the lack of a formal,
written agreement is grounds for undoing a valid settlement.
See id.

When there is a complete settlement agreement, the

Because the court concludes that there was a valid settlement
in this case, which means that the case should remain closed,
the court will not separately analyze plaintiff’s motion to
retain the case on its active docket other than to observe that
plaintiff offers no legal authority for the motion.
3

5

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1064

terms of which the court can determine, the agreement is
enforceable by court order.

See id.

The agreement here is simple and was memorialized in open
court. 4
$500.

Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for
Nevertheless, plaintiff now argues that he was operating

under the misunderstanding that he could still pursue claims
against previously dismissed defendants.

The court notes that

this theory, which plaintiff advances in response to defendant’s
cross-motion to enforce the settlement, contradicts plaintiff’s
earlier motion, which asked the court to “clarify[]” that he
could continue his case (by means of appeal) against all
defendants, including T.A. Lacy.

(See ECF No. 152.)

Thus,

plaintiff’s claim that he meant to settle against only T.A. Lacy
is not well taken.

Ordinarily, when there is a factual dispute as to whether a
settlement occurred, the court must conduct an evidentiary
hearing. See Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 541
(4th Cir. 2002) (citing Ozyagcilar v. Davis, 701 F.2d 306, 308
n.*(4th Cir. 1983)). No hearing is necessary, however, when the
settlement at issue occurred in open court. See Topiwala v.
Wessell, 509 F. App’x 184, 187 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that
factual challenge to settlement must be plausible to merit
evidentiary hearing); Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131,
1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Thus, there was no need for an
evidentiary hearing on whether an agreement existed, or what its
terms were: the parties dispelled any such questions in open
court.”). As the parties agreed to settle this case in open
court and on the record, the court will dispense with an
evidentiary hearing as unnecessary.
4

6

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1065

As defendant points out, while courts are expected to
provide more latitude to pro se litigants than they may provide
to attorneys, the duty of candor to the court applies across the
board.

Of course, the court recognizes that plaintiff has

trouble hearing, but the court continued the final pretrial
conference for a period of two weeks so that plaintiff could
resolve that issue.

Furthermore, although plaintiff asked the

court to repeat itself during one point in the hearing, there is
no indication that he did not hear well enough to understand and
agree to the terms of the settlement and understand that
settling the case would prevent him from proceeding with an
appeal.

Plaintiff’s argument therefore appears disingenuous.

Notably, plaintiff does not contest defendant’s account of
the objective indicia of a meeting of the minds on September 14,
2020.

He simply says that, subjectively, he misunderstood what

happened.

Although the court recognizes that legal proceedings

can be confusing to lay persons such as plaintiff, the court
finds that there was a meeting of the minds to the simple terms
of the settlement in this case.

To find otherwise would be to

ignore the record, including the transcript of proceedings on
September 14, 2020, and plaintiff’s motion to retain the case on

7

Case 1:17-cv-03633 Document 162 Filed 11/03/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1066

the active docket, both of which directly contradict plaintiff’s
claim that he misunderstood the terms of the settlement. 5
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to retain the
case on the active docket (ECF No. 152) is DENIED and
defendant’s cross-motion to enforce the settlement agreement
(ECF No. 156) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this order.

If he

chooses to do so, he must file a notice of appeal within 30 days
of the entry of this order.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2020.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

Even if there were a mistake, it would appear to be a mistake
of law, not of fact, which would not be grounds to undo the
agreement. See Webb v. Webb, 301 S.E. 2d 570, 574 (1983)
(citing Burton v. Haden, 108 Va. 51, 60 S.E. 736 (1908) and
Harner v. Price, 17 W. Va. 523 (1880)) (“[A]n individual should
not be permitted to avoid obligations he undertook while
laboring under a mistake of law.”).
5

8