Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul L. BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill DONAT, ESP Associate Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16823.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 24, 2012.
    Ely State Prison, Ely, NV, pro se.
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Von Heinz, Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Paul L. Browning appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing a settlement agreement with defendants Donat and McDaniel (the “State Defendants”) regarding his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the prison recording Browning’s telephone calls with his attorney. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Kirkland, v. Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement agreement because, despite delays that did not prejudice Browning and the substitution of terms due to the impossibility of performance, the State Defendants substantially complied with the agreement. See Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir.1988) (the finding that a party consented to a settlement and intended to be bound by it must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous); see also Nebaco, Inc. v. Riverview Realty Co., 87 Nev. 55, 482 P.2d 305, 307 (1971) (defense of impossibility applies where performance of a contract term is made impossible or highly impractical by the occurrence of unforeseen contingencies).

Browning’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.