Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy GASTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. VIRGA, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-16294
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 03, 2016
    Timothy Gastile, Pro Se.
    David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General,' Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Timothy Gas-tile appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement because Gastile stated that he understood and agreed to the material terms of the agreement during the settlement conference before the magistrate judge, and the record does not support Gastile’s claims of confusion and coercion. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 664.6 (“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”); Doi, 276 F.3d at 1136-40 (district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing settlement agreement where material terms of agreement were read into the record and parties agreed to them).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,