Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01350-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD BOWELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIAZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

FURTHER SETTLEMENT 

NEGOTIATION

(ECF No. 64)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded 

against Defendants Diaz and Rodriguez on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claim.

On February 26, 2015, the parties appeared for a settlement conference before 

Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison, and the matter settled. (ECF No. 57.) The action 

was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on March 5, 2015. (ECF No. 61.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 13, 2015 motion seeking further settlement 

negotiations. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff believes the action is still pending because he has 

not been paid the monetary settlement agreed to at the conference. Plaintiff wishes to 

discharge the monetary settlement in exchange for his release from custody. 

This action was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and no further 

relief is available to Plaintiff in this action in relation to his claims. To the extent Plaintiff 

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 65 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

wishes to enforce the settlement agreement, he must do so in state court. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 382 (1994). Plaintiff’s desire for a more 

favorable settlement does not entitle him to relief from judgment. Although voluntary 

dismissals may be considered judgments from which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Rule 60(b) relief can be granted, see In re Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 

1995), Plaintiff presents no basis for such relief. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for further settlement negotiations (ECF No. 64) is 

HEREBY DENIED and the action shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01350-AWI-MJS Document 65 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2