Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02462/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02462-8/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN HARDNEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. GRIFFITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2462 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 This prisoner civil rights case was closed on July 17, 2019, the day after the parties filed a 

joint stipulation for dismissal. See ECF Nos. 26, 27. The stipulation and order directed that 

plaintiff’s claims against all defendants – Griffith, Matson, Rhoades, Gruenwald, Gold and 

Vasquez – be dismissed with prejudice. Id. Although the court held a mediation conference in 

this case on April 24, 2019, the parties later reached their settlement agreement independently. 

 On December 15, 2019,1 plaintiff filed and served a motion for court order directing 

defendants to comply with their settlement agreement to compensate plaintiff $2000. ECF No. 

28. Plaintiff stated that the parties agreed to settle this case on June 27, 2019 and that plaintiff 

would receive his settlement payment within six months. As of December 15, 2019, plaintiff had 

not received payment. 

 

1

 Under the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed filed and served on the date it was signed 

by the prisoner and given to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

Case 2:17-cv-02462-MCE-AC Document 31 Filed 02/13/20 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 

 By order filed January 8, 2020, this court directed defendants to file a response to 

plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 29. In their response filed January 22, 2020, defendants’ counsel 

filed a declaration explaining that plaintiff received his settlement payment on December 27, 

2019. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff was granted 14 days to file a reply to defendants’ response. ECF 

No. 29 at 2. That period, plus adequate time for service by mail, has expired. Plaintiff’s failure 

to file a reply supports the reasonable inference that all conditions of the settlement in this case 

have been satisfied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for execution of 

payment, ECF No. 28, is denied as moot; this case shall remain closed. 

DATED: February 12, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-02462-MCE-AC Document 31 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2