Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01502/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01502-4/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY HOLT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SETTLEMENT

[Dkt. Nos. 69, 76.]

vs.

MACARTHUR, et al.,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tracy Holt (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, brought the present action against Defendants Akbari, Calderon, Canlas,

Hunt, MacArthur, Sedeghi, Seely, and Stewart (“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. 1

§ 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 27, 2012, the parties reached an oral settlement

agreement during a telephonic Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) with the

Honorable Karen S. Crawford, United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 58.)

Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement on July 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 69.) The

motion was fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 70, 72). 

The Court acknowledges the proper spelling of the names of Defendants

1

Sedighi (erroneously sued as Sedeghi), Seeley (erroneously sued as Seely), and

McArthur (erroneously sued as MacArthur). (See Dkt. No. 69 at 1-2.) 

- 1 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 10
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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Crawford submitted a report and

recommendation (“Report”) to this Court on December 17, 2013, recommending

Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement beGRANTED. (Dkt. No. 76.) After careful

consideration of the pleadings and briefs submitted by the parties, and for the reasons

set forth below, this Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS Judge

Crawford’s Report, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement. 

BACKGROUND2

Plaintiff filed the present civil rights action on July 6, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) On

August 27, 2012, Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel, and Judge Crawford participated in

a telephonic MSC, during which an oral settlement agreement was reached by the

parties. (Dkt. No. 58.) Plaintiff agreed to dismiss all claims against Defendants in

exchange for the payment of $450 to Plaintiff’s father. (Dkt. No. 76 at 2.) After the

3

settlement agreement was reached, Judge Crawford ordered Defendants’ counsel to

prepare a written settlement agreement and a joint stipulation for dismissal. (Dkt. No.

58.) 

On September 25, 2012, Defendants’ counsel transmitted to Plaintiff (1) a

written settlement agreement and release; (2) a voluntary stipulation to dismiss; and 

(3) a Payee Data Record form. (Dkt. No. 69-1 at 6-13.) The settlement agreement

provided that, pursuant to California Penal Code section 2085.5, which applies to

prisoners owing a restitution fine, “all restitution obligations will be taken out of the

proceeds of the settlement before the final settlement check is drafted. The remainder

of funds after payment of restitution will be payable to plaintiff’s father Jim Holt.” (Id.

at 8.) On September 29, 2012, Plaintiff signed and returned to Defendants’ counsel all

three documents. (Id. at 15-21.)

After receiving Plaintiff’s signed documents, Defendants’ counsel realized the

Plaintiff did not object to the underlying facts set forth in the Report. Therefore 2

this Court adoptsthe facts included in the Report in toto and references them asif fully

set forth herein. The Court has provided only a brief background here. 

 All references to the docket are to the CM/ECF assigned page numbers. 

3

- 2 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 10
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

Payee Data Record form would require the signature of Plaintiff’s father if the

settlement payment was to be paid to him. (Id. at 23.) Therefore, on October 25, 2012,

Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff a new Payee Data Record form to be signed by

Plaintiff’s father. (Id. at 23.) Attached to the new form was an amended copy of the

settlement agreement, revised to indicate that the $450 would be provided to Plaintiff’s

father upon his signing of the Payee Data Record form. (Id. at 25.) However,

Defendants failed to include the clause regarding the restitution payment mandated

under California PenalCode section 2085.5 in this version ofthe settlement agreement.

(Id. at 23-26.) The amended version of the settlement agreement was signed by both

parties in November, 2012, (Id. at 34), and Defendants received a Payee Data Record

form completed by Plaintiff’s father in December 2012. (Id. at 35.)

In or around January 2013, Defendants’ counsel inquired with the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and learned Plaintiff owed

a restitution fine for a prior criminal conviction in excess of the settlement amount. (Id.

at 37.) Although Plaintiff asserts all of his restitution fines are paid, a “Restitution

Search” conducted by Defendants uncovered that Plaintiff owes an outstanding

restitution balance of $724.59 for a conviction over 20 years ago. (Dkt. No. 65 at 9.)

As a result of Defendants’ counsel’s inquiry, Defendants requested Plaintiff sign an

additional amended settlement agreement, with this version including the clause

regarding the mandated restitution payment under California Penal Code section

2085.5. However, this version of the settlement agreement failed to incorporate the

clause indicating that any remaining settlement funds would be disbursed to Plaintiff’s

father and not Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 69-1 at 39-43.) On May 10, 2013, Plaintiff informed

the Court he intended to seek counsel to evaluate this version of the settlement

agreement. (Dkt. No. 63.) Nothing in the record indicates Plaintiff has sought or

retained counsel. 

On July 31, 2013, Defendants filed the present Motion to Enforce Settlement.

(Dkt. No. 69.) Defendants assert a settlement was reached in this case during the

- 3 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 10
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

August 27, 2012, telephonic MSC with Judge Crawford. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff objects,

arguing a binding agreement was never reached by the parties. (Dkt. No. 70 at 4-7.) 

Judge Crawford issued her Report on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement

on December 17, 2013. (Dkt. No. 76.) Upon Plaintiff’s request, this Court granted

Plaintiff an extension of time to file objections to the Report, (Dkt. No. 78), and

Plaintiff’s objections were filed nunc pro tunc to January 23, 2014, (Dkt. No. 80).

Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s objections to the Report. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. When no objections are filed,

a district court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact

and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d

196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal.

2001). 

In addition, “a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider

evidence presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation.” United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

Judge Crawford’s Report recommends granting Defendants’ Motion to

Enforce Settlement and denying Plaintiff’s arguments that: (1) the parties failed to

form a binding agreement; (2) the settlement agreement should be rescinded; and

(3) the agreement is unconscionable. (Dkt. No. 76.) Plaintiff filed objections to

Judge Crawford’s Report; however, Plaintiff did not object specifically to any of the

recommendations contained in the Report. (Dkt. No. 80.) Instead, Plaintiff raised for

the first time three additional arguments in support of rescinding the settlement

- 4 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 4 of 10
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

agreement. (Dkt. No. 80.) For the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the

recommendations made in Judge Crawford’s Report, OVERRULES Plaintiff’s

objections, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

The Court addresses each of Judge Crawford’s recommendations and Plaintiff’s

three objections in turn.

I. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Claim that the Parties Failed

To Form a Binding Agreement

Judge Crawford recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claim that the parties failed

to form a binding settlement agreement. (Dkt No. 76 at 13.) Plaintiff did not file a

specific objection to this recommendation. (Dkt. No. 80.) To the contrary, Plaintiff

implicitly admits to the existence of a binding settlement agreement by requesting “the

settlement payment be sent to the CDCR and processed in the normal manner with any

balance after the deduction of any amount owing for restitution [being deposited in]

Plaintiff’s trust account.” (Dkt. No. 80 at 2.) In light of Plaintiff’s admission to the

existence of a settlement agreement, this Court assumes the correctness of Judge

Crawford’s factual findings and adopts them in full.

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the

Report and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds the Report

provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in Defendants’ Motion to Enforce

Settlement and Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

recommendation that Plaintiff’s claim that the parties failed to form a binding

agreement be DISMISSED.

II. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Defense of Rescission by

Mistake

Judge Crawford recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s defense that the settlement

agreement be rescinded due to Plaintiff’s mistaken belief that he does not owe any

outstanding restitution. (Dkt. No. 76 at 20.) Plaintiff did not file a specific objection to

this recommendation. (Dkt. No. 80.) As such, this Court assumes the correctness of

- 5 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 5 of 10
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

Judge Crawford’s factual findings and adopts them in full. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report

and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds the Report provides a

cogent analysis of the issues presented in Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement

and Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

recommendation that Plaintiff’s defense of rescission by mistake be DISMISSED.

III. Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Defense of

Unconscionability

Judge Crawford recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s defense that the

settlement agreement is unconscionable because of the “almost ten months that

Defendants’ counsel delayed in accepting and performing the proposed agreement.”

(Dkt. No. 76 at 20, 22.) Plaintiff did not file an objection to this specific

recommendation, but instead argues that Plaintiff was “denied the benefit of the

bargain” of the settlement agreement due to “the unreasonable delay of Defendants’

counsel in documenting the settlement and performing for over 18 months.” (Dkt.

No. 80 at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s argument in his objection to Judge Crawford’s Report merely

reiterates the allegations he raised in his original opposition to Defendants’ Motion

to Enforce Settlement. This argument was addressed thoroughly in Judge

Crawford’s Report, and this Court does not find any error in Judge Crawford’s

analysis of the issues presented in Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and

Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Crawford’s

Report is insufficient to rebut Judge Crawford’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s

defense of unconscionability be dismissed. Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the

recommendation that Plaintiff’s defense of unconscionability be DISMISSED. 

IV. Plaintiff’s Additional Claims 

In addition to the claims discussed above, Plaintiff raised for the first time in his

objection to Judge Crawford’s Report the additional arguments that (1) Plaintiff

- 6 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 6 of 10
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

accepted the settlement agreement “almost solely on [the] legal advice given to him by

the Honorable Magistrate Judge,” (Dkt. No. 80 at 3); (2) Plaintiff has been denied the

benefit of the bargain of the settlement agreement due to “the extre[me] effort

undertaken by Defendants’ counsel of going back to a case over 24 years old to try to

further reduce the amount received by Plaintiff,” (Dkt. No. 80 at 3-4); and (3) “the

position of Defendants’ counsel that no amounts will be dispensed to Plaintiff is

incorrect” because California Penal Code section 2085.5 providesthat only 55-percent

of any settlement is subject to restitution, (Dkt. No. 80 at 2-4). 

Given Plaintiff’s pro se and incarcerated status, this Court will consider the

issuesraised by Plaintiff for the first time in his objections to Judge Crawford’s Report.

See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding district court abused

its discretion by failing to consider arguments raised for the first time in an objection

to a magistrate judge’s findings by a pro se plaintiff who was ignorant of the law).

A. Plaintiff’s Reliance on Judge Crawford’s Advice

Plaintiff argues for the first time that Plaintiff agreed to accept the settlement

“based almost solely on [the] legal advice given to him by the Honorable Magistrate

Judge.” (Dkt. No. 80 at 3.) Although not articulated as such, this claim arises to the

defense of undue influence. For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s defense that the settlement agreement be rescinded due to the undue

influence imposed on Plaintiff. 

Under California state law, a “party to a contract may rescind the contract . . . [i]f

the consent ofthe party rescinding . . . was obtained through undue influence, exercised

by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to

the contract jointly interested with such party.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1689(b)(1). Even if

Plaintiff was unduly influenced by Judge Crawford’s advice to accept the settlement

agreement, Plaintiff’s defense of undue influence fails because Judge Crawford is

neither a party to the settlement nor jointly interested with a party to the settlement. As

indicated in Judge Crawford’s Report, and undisputed by Plaintiff until now, Judge

- 7 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 7 of 10
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

Crawford participated in the August 27, 2012, telephonic MSC as a neutral moderator

between the parties. (Dkt. No.76 at 21). Because Judge Crawford participated in the

settlement discussions as a neutral moderator and not as a party or as someone jointly

interested with a party to the settlement, Plaintiff’s defense of undue influence fails.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s undue influence objection to Judge

Crawford’s Report. 

B. Defendants’ Counsel’s Efforts to Reduce the Settlement Amount

Plaintiff argues for the first time that Defendants’ counsel undertook extreme

efforts to reduce the settlement amount received by Plaintiff by inquiring into whether

Plaintiff owed any outstanding restitution on his current and prior convictions. (Dkt.

No. 80 at 3-4.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s

objection.

California Penal Code section 2085.5 mandates that any settlement awarded to

an inmate in connection with a civil action brought against a state prison’s agents be

paid to CDCR to satisfy any outstanding restitution fines against the inmate. Cal. Pen.

Code § 2085.5(n). Any balance remaining after the outstanding restitution balances are

settled may then be paid to the inmate. Id. Therefore, in this case, where Plaintiff

actively chose to bring a civil rights action against the Central Valley Prison’s medical

staff, Defendants’ counsel is required by statute to pay CDCR any outstanding

restitution fines against Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff has mischaracterized Defendants’ counsel’s actions. As noted in Judge

Crawford’s Report, Defendants’ counsel inquired with CDCR regarding Plaintiff’s

outstanding restitution obligations only as part of his due diligence in drafting the

settlement agreement in this case. (Dkt. No. 76 at 14.) In addition, as further noted in

Judge Crawford’s Report, any reduction in the settlement amount paid to Plaintiff

provides no beneficial gain for Defendants. Regardless of whether the settlement

payment is paid to CDCR or Plaintiff, Defendants must still pay the full amount of

$450. (Dkt. No. 76 at 17.) Therefore, Defendants effortsresulted in no reduction of the

- 8 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 8 of 10
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

actual settlement amount. Furthermore, regardless of whether the settlement amount

is paid to Plaintiff directly or as a portion of Plaintiff’s outstanding restitution fine, the

settlement amount still benefits Plaintiff. Although the settlement payment may seem

less desirable to Plaintiff because it cannot be disbursed directly to Plaintiff’s trust

account, Plaintiffstill received the full amount owed to him by Defendants. Therefore,

Defendants’ counsel’s inquiry into any outstanding restitution fines against Plaintiff

cannot be viewed as an extreme effort to reduce the settlement awarded to Plaintiff

because Plaintiff still received the entire amount of the settlement award, only not in

the form he desired most. 

C. Calculating Payments of Restitution Under Cal. Pen. Code § 2085.5

Plaintiff further argues for the first time that California Penal Code section

2085.5 requires only 55-percent of Plaintiff’s settlement amount be paid toCDCR, with

the remaining 45-percent being paid to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s interpretation ofCalifornia PenalCode section 2085.5 isincorrect. As

discussed above, subsection (n) of the statute indicates that any settlement awarded to

an inmate in connection with a civil rights action brought against a state prison’s agents

shall be paid to CDCR “to satisfy any outstanding restitution orders or restitution fines

against that person.” Cal. Pen. Code § 2085.5(n). The statute further states “the balance

of any award shall be forwarded to the [inmate] after full payment of all outstanding

restitution orders and restitution fines.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s outstanding

restitution exceeds the amount of the settlement. Therefore, under California Penal

Code section 2085.5, the full settlement amount awarded to Plaintiff must be paid to

CDCR to satisfy Plaintiff’s outstanding restitution fine. Accordingly, the Court

overrules Plaintiff’s California Penal Code section 2085.5 objection to Judge

Crawford’s Report. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Judge Crawford’s Report as to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce

- 9 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 9 of 10
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

Settlement, (Dkt. No. 76), is ADOPTED in its entirety;

2. Plaintiff’s claims raised for the first time as objections to Judge

Crawford’s Report, (Dkt. No. 80), are OVERRULED; and

3. Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, (Dkt. No. 69), is

GRANTED. 

DATED: March 10, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 10 - 11cv1502-GPC-KSC

Case 3:11-cv-01502-GPC-KSC Document 81 Filed 03/10/14 Page 10 of 10