Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01962/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01962-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathon Farnham, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1962-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

This case is before the Court as a result of the Motion for Reconsideration and to

Withdraw (Dkt. 140) filed on November 5, 2009 by Plaintiff proceeding pro se. Plaintiff

seeks to withdraw from a settlement agreement he made with Defendants and not have the

case dismissed.

On November 18, 2009, Defendants filed a Response (Dkt. 142) in opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Withdraw. Defendants argue there is no legal

or factual basis on which to grant relief.

On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff pro se filed a Motion to Present New Evidence (Dkt.

144). 

On February 19, 2010, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 143 - Order) setting Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration and to withdraw for a hearing. At the hearing held on March 15,

2010 (Dkt. 145), Plaintiff pro se and counsel for Defendants appeared by telephone. After

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

hearing from the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. The Court allowed

Plaintiff to file an additional motion to present new evidence (see Dkt. 146 - Order).

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff pro se filed a Motion/Response to Comply with the Court

Order (Dkt. 147) and a Motion to Present New Medical Evidence (Dkt. 148). On April 19,

2010, Defendants filed a Response (Dkt. 149) to these motions. On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff

pro se filed a Response/Reply (Dkt. 150). 

By way of background regarding the parties’ settlement and the dismissal of this case,

on September 25, 2009, Defendants filed a Notice of Settlement (Dkt. 133). A Stipulation

for Dismissal with Prejudice of Arizona Defendants was filed on October 7, 2009 (Dkt. 134).

The Stipulation for Dismissal was signed by Plaintiff pro se and the Attorney for the Arizona

Defendants, that is, the remaining defendants in the case. 

 A hearing was held on October 28, 2009 regarding the proposed settlement and

dismissal. Plaintiff pro se and counsel for Defendants appeared by telephone at the hearing.

As was discussed at this hearing, on September 2, 2009, Plaintiff pro se filed a Notice of

Civil Commitment (Dkt. 132). Plaintiff informed the Court in this Notice that on June 25,

2009, an Arizona state court had issued an Order committing Plaintiff to the Arizona

Community Protection and Treatment Program within the Arizona State Hospital, and that

Plaintiff was to remain within this treatment program for at least 18 months or until a

discharge order issues. During the October 28th hearing, the Court inquired of Plaintiff

regarding his understanding of the settlement and that the case would be dismissed. Plaintiff

told the Court that he had received $500 in settlement and wanted to go ahead with the

settlement. 

On October 29, 2009, the Court filed an Order (Dkt. 137 - Order) dismissing the case

with prejudice as to all claims asserted in the Amended Complaint against the remaining

Defendants. The Court found, pursuant to discussions at the October 28, 2009 hearing, that

Plaintiff had knowingly and voluntarily entered into a settlement and understood that the case

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 6
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 - 3 -

would be dismissed with prejudice. A Judgment of Dismissal was filed on October 29, 2009

(Dkt. 139 - Amended Judgment).

In his Motion for Reconsideration and to Withdraw (Dkt. 140) filed on November 5,

2009, Plaintiff contends that he made an “irrational” decision to settle the case for $500

because he owed taxes to Pima County. Plaintiff says he has mental disorders and suffers

from depression. Plaintiff has offered to repay the $500 he received in the settlement.

In his Motion to Present New Evidence (Dkt. 144) filed on February 18, 2010,

Plaintiff alleges that since his assault by another inmate, he has had difficulty breathing

through his left nostril. Plaintiff has been examined by a specialist and been informed that

surgery is required to correct the damage allegedly caused by the inmate assault. Plaintiff

lists his address as the Arizona State Hospital. 

In his Motion/Response to Comply with the Court Order (Dkt. 147) filed on April 5,

2010, Plaintiff alleges that taxes are due on his residence located in Pima County. Plaintiff

alleges that the residence is currently vacant and unable to be rented due to a fire that

damaged the home three years ago. Plaintiff claims he is unable to pay an electrician to

repair the damage. Plaintiff alleges he is currently taking specific medication for depression,

and that he was not taking these medications when he entered into the settlement agreement

with Defendants. Plaintiff contends he has difficulty breathing. 

In his Motion to Present New Medical Evidence (Dkt. 148) filed on April 5, 2010,

Plaintiff realleges that since he was assaulted by another inmate, he has had difficulty

breathing in his left nostril, and that a medical specialist has recommended surgery to correct

the damage. Plaintiff alleges that the State refuses to pay for this corrective surgery. 

Defendants argue in their Response filed on April 19, 2010 (Dkt. 149) that Plaintiff

initiated the settlement negotiations in September 2009, the parties conferred and agreed to

settle this case, and that Defendants paid Plaintiff the agreed-upon amount. Plaintiff

allegedly has spent the settlement proceeds. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s medical records

show he received medications for allergies in December 2009 and that he received depression

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Plaintiff has submitted with his Response/Reply a Secondary School Record that

shows the “Student Identification” name as “St. Laurent, Ronald” (Dkt. 150, page 7), an

“also known as” name for Plaintiff (see Dkt. 142 - Attachments). Plaintiff contends he

struggled with his grades in college and appears to say he had an average of “2.8” which he

says was below the normal for a college student (Dkt. 150 at page 2). 

- 4 -

medications starting in January and February 2010, months after he asked the Court to vacate

the settlement agreement and reopen the case. Defendants argue that Plaintiff attributes his

breathing issues to an assault by other inmates but offers no medical evidence to support this

conclusion. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has been confined to the Arizona State Hospital

for treatment as a sexually violent person under A.R.S. § 36-3701, not because of his lack

of competence. Defendants argue that the claim Plaintiff asserted in his First Amended

Complaint regarding an alleged assault by other inmates in February 2005 that forms the

basis for his alleged nose injury was dismissed by the Court. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

represented to the Court during the hearing that he was aware and able to make the decision

to settle the case. 

In his Response/Reply (Dkt. 150), Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Response as not

authorized by the Court’s Order. Plaintiff has asserted further information bearing on his

mental state, contending that he has struggled with “mental issues” since high school,1

 he

remains under the care of a psychiatrist, and that he does not have the protection of

representation by an attorney. Plaintiff says his medications are issued on a month-to-month

basis and renewed every three months. Plaintiff contends that during settlement discussions

he requested $55,000 in damages but Defendants used his state of mind to their advantage

in settling the case for a lesser amount. Plaintiff says he did not request reconsideration until

after he had talked with his primary therapist and psychiatrist who diagnosed him with

depression and other non-specified conditions, and that he was suffering from depression and

other mental conditions that impaired his ability to enter into the agreement with Defendants.

Plaintiff says he used the settlement money to pay taxes owed to Pima County. 

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 6
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 - 5 -

Under LRCiv 7.2(g)(2), Local Rules of Practice for the District of Arizona, any

motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the

filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion, absent good cause shown. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration and to Withdraw was filed within this time period. Pursuant to

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), the Court “will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order

absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not

have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 

The Court has reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties. 

In Count I of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged a claim for

violation of the Eighth Amendment, contending that he had been physically assaulted by

another inmate in February 2005 (Dkt. 45 - First Amended Complaint). Plaintiff alleged

damage to his nose, swollen nose facial area, headaches, and trouble breathing through his

nose (id.). In an Order (Dkt. 131 - Order) filed on September 2, 2009, the Court granted

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendant Anderson and further,

dismissed Count I because Defendant Anderson was the only Defendant named as to Count

I (Order at 6-7). None of Plaintiff’s surviving claims asserted in the First Amended

Complaint concerned the alleged inmate assault or physical injury to Plaintiff’s nose.

The Court inquired of Plaintiff regarding the settlement agreement and the resulting

dismissal of the case during the October 28, 2009 hearing. Plaintiff informed the Court that

he desired to proceed with the settlement. Plaintiff’s confinement in the Arizona State

Hospital appears based on Plaintiff’s alleged mental disorder related to sexual violence (see

Dkt. 142 - Attachments), and is not related to any alleged lack of competence. Plaintiff’s

alleged mental issues appear to have been on-going for some time prior to his entry into the

settlement agreement with Defendants. Plaintiff has received the agreed-on settlement

amount and has spent the proceeds. Plaintiff makes no claim that he has the ability to repay

the settlement amount or that Defendants breached the settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s

asserted grounds, including the subsequent circumstances regarding the taxes due on his

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

property and his alleged diagnosis of depression, do not establish manifest error or new facts

that warrant reconsideration.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Present New Evidence (Dkt. 144),

Motion/Response to Comply with the Court Order (Dkt. 147), and Motion to Present New

Medical Evidence (Dkt. 148) so that the record is complete regarding the information

Plaintiff has submitted in support of his Motion for Reconsideration and to Withdraw (Dkt.

140). 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Withdraw (Dkt. 140) will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Present New Evidence (Dkt. 144),

Motion/Response to Comply with the Court Order (Dkt. 147), and Motion to Present New

Medical Evidence (Dkt. 148) are granted to the extent that the record is shown as complete

regarding the information Plaintiff has submitted in support of his Motion for

Reconsideration and to Withdraw (Dkt. 140). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to

Withdraw (Dkt. 140) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-01962-EHC Document 151 Filed 05/25/10 Page 6 of 6