Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070-15/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

VICTORY ILSUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MOBERT,

Defendant.

No. 1:10-CV-2070 AWI MJS

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 5, 2015, the undersigned held a 

settlement conference, during which the parties reached a settlement. The court read the terms of 

the settlement for the record to which the parties agreed. On July 9, 2015, the case was dismissed 

with prejudice in light of the parties’ June 5, 2015 stipulation for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 

79).

On July 8, 2015, plaintiff wrote a letter to the undersigned, complaining that in addition to 

an amount due for restitution from 1995, he has since become aware of a judgment for overdue 

child support that he believes will be paid from the settlement amount. Plaintiff contends that had 

he known about the judgment for child support, which he believes was entered in error, he would 

not have entered into the settlement herein.

The undersigned has reviewed the terms of the settlement placed on the court record. At 

the time the parties agreed to the settlement terms in open court, the undersigned confirmed that 

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 81 Filed 07/21/15 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

the actual amount of the restitution would have no impact on the enforceability of the settlement 

as agreed. In other words, the parties were cautioned that an increase or decrease in the amount 

owed for restitution would have no impact on the settlement of this case. Similarly, plaintiff’s 

obligation to pay a child support judgment is not relevant to the settlement reached on June 5, 

2015. Plaintiff may wish to contact an attorney or someone else to challenge entry of the 

judgment for child support if he believes it was entered in error.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 8, 2015 letter is filed in the 

above case and disregarded.

Dated: July 21, 2015

/ilsu2070.setenf 

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 81 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 2