Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00154/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00154-6/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

LARRY GIRALDES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HICINBOTHOM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00154-SKO PC

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED MOTION

(Doc. 41)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 40)

Plaintiff Larry Giraldes, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28, 2009. On August 13, 2010, the

parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, and on September 8, 2010, the case

was dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

The stipulation for voluntarydismissal was part of the settlement agreement reached between

Plaintiff and Defendants. On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter, which was docketed as a motion

to enforce the settlement agreement and to which was attached a copy of the settlement agreement.1

Defendants did not file a response. Local Rule 230(l). 

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second letter, which was also docketed as a motion

to enforce the settlement agreement, but which was not signed. The Court cannot consider unsigned

filings and therefore, the second motion shall be stricken from the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a);

Local Rule 131. 

All future filings should be sent to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California rather than to

1

the settlement judge, who sits in the Northern District of California.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00154-SKO Document 43 Filed 10/10/12 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

Pursuant to the settlement agreement provided by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was to be transferred

from Salinas Valley State Prison to California State Prison-Sacramento, and the placement at CSPSacramento was to include an elevated hospital bed, frequent small meals, protein drinks as needed,

and pain management as needed. Those terms were apparently met and Plaintiff’s motion arises

from his concern that he may not be able to prevent a transfer away from CSP-Sacramento. Plaintiff

has purportedlybeen told by staff that the one-year period duringwhich the settlement judge retained

jurisdiction has expired and Plaintiff now seeks to know what recourse he has to stop the violation

of the settlement agreement.

In as much as Plaintiff is still housed at CSP-Sacramento, his motion cannot be treated as one

seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement; no violation has occurred. The Court can neither

act as counsel for Plaintiff, Pliler v. Ford, 5452 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004), nor

issue advisoryopinions, Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir.

2010) (citing Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Com’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000)). As

a result, the Court cannot inform Plaintiff what options are available should the agreement be

violated.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff’s unsigned motion, filed on September 4, 2012, is STRICKEN from the

record; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement, filed on July 2, 2012,

is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00154-SKO Document 43 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 2