Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-39/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

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

On July 30, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in this action filed by 

Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel for breach of contract. (ECF No. 154.) 

On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and writ of mandamus. (ECF No. 155.) 

Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motions on February 16, 2016. (ECF No. 156.) 

On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery and a motion for a response from 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (ECF Nos. 157, 158.)

Because all of Plaintiff’s motions challenge the settlement agreement payment by Defendant, 

namely, the $462.37 deducted as part of the restitution payment and administrative fee of 5%, the 

Court will not address each motion individually. 

///

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL, WRIT OF MANDATE, MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY, AND MOTION FOR RESPONSE 

BY DISTRICT JUDGE

[ECF Nos. 154, 155, 157, 158, 159]

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 160 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Enforce Terms of Settlement Agreement

Defendant submits that the terms of the settlement agreement were as follows: (1) Plaintiff was 

required to sign a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), to be filed immediately; (2) the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) was required to pay $2,500.00, minus any amount owed by Plaintiff under a 

restitution fine or order per Penal Code section 2085.5, including any administrative fees related to 

such amounts, and that such amounts and fees would be deducted from the settlement amount and paid 

on Plaintiff’s behalf; (3) Plaintiff was required to complete a Payee Data Form; (4) CDCR would 

make a good-faith effort to pay the settlement amount (minus any restitution amounts, liens and fees) 

within 180 days from the date Plaintiff delivered to Defendant a signed settlement agreement, a notice 

of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and all of the required Payee Data Forms; (5) no other monetary 

sum would be paid to Plaintiff; and (6) each party would bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motions should be denied because no part of the settlement is 

missing. The four hundred dollars was deducted as part of the restitution owed by Plaintiff under his 

previous CDCR number, E-23233 (Defendant’s Exhibit A, Offender Identification). Sixty-two dollars 

and thirty-seven cents was deducted as a one-time administrative fee of 5%. Defendant submits that 

the amount Plaintiff seeks was properly collected under the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Defendant submits, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that under Section III of the settlement 

agreement, entitled Terms and Conditions, paragraph 2, it is stated that, “CDCR shall pay Plaintiff 

$2,500.00 (the settlement amount). However, Plaintiff understands that CDCR is obligated by 

California Penal Code section 2085.5 to collect any amounts owed by a prisoner under a restitution 

fine or order, including any administrative fees related to such amounts. Such amounts and fees will 

be deducted from the settlement amount and paid on Plaintiff’s behalf as required by Penal Code 

section 2085.5. If the settlement amount exceeds the restitution amounts and fees, the excess balance 

shall be made by check to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account or to another payee if designated by 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff further understands that CDCR is obligated to pay all outstanding liens against 

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 160 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Plaintiff, known or unknown, if any, which amounts must be deduced from the settlement amount and 

paid on Plaintiff’s behalf to the lienholder(s).” (ECF No. 159, at 3.) 

Thus, the restitution amount collected by the Defendant was not limited to the restitution owed 

by Plaintiff under his current CDCR number, but included “any amounts owed by a prisoner under a 

restitution fine or order, including any administrative fees related to such amounts.” Plaintiff was 

ordered to pay $1,400.00 as part of his current sentence (Defendant’s Exhibit B, Abstract of 

Judgment), and Plaintiff had a restitution balance of $847.46 under his current CDCR number (P91921) at the time the settlement amount was paid. (Defendant’s Exhibit A.) In addition, Plaintiff 

owed $400.00 under his previous commitment number (E-23233). (Defendant’s Exhibit C, Offender 

Identification; Defendant’s Exhibit D, Santa Clara County Arrest and Disposition History, pp. 1, 5, 

and 7.) The total amount of restitution collected by CDCR was $1,247.46. 

The restitution amount of $400.00 was ordered to be paid by Plaintiff in court cases 127225, 

127064, and 170145. (Defendant’s Exhibit A, p. 2.) The restitution amounts are listed as $100, $100, 

and $200, collectively, for a total of $400.00. (Id.) In addition, CDCR collected an administrative fee 

of $62.37, or 5% of the total restitution amounts paid by Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, based on the evidence submitted by Defendant, the proper amounts were 

deducted from the settlement amount of $2,500.00, and $1,190.17 was properly credited to Plaintiff’s 

trust account. In light of this determination, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, motion for discovery, and 

motion for response from District Judge Anthony W. Ishii shall be denied. 

B. Motion for Sanctions

Federal courts have the inherent authority to sanction conduct abusive of the judicial process. 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45 (1991). However, because of their very potency, 

inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion. Id. at 44. To be sanctionable under 

the Court’s inherent power, the conduct must have constituted, or been tantamount to, bad faith. 

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 

(9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $200 or any amount deemed appropriate by the 

Court. (ECF No. 155.) However, the evidence submitted by Defendant shows that all fees and 

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 160 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

restitution were properly deducted in compliance with the applicable law and terms of the settlement 

agreement, and the proper amount was thereafter deposited into Plaintiff’s trust account. There is no 

showing of a display of bad faith on the part of Defendant, and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions shall be 

denied. 

C. Writ of Mandate

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate to compel Defendant Anderson or CDCR to deposit 

additional funds in the amount of $462.37 into Plaintiff’s trust account. 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, his request must be 

denied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus 

to “compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed 

to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ, and is issued only 

when: (1) the plaintiff’s claim is “clear and certain;” (2) the defendant official’s duty to act is 

ministerial and “so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt;” and (3) no other adequate remedy is 

available. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Plaintiff does not have an independent substantive right to a writ of mandate compelling 

CDCR to deposit additional money into his prison trust account. Further, as set forth above, the 

evidence submitted demonstrates that the proper amount of money from the settlement agreement was 

deposited into his prison trust account, and any further claim by Plaintiff as to an alleged breach of the 

settlement should be raised by way of a breach of contract action in state court. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of mandate must be denied. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 160 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 154), motion for discovery (Doc. 157), and motion 

for response from District Judge Anthony W. Ishii (Doc. 158) are DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and writ of mandamus (Doc. 155) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 160 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5