Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01505-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Gutierrez
Defendant
Edward B. Spencer
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD B. SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GUTIERREZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01505-LJO-JDP (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff Edward B. Spencer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On July 12, 2019, a settlement conference was held before the undersigned. The terms 

and conditions of the settlement agreement were placed on the record. (ECF No. 26.)

On July 15, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), (ECF No. 29), and the action was 

terminated by operation of law, (ECF No. 30).

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing titled “Current Status of Settlement 

Agreement,” filed on February 7, 2020. (ECF No. 31.) In the filing, Plaintiff asserts that, while 

he and Defendant settled this case more than six months ago, he has not received any 

“communiqué” stating that the settlement proceeds have been placed into his inmate trust 

account. (Id.) The Court construed Plaintiff’s filing as a motion to enforce the settlement 

Case 1:17-cv-01505-LJO-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/25/20 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

agreement, and ordered Defendant Gutierrez to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion within 

fourteen days. (ECF No. 32.)

On February 24, 2020, Defendant Gutierrez filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement, in the form of a declaration from defense counsel. (ECF No. 

33.) In his declaration, defense counsel states that, under the terms of the settlement agreement, 

CDCR was required to make a good-faith effort to pay the settlement amounts no later than 

January 8, 2020, i.e., 180 days from the date of the settlement conference, when all of the 

dispositional documents were signed. (Id. at 2.) Further, defense counsel asserts that he has been 

informed by CDCR that the settlement funds for this case were first applied to Plaintiff’s 

restitution balance, and then the remaining funds were deposited into Plaintiff’s trust account on 

January 27, 2020. (Id. at 3.) The delay in the payment of the settlement amount was due to the 

fact that the settlement coordinator position at CDCR’s Office of Legal Affairs was understaffed

at the time that the settlement in this case was being processed. (Id.) Defense counsel’s 

declaration is signed under penalty of perjury. (Id. at 4.)

The Court directed Plaintiff to not file a reply unless ordered to do so. The Court finds 

that no reply is necessary, and Plaintiff’s motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Based on the information currently before the Court, while the payment of the settlement 

proceeds was delayed, it appears that CDCR has paid the settlement proceeds to Plaintiff as 

required by the settlement agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement 

agreement, (ECF No. 31), is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01505-LJO-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2