Case Name: Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lazaro Ismael ORTEGA, individual capacity; DWIGHT TEH-WEI LIM, individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-21
Citations: 649 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 13-57069
Parties: Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lazaro Ismael ORTEGA, individual capacity; DWIGHT TEH-WEI LIM, individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Francois TABI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lazaro Ismael ORTEGA, individual capacity; DWIGHT TEH-WEI LIM, individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-57069.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 21, 2016.
Francois Tabi, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, Lisa S. Berger, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francois Tabi appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in accordance with the terms of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a decision to enforce a settlement agreement. Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tabi's motion to withdraw his stipulation to the settlement agreement, and dismissing Tabi's action in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Tabi failed to establish that his consent to the agreement was not informed. See Jones v. Taber, 648 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.1981) (a release of claims under § 1983 must be voluntary, deliberate, and informed).
We reject as unsupported by the record Tabi's contentions that his counsel, the mediator, and the district court were biased against him or otherwise violated his due process rights.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.