Case Name: Willie T. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. BARNETTE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 579 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 13-15643
Parties: Willie T. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. BARNETTE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
Willie T. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. BARNETTE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-15643.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 18, 2014.
Willie T. Smith, Ely, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, 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
Nevada state prisoner Willie T. Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judgment enforcing the parties' settlement agreement and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Doi v, Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the settlement agreement in light of its findings that Smith entered into the agreement on the record before a neutral mediator. See id. at 1137-38, 1140 (no abuse of discretion where district court concluded that plaintiffs assent in open court constituted a binding agreement to settle); Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987) ("It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an agreement to settle a case pending before it.").
The district court did not err in rejecting Smith's contention that he was under duress when he expressed his agreement to the terms of the settlement, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motions for appointment of counsel. We reject Smith's contention that the district court ignored his state law claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.