(PC) Wells v. Gonzales, No. 1:2017cv01240 - Document 126 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 120 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/2021. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK WELLS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01240-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROSA GONZALES, (Doc. No. 120) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Frank Wells is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 18, 2021, this action settled (Doc. No. 107) and was accordingly closed 21 (Doc. Nos. 110). However, the court retained jurisdiction over the action in order to enforce the 22 terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. (Id.) On July 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to 23 enforce the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 112.) On October 13, 2021, the assigned magistrate 24 judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion to enforce the 25 settlement agreement be denied and that jurisdiction over this matter be terminated. (Doc. No. 26 120.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 27 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id.) 28 On October 29, 2021, plaintiff filed his objections, a motion to rescind the settlement agreement, 1 1 and a motion for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. Nos. 121, 122, 123.) On November 5, 2021, 2 defendant filed a consolidated opposition and response to plaintiff’s objections and motions. 3 (Doc. No. 124.) On November 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a reply thereto. (Doc. No. 125.) 4 With respect to plaintiff’s motion to rescind the parties’ settlement agreement1, plaintiff 5 appears to misunderstand the pending findings and recommendations. Plaintiff alleges that the 6 assigned magistrate judge found that defendant violated the settlement agreement, but this is not 7 the case. The magistrate judge merely concluded that there was some evidence that defendant did 8 not strictly comply with California Penal Code § 2085.8(a). (Doc. No. 120 at 8–9.) However, the 9 magistrate judge further concluded that this potential lack of strict compliance did not breach the 10 parties’ settlement agreement. (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff fails to explain how he was injured by 11 any failure to strictly comply with that provision. As the pending findings and recommendations 12 point out, whether defendant failed to comply with California Penal Code § 2085.8(a) was 13 irrelevant to the settlement agreement. Whether or not defendant strictly complied with 14 California Penal Code § 2085.8(a), plaintiff still received exactly what he was entitled to receive 15 pursuant to the terms of the agreement. (Id. at 9.) Finally, plaintiff fails to cite any authority 16 suggesting that a settlement agreement should be rescinded in this situation, nor is the court aware 17 of any. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to rescind. With respect to plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability, the court will deny 18 19 plaintiff’s motion because plaintiff does not require permission to file an appeal in this closed § 20 1983 action. If plaintiff wishes to appeal this or any other order, he only needs to file a notice of 21 appeal with the court within the time required by the applicable provisions. In any such notice, 22 plaintiff should identify the order(s) from which he is appealing. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 25 ///// 26 including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a separate motion to rescind, but he includes his arguments pertaining to that motion in his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (See Doc. Nos. 121, 122.) 2 1 by the record and by proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. 4 The findings and recommendations issued on October 13, 2021 (Doc. No. 120) are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 112) is denied; 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 122) is denied; 7 4. Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. No. 123) is denied as 8 9 10 11 12 unnecessary; and 5. The court’s retention of jurisdiction over this matter is terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3