(PC) Gonzalez v. Razo

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC) MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ, 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 11 RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 12 AGREEMENT BE DENIED J . RAZO, et al., (ECF No. 165) 14 Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 15 FOURTEEN DAYS 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (ECF NO. 165) AND THESE FINDINGS AND 18 RECOMMENDATIONS TO SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 19 MONICA ANDERSON 21 Manuel Gonzalez is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. This case was closed on January 30, 2019 (ECF No. 145), based on a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was filed on January 29, 2019 (ECF No. 144). On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Full Payment to Attorney, and/or to Allow Plaintiff to Withdraw Settlement and Proceed with Trial. (ECF No. 149). This motion was denied. (ECF No. 162).

28 On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed another pro se Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 165). Plaintiff appears to allege that the settlement amount was paid, and $5,000 was collected to pay a restitution fine from Case No. TA059902. However, on August 6, 2020, the restitution amount owed was reduced from $5,000 to $2,500. Despite this, Plaintiff never received a $2,500 refund. Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to violating the settlement agreement, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is violating the law and his due process rights. Plaintiff asks the Court to “notify” the Defendants, their counsel, and the CDCR of their obligation to return the overpaid restitution amount.

9 The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

10 This case settled and was closed. “When a district court dismisses an action with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually ends. Ordinarily, a dispute arising under a settlement agreement is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent basis for jurisdiction.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

15 Even if the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, it appears that the settlement payment has been made and the settlement has been completed under the terms of the agreement. Defendants had four months from September 25, 2019, to make the settlement payment (ECF Nos. 160 & 162), and Plaintiff does not allege that this payment was not timely made. The restitution amount was reduced on August 6, 2020. Thus, it appears that the settlement payment was made, the correct amount was deducted from the settlement payment, and Defendants met their obligations under the settlement agreement. It was not until months later that the restitution amount was reduced, and Plaintiff submitted no evidence that the settlement agreement requires Defendants (or anyone else) to monitor restitution amounts and issue a refund if the restitution amount is reduced after the settlement payment has already been made. Thus, there is no evidence that Defendants failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

27 As this case is closed, and as there is no evidence that Defendants failed to comply with the settlement agreement, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to || Enforce the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 165) be DENIED.

2 This does not mean the Court is unsympathetic to Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, he || has tried many avenues to obtain the refund based on the order issued by the judge in his || criminal case, to no avail. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff says he was “instructed [] || to file ‘Gov’t claim’ and allow court to decide to return amount $2,500....” (ECF No. 165, p. 6 ||4). Plaintiff has not alleged that he filed a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act, and || even if he did and it was denied, this closed case is not an appropriate avenue to seek relief.

8 The Court expresses its hope that, if Plaintiff is correctly portraying the facts, he can || obtain relief through such an action or some other means.!

10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen || (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file || written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be || served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised || that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on || appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, || 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

19 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to send Senior |} Assistant Attorney General Monica Anderson a copy of Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 165) and || these findings and recommendations.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2411 Dated: __March 31, 2021 [Je hey 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || ,scommendations tothe fice ofthe Attorney General, san informal roques for aseistanc, te te extent the the Office knows of the proper avenue to assist Plaintiff.