1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ROYLAND RODRIGUEZ, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00468-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 DR. MARSHA JOHNS and OFFICE OF THE ) 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) 8 Defendants. ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Royland Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Set 11 Aside the Settlement and Other Relief, (ECF No. 17). Defendants Marsha Johns and the Office 12 of the Attorney General (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 21), to which 13 Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 22). 14 Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the 15 Motion to Set Aside, (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff did not file a Response. 16 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the 17 Settlement and GRANTS nunc pro tunc Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This case arises from Defendants’ alleged constitutional violations while Plaintiff was 20 incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1). 21 Plaintiff suffers from a serious neurological condition, causing him severe pain and sudden 22 collapses in strength. (Id. at 4). Defendants allegedly transferred Plaintiff to Ely State Prison 23 (“ESP”) without a medical assessment in 2018 and further allowed prison staff to transfer 24 Plaintiff in a transfer bus that caused Plaintiff excruciating physical torture and mental anguish. 25 (Id. at 4–5). 1 On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, alleging that Defendants deliberately 2 ignored to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See id.). In May 3 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants reached a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). (See Mot. Set 4 Aside at 1–2, ECF No. 17). Under the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to release all pending legal 5 claims in exchange for: (1) a review in a full classification hearing for proper institutional 6 placement; and (2) an expedited medical hearing with a Nevada Department of Corrections 7 (“NDOC”) doctor. (See Settlement Agreement at 3, Ex. A to Resp. to Mot. Set Aside, ECF No. 8 21-2). The Agreement explicitly stated that proper institutional placement was contingent on 9 approval by a full classification hearing and the medical hearing. (Id.). As such, “[t]he NDOC 10 [could] neither guarantee the outcome of the full classification hearing nor promise or 11 guarantee the clinical outcome of any upcoming medical consultation.” (Id.). The parties 12 subsequently filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, (ECF No. 15), which this Court 13 granted. (See generally Order Granting Stipulation Dismissal, ECF No. 16). 14 Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff received his full classification hearing and the 15 medical hearing. (Mot. Set Aside 2:14–17). A medical board approved Plaintiff for transfer; 16 however, the classification committee denied Plaintiff because “his points [were] too high.” (Id. 17 2:15–17). Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant Motion to Set Aside the Settlement Pursuant

18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (See Mot. Set Aside, ECF No. 17). 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Under Rule 60(b), a court may, upon motion and just terms, “relieve a party . . . from a 21 final judgment,” on the ground that the “judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A 22 judgment is “void only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject 23 matter, or of the parties, or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” 24 In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc.,

, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Additionally, under Rule 60(b), 25 a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only in the following 1 circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 2 evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any 3 other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik,

, 549 (9th Cir. 4 2000). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is void due to the mutually mistaken belief that 7 Plaintiff could be transferred to another facility. (See Mot. Set Aside 2:18–23). Alternatively, 8 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fraudulently failed to disclose to Plaintiff that he was not 9 eligible for transfer, prior to Plaintiff agreeing to the terms of the Agreement. (Id. 3:17–20). 10 As a preliminary matter, the Court does not have authority to grant Plaintiff’s requested 11 form of relief. According to the Settlement Agreement, the parties agree that their “sole 12 remedy to enforce or interpret this Agreement, or to otherwise resolve any disputes that may 13 arise from this agreement, shall lie in an action for breach of contract commenced in a Nevada 14 State district court applying Nevada law.” (See Settlement Agreement at 5, Ex. A to Def.’s 15 Resp., ECF No. 21-2) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff disputes the terms of the Settlement 16 Agreement, specifically arguing that the Settlement Agreement is void because Plaintiff is not 17 eligible to transfer. (Mot. to Set Aside Settlement at 2). Any action for breach of contract,

18 therefore, must be initiated in Nevada state court pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 19 Even if the Court maintained jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s dispute, Plaintiff’s Motion to 20 Set Aside the Settlement fails based on the explicit terms of the Agreement. The Agreement 21 specifically states that the “NDOC can neither guarantee the outcome of the full classification 22 hearing—that is for the relevant panel to decide based on all the evidence available to them— 23 nor promise or guarantee the clinical outcome of any upcoming medical consultation.” 24 (Settlement Agreement at 3). Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledged this provision of the Settlement 25 Agreement, as he restates in his Motion that “[t]he agreement did not guarantee a result.” (Mot. 1 to Set Aside Settlement 2:11–2). Since the Agreement did not promise Plaintiff’s transfer, 2 neither party entered the Agreement with the mistaken belief that Plaintiff was ineligible for 3 transfer. Plaintiff’s ability to transfer remained contingent on the outcome of a full 4 classification hearing and medical consultation. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 5 request to set aside the settlement. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Settlement and 8 Other Relief, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 10 the Motion to Set Aside, (ECF No. 19), is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 11 DATED this __1_0__ day of November, 2021. 12 13 14 15 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25