UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 6, 2010
JERRY E. TORRES, CDCR #T-94067, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE MOOT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS [Doc. No. 105]
On September 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a civil action with this Court in which he claimed that Defendants failed to fully execute the settlement agreement that had been reached in this matter in March 2007. The Court liberally construed Plaintiff's complaint as a "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement" [Doc. No. 105]. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion on November 3, 2009 [Doc. No. 106].
The relevant portion of the settlement agreement provided, in part, that "Torres acknowledges that the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) to be paid in settlement of Torres v. California Dept. of Corrections, et al., United States District Court, Southern District case no. 05-CV-182 DMS (CAB), will be applied to the amount of restitution he owes and paid to appropriate State of California agencies pursuant to Penal Code Section 2085.5" (See Defs.' Reply at 1-2."). Plaintiff claims in his Motion that he recently learned that the payment had never been applied to his restitution account as set forth on his inmate trust account statement. (See Pl.'s Mot. at 1-2.)
Defendants have supplied the Declaration J. Sturchio, Special Investigator for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations ("CDCR") Office of Legal Affairs. In Sturchio's Declaration, he indicates that he reviewed the records of this case and discovered that a check had been issued on November 5, 2007 in the amount of $5,700*fn1 but the Plaintiff's restitution balance had not been credited for this amount. (See Sturchio Decl. at ¶¶ 1-3.) On October 27, 2009, Plaintiff's "Offender Restitution Payment History" has now been credited with the $5700.00. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Accordingly, it now appears that Defendants have fully satisfied the terms of the settlement agreement reached in March of 2007. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.