The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action. On July 22, 2010, the parties filed a notice of settlement. On July 29, 2010, defendants were ordered to file within 150 days either a stipulation of dismissal or a status report addressing when a stipulation would be filed. (Dkt. No. 187.) On December 14, 2010, defendants filed a status report stating that they expect that plaintiff can be paid the sum of money agreed to by early February 2011. Defendants also state that plaintiff is eligible for transfer to a level 2 prison, per the settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 194.)
Pending before the court are plaintiff's motions for substitution of attorney and to rescind the settlement agreement filed August 24, 2010. (Dkt. Nos. 188, 189.) On September 2, 2010, defendants filed a motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 190.)
For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion for substitution is granted, and the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion to rescind the settlement agreement be denied and defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement be granted.
Plaintiff is represented by counsel, i.e. Craig Cox Weaver and Gary Gorski. In the motion for substitution, plaintiff requests that he be permitted to proceed pro se or, in other words, without counsel. Plaintiff's motion is granted.
Plaintiff seeks to rescind the settlement agreement on the following grounds. In a declaration attached to his motion, plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2010, he had surgery for an enlarged prostate following which he was prescribed acetaminophen with codeine phosphate 300 mg tablets which he took three times per day. (Dkt. No. 189, at 3 of 30.) This medication caused plaintiff to feel light headed, dizzy, sleepy, nauseous, disoriented and high. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he took this medication on July 9, 2010, i.e. the date of the settlement conference. (Id., at 3-4.) Plaintiff alleges that he told his lawyer at the settlement conference that he was on pain medication. (Id., at 4.)
Plaintiff alleges that during the settlement conference, Judge Vadas told him that he could not prove deliberate indifference and that he should accept the settlement offer (Id., at 5.) Plaintiff claims that his lawyer told Judge Vadas that he could prove deliberate indifference against several defendants. (Id., at 6.) Judge Vadas and plaintiff's counsel stepped out of the conference, returning 15 to 30 minutes later. (Id.) At that time, plaintiff's counsel told plaintiff that after extensive arguing, he had changed his position and now believed that he would probably lose against most defendants at trial. (Id.,) Counsel told plaintiff that if they lost at trial, plaintiff would owe $30,000 to $40,000 in fees. (Id.) Plaintiff allegedly told his counsel that Judge Vadas was biased because he was arguing on behalf of defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel stated that Judge Vadas was neutral. (Id.)
A few minutes later, Judge Vadas returned to the conference room. (Id.)
Plaintiff's counsel asked Judge Vadas to confirm that he was neutral and not biased. (Id.) Judge Vadas said that he was a judge who had handled hundreds of cases. (Id., at 7.) According to plaintiff, Judge Vadas stated, "...you cannot prove deliberate indifference in this case, at best you can prove negligence, but in federal court you have to prove they knowingly caused your injury and you cannot do that in this case." (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel then told plaintiff that it was in his best interest to accept a settlement. (Id.) Plaintiff agreed to accept the settlement. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he felt pressured and that he needed time to think. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he needed a week to think about the settlement because he had just had surgery and was on medication. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Judge Vadas told him that he had to decide that day. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his lawyer told him that if he went to trial, he would most likely get nothing and instead owe more than he already owed in restitution. (Id., at 7-8.)
Plaintiff alleges that the settlement was not in his best interest because his lawyer originally asked for $600,000 when he first became involved in the case on June 9, 2009. (Id., at 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Judge Vadas and his lawyer worked against him. (Id., at 8-9.)
III. Legal Standard "The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of [state] law which apply to contracts generally." Jeff D. ...