United States District Court, S.D. California
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Defendants. (ECF No. 59).
On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff Carlos Rios, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), commenced this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (ECF No. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) in this Court. The Complaint asserted claims for violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On March 25, 2014, the Court granted the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim, and granted Plaintiff forty-five days to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF No. 5).
On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed the FAC, which is the operative complaint in this case. (ECF No. 9). The FAC asserts claims for violations of the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants required him to choose between outdoor exercise and attending the law library. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused him the reasonable accommodation of placement in a developmental disability program, which includes legal assistance. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for complaining about these issues by charging him with a false "128-B general chrono" on August 8, 2013, and that the appeals coordinator did not properly process his inmate appeals. Id. at 9-10.
On January 14, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler held a telephonic case management conference. (ECF No. 23). On January 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Scheduling Telephonic Mandatory Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 24). The Magistrate Judge set a settlement conference for February 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to change the time of the settlement conference in this case. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff requested that the settlement conference be continued to 10:45 a.m. on the same date because Plaintiff was scheduled to appear at a "court settlement conference at the same date and time in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Hall of Justice for Case No. 37-2014-0036-102-CU-WM-CTL at Dept. C-67 on February 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m." Id. at 1. On January 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge reset the settlement conference to February 25, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 27).
On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Extension of Time and Request to be Relieve [sic] from this Court's Order Convening a Case Management Conference...." (ECF No. 29). The motion again requested that the settlement conference be continued to 10:45 a.m. on February 24, 2015, because Plaintiff was scheduled to appear in San Diego Superior Court at 9:30 a.m. On February 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and again stated that the settlement conference was continued to February 25, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 30).
On February 25, 2015, the Magistrate Judge held the telephonic settlement conference. (ECF No. 33). On February 25, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order stating that the case settled "and the terms of the settlement were placed on the record." (ECF No. 34 at 1). The transcript of the on-the-record portion of the February 25, 2015 settlement conference provides, in pertinent part:
The Clerk: Case Number 13cv2455, Rios vs. Paramo, placing settlement on the record.
The Court: Good Morning. May I have appearances, please.
Mr. Sheehy: Yes, Your Honor. Good Morning. This is Terrence Sheehy on behalf of Defendants.
Mr. Rios: My name is Carlos Rios on behalf of petitioner. The Court: All right. Thank you. The parties have reached a settlement after a second settlement conference held this morning. I thank you for your efforts in successfully reaching this settlement. And Mr. Sheehy, if you will please put the terms of the settlement on the record.
Mr. Sheehy: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Yes. The Defendants from CDCR agree to settle this case without an admission of liability for an amount of $1, 000, in exchange for Mr. Rios' signature on a dismissal and the settlement agreement and release and a payee data form. This settlement covers all claims and allegations and defendants in the case of Carlos Rios vs. D. Paramo and others, 13cv2455 in the Southern District of California, and all past or current employees of CDCR. This settlement is inclusive of all costs and attorney's fees. Have I read the settlement terms correctly sir?
Mr. Rios: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. And Mr. Rios, do you agree to the settlement terms?
Mr. Rios: Yes, I agree, Your Honor.
The Court: All Right. Thank you. All right. Again, I thank both sides for your efforts to reach this settlement.
Mr. Rios: Your ...