United States District Court, E.D. California
CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Plaintiff,
L. BENDER, et al., Defendants.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On July 7, 2017,
plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this action. (ECF No. 54.)
Plaintiff objects that the settlement proceeds were to be
paid to his father, Michael Springfield, but that the
necessary documents were not processed. Plaintiff claims that
on June 2, 2017, an attorney general told plaintiff that
Michael Springfield would be paid in a matter of weeks. On
June 28, 2017, the attorney general stated that the
settlement proceeds would be put in plaintiff's trust
account since his restitution fine exceeds the settlement
proceeds. However, plaintiff contends that he only owes $2,
000 in restitution fines, and that the larger restitution due
the victim is only to be paid from his prison wages.
Plaintiff asks the court to reopen this action because
defendants failed to pay Michael Springfield as agreed, and
because it took more than two and a half years to pay the
settlement proceeds. (ECF No. 54 at 3.)
August 23, 2017, defendants filed their opposition.
Defendants contend that this action may be reopened only
under extraordinary circumstances such as fraud,
misrepresentation or misconduct, none of which is present
here. Defendants concede that payment of the settlement has
been delayed due to a number of factors, including
plaintiff's failure to recall his social security number,
but argue that they are legally obligated to pay the
settlement proceeds toward plaintiff's outstanding
restitution, despite plaintiff's preference that his
father receive the settlement proceeds.
for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. If a settlement agreement is repudiated,
“the frustrated party may sue anew for breach of the
agreement and may not, as here, reopen the underlying
litigation after dismissal.” Keeling v. Sheet Metal
Workers Int'l Ass'n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d
408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991).
record reflects that on October 22, 2015, another magistrate
judge settled this action. On January 11, 2016, both sides
signed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action,
and this case was ...