Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, represented by counsel. On March 15, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference, and the parties' settlement agreement was placed on the court record. On October 31, 2018, plaintiff, pro se, wrote the undersigned a letter. As stated on the court record, the undersigned offered to ensure the settlement was concluded and that plaintiff received the settlement proceeds. However, in his letter, plaintiff stated
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, represented by counsel. On March 15, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference, and the parties' settlement agreement was placed on the court record. On October 31, 2018, plaintiff, pro se, wrote the undersigned a letter. As stated on the court record, the undersigned offered to ensure the settlement was concluded and that plaintiff received the settlement proceeds. However, in his letter, plaintiff stated h..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, represented by counsel. On March 15, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference, and the parties' settlement agreement was placed on the court record. On October 31, 2018, plaintiff, pro se, wrote the undersigned a letter. As stated on the court record, the undersigned offered to ensure the settlement was concluded and that plaintiff received the settlement proceeds. However, in his letter, plaintiff stated he was contacting the court because his attorney had agreed to file a new civil rights complaint on plaintiff's behalf, but counsel had not done so.1 Plaintiff is advised that it would not be appropriate for the court to get involved in a discussion or dispute between plaintiff and his counsel, and it appears from plaintiff's letter that counsel had responded at least twice to plaintiff's inquiries. Court records reflect that plaintiff's counsel filed a civil rights action on plaintiff's behalf on August 24, 2018. Anderson v. California Medical Facility, No. 2:18-cv-2314 DB (E.D. Cal.), which remains pending.2
A stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed on April 30, 2018, and this case was closed. Plaintiff is advised that no orders will issue in response to future filings.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff's attorney of record, John Stringer, as well as on plaintiff Julius Anderson, K-33896, California Medical Facility, P.O. Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696-2500.
FootNotes
1. The recorded settlement reflects no agreement as to the filing of a new civil rights action. Plaintiff's counsel mentioned that he intended to file a petition before the Board of Parole Hearings to request medical parole for plaintiff, but the undersigned made clear that such petition was not part of the settlement of this action, had nothing to do with the settlement, and would offer no basis for seeking to set aside such settlement.
2. A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue") (internal quotation omitted).
