Meador v. Martin, 2:17-cv-0203 KJM EFB P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180405852
Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 3, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference in this action, and the case settled. On March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter in which he reiterates the fears expressed at the settlement conference, and also noted that he has not yet received the funds from the settlement. The undersigned has reviewed the transcript from the settlement conference and reminds plaintiff that d
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 3, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference in this action, and the case settled. On March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter in which he reiterates the fears expressed at the settlement conference, and also noted that he has not yet received the funds from the settlement. The undersigned has reviewed the transcript from the settlement conference and reminds plaintiff that de..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 3, 2018, the undersigned held a settlement conference in this action, and the case settled. On March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter in which he reiterates the fears expressed at the settlement conference, and also noted that he has not yet received the funds from the settlement.
The undersigned has reviewed the transcript from the settlement conference and reminds plaintiff that defense counsel agreed to call Scott Kernan's office in response to plaintiff's concerns. In addition, plaintiff was informed that while it was currently taking about three to four months for settlement proceeds to be paid to inmates, it could take up to six months. Plaintiff was advised that if it approached the six month mark, plaintiff could contact defense counsel to inquire why payment had not yet been received. Then, if plaintiff received no satisfactory response, he should contact the court. At this time, only three months have passed since this case was settled.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's inquiry (ECF No. 39) is premature.
Source: Leagle
