Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hardney v. Griffith, 2:17-cv-2462 MCE AC P. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200214a50 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . This prisoner civil rights case was closed on July 17, 2019, the day after the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. See ECF Nos. 26, 27. The stipulation and order directed that plaintiff's claims against all defendants — Griffith, Matson, Rhoades, Gruenwald, Gold and Vasquez — be dismissed with prejudice. Id. Although the court held a mediation conference in this case on April 24, 2019, the parties later reached their settlement agre
More

ORDER

This prisoner civil rights case was closed on July 17, 2019, the day after the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. See ECF Nos. 26, 27. The stipulation and order directed that plaintiff's claims against all defendants — Griffith, Matson, Rhoades, Gruenwald, Gold and Vasquez — be dismissed with prejudice. Id. Although the court held a mediation conference in this case on April 24, 2019, the parties later reached their settlement agreement independently.

On December 15, 2019,1 plaintiff filed and served a motion for court order directing defendants to comply with their settlement agreement to compensate plaintiff $2000. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff stated that the parties agreed to settle this case on June 27, 2019 and that plaintiff would receive his settlement payment within six months. As of December 15, 2019, plaintiff had not received payment.

By order filed January 8, 2020, this court directed defendants to file a response to plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 29. In their response filed January 22, 2020, defendants' counsel filed a declaration explaining that plaintiff received his settlement payment on December 27, 2019. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff was granted 14 days to file a reply to defendants' response. ECF No. 29 at 2. That period, plus adequate time for service by mail, has expired. Plaintiff's failure to file a reply supports the reasonable inference that all conditions of the settlement in this case have been satisfied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for execution of payment, ECF No. 28, is denied as moot; this case shall remain closed.

FootNotes


1. Under the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed filed and served on the date it was signed by the prisoner and given to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer