(PC) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00932
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVONTA T. LEWIS, No. 2:21-cv-00932-DAD-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties reached a settlement agreement in a settlement conference before 18 Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on October 27, 2022. ECF No. 98. The parties submitted a 19 stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on December 1, 2022, and the case was accordingly 20 closed. ECF Nos. 104, 105. Plaintiff now appears to have second thoughts about settling. He 21 has filed a motion to compel defense counsel to provide a copy of the written settlement 22 agreement to him, ECF No. 106, and states that he was “declared insane” as of the date of the 23 settlement conference. He adds that he was coerced by defendants and Judge Grosjean to accept 24 the settlement. Therefore, he concludes, the settlement is void. Id. 25 The court construes these allegations as a motion to rescind the settlement agreement. In 26 deference to plaintiff’s incarcerated and pro se status, defense counsel will be directed to serve 27 plaintiff with a (perhaps additional) copy of the settlement agreement. However, as discussed 28 below, the request to rescind the agreement must be denied. 1 I. Background 2 On October 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Grosjean presided over a settlement conference 3 between plaintiff and defense attorney Matthew Roman of the California Office of the Attorney 4 General. Plaintiff was assisted by two students from the McGeorge School of Law Prisoner Civil 5 Rights Litigation Clinic. The parties reached an agreement to settle three cases for a total sum of 6 $33,000: (1) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda, No. 2:21-cv-00932, for $7,500 (this case); (2) Lewis v. 7 Gibson, No. 1:20-cv-00574, for $23,000; and (3) Lewis v. Kokor, No. 1:20-cv-00596, for $2,500. 8 In exchange for these settlement amounts, plaintiff agreed on the record to dismiss all three cases 9 with prejudice. Judge Grosjean informed plaintiff that the settlement agreement would not affect 10 the fees and restitution he owed and that such amounts would be taken from the settlement funds 11 before he received any money. Plaintiff had an opportunity to speak, which he did lucidly and 12 intelligently, stating that he disagreed with defense counsel regarding the total amount of fees and 13 restitution that he owed. Plaintiff did not indicate in any way that he was experiencing mental 14 health symptoms or had been unduly pressured into agreeing to the settlement. 15 On November 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to send him the 16 settlement agreement to sign. ECF No. 100. In this filing, plaintiff wrote that he had settled this 17 case “with the assistance of the McGeorge civil rights law clinic students aid for which I am 18 thankful.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff described the settlement conference: “Judge E. Grosjean mediated 19 and successfully got all parties to settle.” Id. 20 However, on November 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to rescind the settlement 21 agreement. ECF No. 102. Plaintiff argued that he “was coerced by voices to settle” and was 22 taking “medication for hearing voices of defendants.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff stated that Kings County 23 Superior Court Judge Randy Edwards had “ordered” plaintiff “insane” on October 24, 2022 and 24 that he was not stable to attend the settlement conference on October 27th. Id. At the conference, 25 “the voices coerced me, forced me under duress to settle or the defendants will kill me.” Id. 26 Plaintiff attached to the motion an October 24, 2022 minute order from the Kings County 27 Superior Court ordering that plaintiff be examined by a doctor to determine his mental 28 1 competence.1 Although it notes the that a question arose as to his mental capacity and directed a 2 mental examination, the order does not find plaintiff incompetent or insane. Plaintiff also 3 attached a declaration in which he averred,

4 On day of settlement conference when I was hearing voices of defendants who retaliated on me as admitted maliciously, they voices was telling me “they” were 5 going to kill me if “I” go to jury trial in front of public jurors and snitch on them and get them fired and bust into my ADA prison wheelchair cell again and hurt 6 me so bad my neck and back will never be healable or pain free – by medication or doctors – and that they will kill me if I defend myself… 7 The Judge Erica Grosjean also pressured me. E. Grosjean said, Hurry up take the 8 deal or they are gonna walk out on you and no deals.

9 E. Grosjean said, “I” only started your deal at $40,000 what’s your bottom number. Sir. It has to be lower not higher. Lewis, they will leave sir. “You get 10 nothing.”

11 E. Grosjean said, If you don’t settle you going to trial and Judge Stanley is ready next door and I don’t know your case but you don’t want to. She basically 12 coerced, forced, duressed me to take deal.

13 I was in sustained fear of loss, being killed, and her conspiring with chief law enforcement officer M.W. Roman to coerce me to settle and I don’t want to. “I” 14 want trial. To tell the public about these corrupt custodial public civil servants rather I win or lose!!! And they kill me. I will die telling the public to help other 15 blacks in my position. 16 Id. at 6 (sic all). 17 By November 28, 2022, however, plaintiff’s feelings about the settlement agreement had 18 changed, and he filed a motion to “cancel” his motion to rescind the settlement agreement. ECF 19 No. 103. In this filing, plaintiff wrote that he heard voices that told him to file the motion to 20 rescind. Id. at 1. Plaintiff wished to cancel the motion because he had signed the settlement 21 agreement. Id. 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 1 The minute order reads: “Upon the request of the Defense, Court finds a doubt has arisen 25 regarding the defendant’s mental capacity and ability to understand ongoing proceedings. Criminal proceedings suspended and civil/criminal proceedings initiated. Defendant certified to 26 civil court for hearing to determine whether or not the defendant is presently insane under PC 27 1368.9. Doctor Matthews appointed to examine the defendant pursuant to Penal Code 1368 and ordered to advise the court in writing as to whether or not the defendant is mentally competent.” 28 ECF No. 102 at 3. 1 In the instant filing, plaintiff again represents that he had been “declared insane” and that 2 defendants and Judge Grosjean coerced him to agree to the settlement. ECF No. 106 at 1. 3 According to defendant, he was pressured to accept less than $40,000 “or be killed and lose.” Id. 4 II. Analysis 5 The enforcement of an agreement to settle a federal litigation is governed by the law of 6 the state in which the agreement was entered into. United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. 7 Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). In California, settlement agreements are 8 governed by the same principles governing contracts generally. Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 9 876 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 California law allows a party to rescind a contract if his agreement was “was given by 11 mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the 12 connivance of the” other party to the contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1689. 13 In the instant case, there is no evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim that defense counsel 14 and/or Judge Grosjean subjected him to duress other than plaintiff’s extravagant statements. 15 Plaintiff was assisted by two law students during settlement negotiations. After the parties had 16 reached agreement, the material terms of the settlement were read on the record, and plaintiff 17 stated that he agreed to those terms. Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to raise any 18 issues, and he spoke clearly and intelligently about a single point of concern – the disagreement 19 between himself and defense counsel regarding the amount he owed in fees and restitution fines. 20 He did not state or imply that he had been pressured into agreement. In addition, plaintiff’s 21 statements to this court regarding the settlement agreement in the motions he has filed since the 22 settlement conference are contradictory. First, plaintiff wrote that the conference was a success, 23 that he wished to sign the agreement, and that he was grateful for the assistance of the McGeorge 24 Law School students. ECF No. 100. Then he wrote that he wished to rescind the agreement 25 because he was incompetent and under duress. ECF No. 102. After that, he told the court that he 26 submitted his prior motion to rescind because he “was hearing voices” encouraging him to do so. 27 ECF No. 103. Thus, plaintiff’s statements – which are the only evidence of duress that he has 28 offered – cannot be relied on. All other factors indicate a routine settlement conference. 1 Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff should not be permitted to rescind the settlement 2 agreement based on his claim of duress. 3 A party may also rescind a contract in California if “he was not mentally competent to 4 deal with the subject before him with a full understanding of his rights” at the time he entered into 5 the contract. Rains v. Flinn, 428 F.3d 893, 901 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and 6 citations omitted); Cal. Civ. Code § 39(a). A district court may find an individual competent to 7 enter into a contract where the record contains sufficient evidence showing that she “understood 8 the nature, purpose and effect of his actions” at the time of contracting. Rains, 428 F.3d at 901. 9 Here, plaintiff’s filings since the settlement conference indicate some level of mental 10 instability, which apparently prompted the Kings County Superior Court to order a mental 11 competency examination for plaintiff on October 24, 2022. However, there is no evidence before 12 this court that plaintiff has been found incompetent. Nor is there any evidence – other than 13 plaintiff’s contradictory filings – substantiating plaintiff’s claims of incompetence. Plaintiff tells 14 the court that he was taking medication on the day of the settlement conference (ECF No. 102 at 15 1), but he does not inform the court of the effect of that medication let alone present evidence of 16 any impact on his comprehension and decision making. Plaintiff’s appearance on the record at 17 the conclusion of the conference reveals no indication of mental infirmity. Plaintiff spoke 18 lucidly, intelligently, audibly, and with normal tone, volume, and inflection. He did not tell Judge 19 Grosjean that he had been “ordered insane,” was hearing voices, or was not able to participate 20 and/or understand the proceedings due to his mental illness. Thus, the court finds that the record 21 contains sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff understood the nature, purpose, and effect of 22 agreeing to the settlement terms on October 27, 2022. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 HiIl. Order and Recommendation 2 It is hereby ORDERED that defense counsel serve on plaintiff a copy of the written 3 || settlement agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendants following the October 27, 4 | 2022 settlement conference. 5 It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's December 5, 2022 filing (ECF No. 106), 6 || which the court construes as a motion to rescind the settlement agreement, be denied. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 || Dated: February 6, 2023. 15 □□ PDEA 16 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28