(PC) Metcalf v. Aruayo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DENZELL MAGIC METCALF, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1069 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE THE ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; DENYING THE 14 JOSE ARUAYO, et al., ) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND DENYING ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A HEARING, TO 15 Defendants. ) EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDINGS, AND TO ) PROCEED TO DISCOVERY 16 ) (Docs. 28, 29, 33, 35, and 36) ) 17

18 Denzell Metcalf asserts the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights while he was 19 housed at California Correctional Institution- Tehachapi. (Doc. 8; see also Doc. 17.) The parties 20 participated in a settlement conference with the Court and settled the action on October 17, 2024. 21 (Doc. 25.) The Court placed the terms of the settlement on the record and ordered a long form 22 settlement agreement to be finalized within 30 days. (Id.) The terms of the settlement provided that 23 later “refusal to sign the settlement paperwork is not a reason to later rescind the settlement agreement 24 that [the parties] enter[ed] onto the record.” (Doc. 27 at 4.) 25 Defendants report that Plaintiff refused to sign the agreement, and request the Court enforce the 26 terms of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 28.) Defendants also request sanctions for the attorneys’ fees 27 incurred with the preparation of the motion. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff opposed the motion and requested the 28 Court hold a hearing, so he could explain his reasoning for refusing to sign the settlement agreement. 1 (Docs. 29, 30.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to expedite the proceedings and a motion to 2 proceed to discovery. (Docs. 33, 35.) 3 The magistrate judge found “there is a valid and enforceable settlement agreement” between 4 the parties. (Doc. 36 at 6.) Although Plaintiff asserted a belief that the Court provided wrong 5 information concerning the exhaustion of his administrative remedies during the settlement conference 6 (Doc. 30 at 1), the magistrate judge found such a belief was unsupported and did not provide a basis to 7 rescind the agreement. (Doc. 36 at 7-8.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found, “Defendants are 8 entitled to enforcement of the settlement agreement as agreed to by the parties on the record at the end 9 of the settlement conference.” (Id. at 8.) The magistrate judge acknowledged that Defendants 10 incurred additional fees through seeking enforcement of the agreement, but found the requested 11 deduction from the settlement award “would almost eliminate the entire settlement amount for the 12 case.” (Id. at 9.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court enforce the settlement but 13 deny the request for monetary sanctions. (Id. at 8-9.) 14 Turning to Plaintiffs’ motions, the magistrate judge found an evidentiary hearing regarding 15 Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the agreement was not necessary, because Plaintiff “set forth his position in 16 his opposition,” and “the terms of the settlement agreement were clearly stated on the record.” (Doc. 17 36 at 9.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the Court decline to hold a hearing. (Id.) In light 18 of the settlement, the magistrate judge also recommended the denial of Plaintiff’s motions to expedite 19 the proceedings and to proceed to discovery. (Id. at 10.) 20 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified Plaintiff that 21 any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 36 at 10.) The Court advised the parties that the 22 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. 23 at 11, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 24 objections, and the time to do so has passed. 25 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 26 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 27 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 23, 2025 (Doc. 36) are ADOPTED in 1 full. 2 2. Defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement (Doc. 28) is 3 GRANTED. 4 3. The terms of the written settlement agreement (Doc. 28-1 at 5-7) ARE enforceable, 5 with the parties’ obligations due as if the written agreement was executed on the date « 6 this order. 7 4. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED. 8 5. Plaintiff's motion for a hearing (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 9 6. Plaintiff's motions to expedite the proceedings (Doc. 33) and for discovery (Doc. 35) 10 are DENIED, in light of the settlement. 11 7. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 8. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. IS || Dated: _ August 23, 2025 ( LAW ph l. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28