(PC)Springfield v. Valencia ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:19-cv-00965-KJM-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. VALENCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case settled on January 29, 2020, but 19 plaintiff has filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking to reopen the case based on alleged fraud, 20 misrepresentation, and misconduct related to the use of the settlement proceeds to pay plaintiff’s 21 outstanding filing fees in this case as well as other civil cases. 22 I. Factual and Procedural Background 23 Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis which allowed him to litigate the 24 case without prepayment of the $350 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 7. 25 Pursuant to Section 1915(b), however, plaintiff was obligated to pay the full filing fee through an 26 initial partial payment and subsequent monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's 27 income in his trust account. See ECF No. 8. 28 Plaintiff understood “that only 20% of the settlement proceeds would be deducted and 1 used to pay plaintiff[‘s] PLRA (Prison Litigation Reform Act) fee’s [sic].” ECF No. 32 at 3. As 2 a result, plaintiff signed the stipulation for voluntary dismissal which was entered on January 30, 3 2020. Id. However, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 4 deducted “99.9% of the… settlement proceeds to pay plaintiff[‘s] PLRA fee’s [sic].” ECF No. 32 5 at 3. Plaintiff only received $10 out of the $4,000 agreed upon settlement amount. Id. Plaintiff 6 attached an Inmate Statement Report demonstrating that a $4,000 deposit was made on April 23, 7 2020. ECF No. 32 at 14. On May 1, 2020, twelve separate deductions were made from 8 plaintiff’s inmate trust account totaling $3,990.00. Id. Each of the deductions was used to pay 9 PLRA filing fees in twelve separate cases and appeals therefrom. Id. Another initial PLRA fee 10 of $.85 was deducted from plaintiff’s trust account on May 12, 2020, leaving a total available 11 balance of $10.54 which included an interest payment. Id. 12 On May 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the 13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 32. In his Rule 60(b) motion, plaintiff asserts that his 14 understanding of the terms of the settlement was induced by defendant’s “acts of fraud, 15 misrepresentation, and misconduct.” ECF No. 32 at 4. Specifically, plaintiff contends that 16 defendants “fabricated documents to make it appear that [p]laintiff would receive a portion of his 17 settlement…,” but ultimately knew that he would not receive the proceeds due to his outstanding 18 court fees. ECF No. 32 at 5. Plaintiff does not specify what documents were altered. By way of 19 relief, plaintiff requests that the case be reopened or, in the alternative, that the appropriate 20 amount of settlement proceeds be placed in his prison trust account. ECF No. 32 at 6. 21 In their opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendants assert that the court lacks jurisdiction 22 to decide the motion because the court did not retain jurisdiction over the case as part of the 23 settlement agreement. ECF No. 38 at 2-3. Even assuming that the court has jurisdiction, 24 defendants further argue that they have not failed to pay the agreed upon settlement amount or 25 otherwise violated any terms of the written settlement agreement. ECF No. 38 at 3. Defendants 26 contend that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating any fraud, misrepresentation, 27 or misconduct that would warrant granting his Rule 60(b) motion because he was not promised 28 any particular amount of settlement proceeds that would remain in his prison trust account after 1 outstanding filing fees were paid. ECF No. 38 at 3-5. Reviewing the statement from plaintiff’s 2 inmate trust account, defendants submit that “the deduction of 20 percent of the $4,000 settlement 3 amount (up to $800 for each case) was applied to each of the thirteen outstanding court filing fees 4 that Plaintiff owed.” ECF No. 38 at 4. 5 II. Legal Standards 6 “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 7 final judgment, order, or proceeding for… fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 8 extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). 9 In order to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, “the moving party must prove by clear and 10 convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other 11 misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly 12 presenting the defense.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 13 De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000)). 14 III. Analysis 15 First and foremost, this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 60(b) motion because the 16 settlement agreement did not include any provision that the court would retain jurisdiction over 17 the matter. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) 18 (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a motion to enforce settlement following 19 entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice where there was no provision in the settlement 20 agreement retaining jurisdiction, and the settlement agreement was not incorporated into the order 21 dismissing with prejudice). When a district court dismisses an action with prejudice pursuant to a 22 settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually ends. O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 23 (9th Cir. 1995) (vacating district court order enforcing a settlement agreement based on lack of 24 jurisdiction). This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged breach of the settlement 25 agreement where the parties did not incorporate any provision to retain jurisdiction over this 26 matter. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381-382; see also Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1095 (9th 27 Cir. 2016) (finding that the district court retained jurisdiction where the settlement agreement was 28 incorporated into the court’s dismissal order). For this reason alone, the undersigned 1 recommends denying plaintiff’s motion. 2 Secondly, even if this court did have jurisdiction, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any 3 fraud or misrepresentation that induced him into signing the settlement agreement. The record 4 demonstrates that the settlement agreement which referenced deductions in the amount of 20% 5 were for each outstanding case and were not a total cap on the amount that CDCR could deduct 6 from the settlement proceeds. See Bruce, 136 S. Ct. 627. This is especially true in light of the 7 fact that the settlement agreement in this case was a global resolution of ten federal civil rights 8 cases that plaintiff had pending in the Eastern District of California as well as the Central District 9 of California. ECF No. 38-1 at 7. Based on the number of cases involved, the settlement judge 10 emphasized that plaintiff has “in this and the other cases at least up to date have succeeded in 11 filing an in forma pauperis application, and that has been granted, that you will be assessed… the 12 filing fee of $350 for the case…. So, basically, it’s a 20 percent per month until it’s paid, 13 assuming you have a balance that’s positive, a positive balance, on your books… and that is 14 pursuant to title 28 United States code Section 1915(b)(1).” ECF No. 38-1 at 8-9 (emphasis 15 added). The settlement judge further explained that “[a]ny settlement proceeds will be reduced 16 by deductions to cover administrative fees and outstanding restitution balances, if any, and any 17 other fees or costs owed by plaintiff.” ECF No. 38-1 at 11-12 (emphasis added). Plaintiff was 18 never advised that the settlement proceeds would only be reduced by 20% to pay the filing fee in 19 this particular case only. Rather, he was advised that the 20% deduction applied to all fees that he 20 owed. ECF No. 38-1 at 11-12. In light of the global settlement reached and the transcript of the 21 settlement hearing, the court is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s argument. The court does not find any 22 factual basis to support plaintiff’s motion that the global settlement reached in this case was 23 induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. For all these reasons, the court recommends 24 denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. 25 Furthermore, plaintiff is advised that CDCR’s deductions from his inmate trust account 26 were properly made in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. 27 Ct. 627 (2016). In Bruce, the Supreme Court held that “monthly installment payments, like the 28 initial partial payment, are to be assessed on a per-case basis” and that “simultaneous, not MADE SLD INT NS ENE RUC I ae POY VI 1 | sequential, recoupment of multiple filing fees” is required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). Id. at 629- 2 | 631. Therefore, the simultaneous deductions from plaintiff's inmate trust account to pay 3 | multiple outstanding filing fees were lawful and properly made. Id. 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion 5 | to reopen pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 32) be denied. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after 8 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 9 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: July 16, 2020 rd f | Gx 15 CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 || 12/spri0965.60(b).docx 24 25 26 27 28