(PC) Arceo v. Savage ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ARCEO, No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SOCORRO SALINAS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s motion concerning the 18 settlement of this action is before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion should be 19 denied. 20 Background 21 On August 3, 2021, the parties settled this action on the record, and agreed that because 22 the county could not agree to make the check payable to plaintiff’s mother, and had no objection 23 to plaintiff’s plan to subsequently endorse the check over to his mother, the check would be 24 payable to plaintiff. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion claiming that trust account officers 25 wrongfully cashed the check plaintiff endorsed “pay to the order of Sylvia Arceo,” and he 26 requests an order from the court withdrawing the settlement of this action or ordering the 27 Department of State Hospitals at Coalinga to “remove their incumbrance from exempt monies.” 28 (ECF No. 140 at 4.) Plaintiff provided a copy of a letter from the Department of State Hospitals, 1 Administrative Services Division, stating that pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 2 Code 7281,1 if the trust account exceeds $500.00, the excess may be applied toward plaintiff’s 3 cost of care balance. (ECF No. 140 at 7.) The letter provided plaintiff with information 4 concerning his ability to dispute the notice by filing an appeal, and noted the excess funds would 5 be held pending resolution of such appeal. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff’s trust account statement 6 confirmed that $1,500.00 was transferred on September 28, 2021, to plaintiff’s cost of care 7 account. (ECF No. 140 at 9.) 8 On May 3, 2022, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Defendant argues 9 that plaintiff’s motion seeks relief against the Department of State Hospitals for release of the 10 funds, and therefore does not seek any relief from defendant. Further, defendant contends that he 11 complied with the settlement agreement by paying plaintiff the agreed settlement sum by way of 12 check payable to plaintiff, who acknowledges such sum was paid. Moreover, this action was 13 dismissed with prejudice pursuant to such settlement agreement, which is an adjudication on the 14 merits, barring further action by this court. (ECF No. 142 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file a reply. 15 Governing Standards 16 Generally, if a settlement agreement is repudiated, “the frustrated party may sue anew for 17 breach of the agreement and may not . . . reopen the underlying litigation after dismissal.” 18 Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 “It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an agreement 20 to settle a case pending before it.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987); accord Doi 21 v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). 22 1 Section 7281 provides as follows: “There is at each institution under the jurisdiction of the State Department of 23 State Hospitals and at each institution under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Developmental Services, a fund known as the patients' personal deposit fund. Any funds coming into the possession of the superintendent, 24 belonging to any patient in that institution, shall be deposited in the name of that patient in the patients' personal deposit fund, except that if a guardian or conservator of the estate is appointed for the patient then he or she shall 25 have the right to demand and receive the funds. Whenever the sum belonging to any one patient, deposited in the patients' personal deposit fund, exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars ($ 500), the excess may be applied to the payment of the care, support, maintenance, and medical attention of the patient. After the death of the patient any 26 sum remaining in his or her personal deposit account in excess of burial costs may be applied for payment of care, support, maintenance, and medical attention. Any of the funds belonging to a patient deposited in the patients' 27 personal deposit fund may be used for the purchase of personal incidentals for the patient or may be applied in an amount not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) to the payment of his or her burial expenses.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. 28 Code § 7281. 1 |} Discussion 2 The undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied. This action is not 3 || currently pending, and the dismissal order did not retain jurisdiction over this matter. (ECF No. 4 | 138.) As argued by defendant, the case was dismissed with prejudice, which operates as an 5 || adjudication on the merits. Semtek Int’| Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 6 || (2001). In addition, the settlement payment was made by the county and received by plaintiff and 7 || deposited into his trust account. Whether or not plaintiff was subsequently able to transfer the 8 | funds to his mother, plaintiff still received the funds he was entitled to receive pursuant to the 9 || terms of the agreement. Plaintiff cites no authority that would allow the court to amend the 10 || parties’ settlement agreement in this situation. 11 Moreover, this action provides no jurisdiction over trust account officials at the 12 || Department of State Hospitals, Coalinga. If plaintiff wishes to challenge how trust account 13 || officials handled the deposit of funds, plaintiff must follow the identified procedures, including 14 | applying for relief to the Government Claims Program through the California Department of 15 || General Services, or any other remedies provided by state law. (ECF No. 140 at 8.) 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 140) 17 || be denied. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 23 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 24 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 | Dated: June 8, 2022 /arce2396.set.enf Frees Aharon 28 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE