(PC) Gradford v. Stanislaus Public Safety Center

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA-PC 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Plaintiff, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT 13 FLORES’S MOTION TO DISMISS BE vs. GRANTED 14 (ECF No. 54.) STANISLAUS PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 15 et al., OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 16 Defendants. [18] 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a former jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . On September 18, 2017, 22 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This action now proceeds 23 with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on August 22, 2018, against defendant Sergeant 24 Flores1 (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth 25 Amendment. (ECF No. 15.)2 [26] 27 1 Sued as Sergeant Florres. 28 2 On August 16, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action. (ECF No. 22.) 1 On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order requiring the parties to notify the court 2 whether a settlement conference would be beneficial in this case. (ECF No. 47.) On August 12, 3 2020, defense counsel responded to the order informing the court that he does not believe a 4 settlement conference would be beneficial. (ECF No. 48.) Defense counsel reported that 5 Defendant’s employer, the County of Stanislaus, already settled this and several other pending 6 cases brought by Plaintiff, however Plaintiff has taken the position that the settlement is not 7 valid. (Id.) On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff responded to the court’s order and informed the court 8 that a settlement conference would be beneficial because Defendant’s attorney and others have 9 taken advantage of Plaintiff in the present case and another case he filed at this court. (ECF No. 10 49.)3 11 On September 8, 2020, Defendant Flores filed a motion for an order enforcing the 12 settlement and dismissing this case. (ECF No. 54.) On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 13 opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 56.) Defendant Flores’s motion is now before the court. 14 Local Rule 230(l). 15 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION 16 Defendant Flores moves to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and dismiss this 17 action pursuant to a release of claims in which Plaintiff agreed to release and discharge the 18 County of Stanislaus and it employees from any and all claims that Plaintiff may have against 19 them, and to dismiss all pending actions, including this case, in exchange for the payment of 20 $3,000, which payment was made. Defendant submits a two-page document titled Release of 21 All Claims, dated and signed by William Gradford on May 7, 2019, which states in part: 22 “The County of Stanislaus is paying to William Gradford the sum of 23 $3,000.00 in exchange for which William Gradford agrees to release and 24 discharge the County of Stanislaus, its employees, and/or representatives of and 25 from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, known or unknown, [27] 28 3 Plaintiff requested the court to “[p]lease see [the] reply brief in Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al., # 1:17-cv-00202-DAD-GSA-PC .” Gradford v. Tiexiera, et al. was dismissed by this court on January 5, 2018. 1 which William Gradford may have against the County of Stanislaus, its 2 employees, and/or representatives and to dismiss all pending actions, with the 3 parties to those actions to bear their own fees and costs.” 4 (ECF No. 54 at 8.) 5 Defendant asserts that as of May 1, 2019, Plaintiff had at least six active cases in 6 the Eastern District involving the County of Stanislaus and its employees (all custodial 7 staff). Defendants, represented by Dan Farrar, had appeared in three of the cases and had 8 not been served in any other. 9 The cases in which defendants had appeared were: 10 Gradford v. Lignoski, 1:17-cv-01460-DAD-GSA 11 Gradford v. Tiexiera, 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA 12 Gradford v. McDougal, 1:17-cv-00575-DAD-GSA 13 The unserved cases were: 14 Gradford v. Guiltron, 1:18-cv-01364-DAD-GSA 15 Gradford v. Chan, 1:18-cv-00710-DAD-GSA 16 Gradford v. Flores, 1:17-cv-01248-DAD-GSA 17 Defendant argues that Plaintiff is an adult; appears to be of sound mind, as evidenced by 18 initiating over a dozen cases in the Eastern District and filing numerous motions in many of them; 19 and, is presumed to be competent to contract under the Due Process in Competence 20 Determinations Act, California Probate Code section 801 et seq. In addition, Defendant argues 21 that Plaintiff’s signature on the release, and on the stipulations for dismissal, filed in the three 22 cases mentioned above are evidence of Plaintiff’s consent to the terms of the settlement. Also, 23 Defendant argues that two federal requirements – the agreement must be a complete agreement, 24 and the parties have agreed to the terms of the settlement – have been met. 25 Defense counsel, Dan Farrar, declares under penalty of perjury, as follows: 26 I have represented Stanislaus County custodial personnel in a number of 27 cases filed by Mr. Gradford. As of May 1, 2019, I was attorney of record in three 28 cases, Gradford v. Lignoski, 1:17-cv-01460-DAD-GSA, Gradford v. Tiexiera, 1 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA, and Gradford v. McDougal, 1:17-cv-00575-DAD2 GSA. I was aware of at least three other cases which had not yet been served, 3 including the instant case. 4 In Gradford v. Tiexiera, 1:17-cv-00201, as the settlement conference date 5 (May 15, 2019) approached, Mr. Gradford filed a request with the court that all 6 of his federal lawsuits be discussed at the settlement conference. (Doc. 85.) The 7 request was granted, and the court’s order identified six active cases. (Doc. 86.) 8 In late April or early May of 2019, Mr. Gradford approached me about 9 settling all of his cases at once. I do not recall the specifics of the negotiations, 10 but the County of Stanislaus ultimately offered to pay Mr. Gradford a total of 11 $3,000, in exchange for a dismissal of all pending actions and a release of all 12 claims. Mr. Gradford accepted the offer. 13 On May 7, 2019, I met with Mr. Gradford in Modesto. I provided him 14 with the settlement check in the sum of $3,000.000. He signed a release as well 15 as stipulations and proposed orders of dismissal of the cases in which defendants 16 had not been served. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the settlement agreement 17 signed by Mr. Gradford on May 7, 2019. 18 I filed the stipulations of dismissal in the three cases in which I was 19 attorney of record and orders of dismissal were issued. 20 Mr. Gradford did not dismiss the three unserved cases, including the 21 instant case. Over the last several months, he has contacted me several times, 22 asking/offering to settle all cases, including the cases we already settled. 23 (Farrar Declaration, ECF No. 54 at 5-6 ¶¶ 3-8.) 24 Plaintiff’s Opposition 25 In opposition, Plaintiff acknowledges that he filed multiple claims against Stanislaus 26 County deputies from 2016 to 2020 and alleges that he was constantly and badly mistreated, 27 retaliated against, and received death threats. In a fourteen-page narrative Plaintiff recounts 28 mistreatment against him by deputies, defense counsel, and family members that led him to 1 complain to government agencies and file cases in court. He requests the court to re-examine all 2 of his records, files and cases, call his witnesses to testify in court, deny Defendant’s motion to 3 dismiss and schedule a settlement conference. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 “[I]t is well settled that a court has inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement 6 agreement involving an action pending before it.” Brown v. San Diego State University 7 Foundation, No. 3:13-CV-2294-GPC-NLS, 2015 WL 4545857 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2015) 8 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900 , 903–04 (9th Cir. 1985) 9 (citations omitted); see also Ford v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank, Cartersville, 928 F.2d 1118 , 10 1121 (11th Cir. 1991); Warner v. Rossignol v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 11 Company, 513 F.2d 678 , 680–83 (1st Cir. 1975); In re Gerry, 670 F.Supp. 276 , 277 n. 2 (N.D. 12 Cal. 1987 ), aff’d sub nom. Adams v. Johns–Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1989)); accord 13 Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 “The interpretation and enforcement of a settlement agreement is generally governed by 15 principles of state contract law.” Day v. Ryan, No. CV1901091PHXJATJFM, 2020 WL 16 3414699, at *5 (D. Ariz. June 19, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting see Botefur 17 v. City of Eagle Point, 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th Cir. 1993); Hisel v. Upchurch, 797 F. Supp. 1509 , 18 1517 (D. Ariz. 1992). But “conditions affecting the validity of a release of significant federal 19 rights are eminently a matter of federal law.” Day, 2020 WL 3414699 , at *5 (quoting Jones v. 20 Taber, 648 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 1981); Hisel, 797 F. Supp. at 1517 )). Thus, federal common 21 law controls the effect and interpretation of a release of a § 1983 claim, and it is unnecessary to 22 examine state law. Day, 2020 WL 3414699 , at *5 (citing Hisel , 797 F.Supp. at 1517 -18 (citing 23 Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)); see Jones, 648 F.2d at 1203 (in 24 analyzing whether a release of federal rights is valid, it is unnecessary to examine state 25 authorities)). In applying federal law, courts are free to draw upon all relevant sources of 26 common law, including “general principles of contract.” Day, 2020 WL 3414699 , at *5 (quoting 27 Hisel, 797 F. Supp. at 1518 ). [28] 1 A release of claims for violations of civil and constitutional rights must be voluntary, 2 deliberate, and informed. Jones, 648 F.2d at 1203 . “There are both subjective and objective 3 aspects to each of these elements.” Id. Whether a release is voluntary, deliberate, and informed 4 is determined on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding 5 the execution of the release. See Stroman v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 462 (9th Cir. 6 1989). Further, under federal law, a valid release must be supported by consideration. Salmeron 7 v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, the release is supported by 8 consideration in the bargained-for amount of $3,000.00, and Plaintiff presents no evidence of 9 coercion nor any other reason the release should be invalidated. 10 The party seeking to rely on a release in a § 1983 action has the burden of proving its 11 validity. See Jones, 648 F.2d at 1203-04 . Public policy favors upholding voluntary agreements. 12 Bianchi v. Perry, 140 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1998) (“There is a compelling public interest and 13 policy in upholding and enforcing settlement agreements voluntarily entered into.”) (internal 14 citation omitted). “When fairly arrived at and properly entered into, settlement agreements and 15 releases are generally viewed as binding, final, and as conclusive of the rights of the parties as is 16 a judgment entered by a court.” Hisel, 797 F. Supp. at 1518 . 17 Defendant has presented the Court with competent evidence that Plaintiff signed the 18 Release and received compensation and Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence to counter 19 Defendant’s claim. In support of his argument that Plaintiff already released his claims, 20 Defendant Flores relies on the aforementioned two-page document titled “Release of All 21 Claims,” dated and signed by Plaintiff William Gradford on May 7, 2019. (ECF No. 54 at 8-9.) 22 Defendant argues that the Release extends to Plaintiff’s claims in this action and there is no 23 disagreement as to the content of the release. The Release of All Claims Plaintiff signed 24 constitutes a clear and unambiguous waiver of his legal claims against defendants. Plaintiff 25 agreed “to release and discharge the County of Stanislaus, its employees, and/or representatives 26 of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, known or unknown, which 27 William Gradford may have against the County of Stanislaus, its employees, and/or 28 representatives and to dismiss all pending actions.” (Release of All Claims, ECF No. 54 at 8.) 1 This language unambiguously indicates that Plaintiff intended to waive all claims against 2 defendants. The purpose and effect of a release is ending legal liability. Stroman, 884 F.2d at 3 461. 4 Therefore, the Release of All Claims, signed by William Gradford on May 7, 2019, should 5 be enforced and Defendant Flores’s motion to dismiss this case should be granted and this case 6 should be dismissed, with prejudice. 7 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Defendant Flores’s motion to dismiss, filed on September 8, 2020, be 10 GRANTED; 11 2. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice; and 12 3. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(l). Within fourteen 15 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file 16 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 17 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 18 and filed within ten (10) days after the date the objections are filed. The parties are advised that 19 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 20 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 21 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). [22] IT IS SO ORDERED. [23] 24 Dated: December 3, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE