NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EARNEST CASSELL WOODS II, No. 16-16050
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TOM L. CAREY, Warden; CERVANTES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Earnest Cassell Woods II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v.
Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and for clear error the
district court’s findings whether Woods consented to the settlement and intended to
be bound by it, Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the parties’
settlement agreement because the district court’s findings that Woods agreed to the
terms, and that Woods did not assent under duress or based on a mistake of fact,
were not clearly erroneous. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-40 (district court did not
abuse its discretion in enforcing settlement agreement where material terms of
agreement were read into the record and parties agreed to them); Jeff D. v. Andrus,
899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The construction and enforcement of
settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to
interpretation of contracts generally.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (elements
of a contract under California law); id. § 1567 (consent not free when obtained
through duress, fraud, undue influence, or mistake).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Woods’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, and Docket
2 16-16050
Entry Nos. 5 and 8, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16050
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
Combined Opinion