FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY GASTILE, No. 15-16294
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02829-JAM-
EFB
v.
T. VIRGA, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Gastile appeals pro se from the district
court’s order granting defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
*
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).
enforcement of a settlement agreement. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131,
1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion
to enforce the settlement agreement because Gastile stated that he understood and
agreed to the material terms of the agreement during the settlement conference
before the magistrate judge, and the record does not support Gastile’s claims of
confusion and coercion. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 664.6 (“If parties to pending
litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the
court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court,
upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”); Doi,
276 F.3d at 1136-40 (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).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16294