WOODS II v. CAREY (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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. 1989) (“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 Entry Nos. 5 and 8, are denied.

AFFIRMED.