ISHAM v. R. Aranas; et al., Defendants. (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Gayle Isham 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 constitutional violations. 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 of fact, 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 Isham agreed to the terms, and that Isham was not fraudulently induced to assent, were not clearly erroneous. See 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).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Isham's pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.