Paul Browning v. Bill Donat , 473 F. App'x 702 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 24 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PAUL L. BROWNING,                                No. 10-16823
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:00-cv-00633-ECR-
    VPC
    v.
    BILL DONAT, ESP Associate Warden; et             MEMORANDUM *
    al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 15, 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Nevada state prisoner Paul L. Browning appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment enforcing a settlement agreement with defendants Donat and
    McDaniel (the “State Defendants”) regarding his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action arising
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    from the prison recording Browning’s telephone calls with his attorney. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion,
    Kirkland v. Legion Ins. Co., 
    343 F.3d 1135
    , 1140 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement
    agreement because, despite delays that did not prejudice Browning and the
    substitution of terms due to the impossibility of performance, the State Defendants
    substantially complied with the agreement. See Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines,
    
    846 F.2d 47
    , 48 (9th Cir. 1988) (the finding that a party consented to a settlement
    and intended to be bound by it must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous); see also
    Nebaco, Inc. v. Riverview Realty Co., 
    482 P.2d 305
    , 307 (Nev. 1971) (defense of
    impossibility applies where performance of a contract term is made impossible or
    highly impractical by the occurrence of unforeseen contingencies).
    Browning’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    10-16823
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-16823

Citation Numbers: 473 F. App'x 702

Judges: Canby, Graber, Smith

Filed Date: 5/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023