Vincent Pinder v. Renee Baker ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
APR 21 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT H. PINDER, No. 18-15559
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00572-MMD-
WGC
v.
RENEE BAKER, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Vincent H. Pinder appeals pro se from the district
court’s order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging retaliation and excessive force. 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), and for clear error the district court’s findings of fact,
Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement
agreement because the district court’s findings that the parties agreed that Pinder
would release all remaining claims set for trial, and that any mistake by Pinder was
unilateral, were not clearly erroneous. See Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians
Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (construction and enforcement of a
settlement agreement is governed by local law of contract interpretation); May v.
Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Nev. 2005) (setting forth essential elements to the
existence of a contract under Nevada law and noting that a contract may be formed
“when the parties have agreed to the material terms, even though the contract’s
exact language is not finalized until later”).
We reject as meritless Pinder’s contention that the district court improperly
failed to rule on his motion for default judgment.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15559