Summary Calendar AMADO ASOTO; ET AL Plaintiffs JUAN ENRIQUEZ v. W JESTELLE, Director Texas Department of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-20398
Summary Calendar
AMADO A SOTO; ET AL
Plaintiffs
JUAN ENRIQUEZ
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
W J ESTELLE, Director Texas Department of Corrections; LESTER H BEAIRD,
Warden Darrington Unit, Rosharon, TX; CHARLES AVERY, JR; H H
COFFIELD, Former Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections; JAMES
MARVIN WINDHAM, Former Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections;
RAYMOND PROCUNIER, Former Chairman of the Texas Department of
Corrections; O O MCCOTTER, Former Director of the Texas Department of
Corrections; JAMES A COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ALAN MITCHELL,
Corrections Officer; JACK B PURSLEY, Corrections Officer; JAMES MICHAEL
WILSON; B S HARTNET; S O WOODS, Director of the Bureau of Classification
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:73-CV-900
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-20398
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Enriquez, Texas state prisoner # 227122, appeals the district court’s
judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint with prejudice on the basis that
a final settlement agreement existed between the parties and that the
agreement had been substantially fulfilled. The district court erred in doing so
without allowing an evidentiary hearing on Enriquez’s arguments concerning
the validity and scope of the agreement. See Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win,
Inc., 733 F.2d 386, 390-92 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore reverse the judgment
of the district court and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the
validity and scope of the settlement agreement. Enriquez’s narrow motion to
remand is denied as moot.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --