United States v. 2020-11-16 | 19-16477 | GAYLE ISHAM V. RICHARD LINFORD | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAYLE ISHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD LINFORD; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

R. ARANAS; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-16477

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00696-MMD-
WGC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Gayle Isham appeals pro se from 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).
FILED

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16477
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.