Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILSON v. DETELLA

August 18, 2005.

JACKIE WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE DETELLA, LUTHER MANNING, CLARENCE WRIGHT, SHELLY HORNE, CHRISTOPHER LITHEL, ANDRE MILES, ROBERT GRIFFIN, VERNON JAMES, SCOTT CARTER, WALTER BROWN, STEPHEN WILLIAMS, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD GUZMAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Defendants request that this Court enforce the oral settlement agreement reached with plaintiff Jackie Wilson in open court and dismiss this case with prejudice. For the reasons provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies the motion.

FACTS

  This case arose from a complaint filed by plaintiff on November 7, 1997. The pro se plaintiff, a state prisoner, sued defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights. Plaintiff claims that defendants, officers at the Stateville Correctional Center, "violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by using excessive force against him and by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs." Wilson v. DeTella, No. 97 C 7833, 1999 WL 1000502, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 1999). In particular, plaintiff claims that "the defendants repeatedly maced and assaulted him for no reason, then delayed access to needed medical care." Id. On November 1, 1999, the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): (a) as to any conditions claim, (b) as to George DeTella, who was terminated as a defendant, and (c) insofar as the defendants are sued in their official capacities. Id. at *7. Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against the remaining defendants only in their individual capacities and only as to his excessive force and medical claims. Id.

  On November 20, 2002, a jury trial was to begin in this case. However, the parties reached a settlement agreement in open court. The oral settlement agreement provided for the following six terms:

  1. Monetary payment. The Department of Corrections ("Department") agrees to put $200.00 into Wilson's trust fund account. (11/20/02 Tr. at 3, lines 17-18.)

  2. Purchase of audio-visual equipment. The Department agrees to allow Wilson to purchase from any outside vendor audio-visual equipment, a cassette player, that will meet their security criteria, namely that it is clear and plastic. (Id. at 3, lines 19-25.)

  3. Audio-visual restrictions. The Department agrees to lift Wilson's audio-visual restrictions so he has the ability to use the equipment as soon as it is delivered. (Id. at 3-4, lines 1-3, 25.)

  4. Attorney's fees. Parties agree to waive attorney's fees. (Id. at 4, lines 4-5.)

  5. Non-disclosure of settlement. Wilson agrees not to disclose the terms of the settlement agreement to other inmates. (Id. at 4, lines 5-7.)

  6. Non-disclosure of prior discipline. The parties agree to not disclose any prior discipline of Luther Manning. This was already the subject of a protective order and pertained to the non-disclosure of the details to plaintiff. (Id. at 4, lines 7-18.)

  The terms of the oral settlement agreement were incorporated by reference into the Court's Order entered on November 22, 2002 and the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. (Minute Order of 11/22/02.) The jury trial was terminated and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (Id.)

  Plaintiff claims that defendants have refused to honor the terms of the oral settlement agreement that was made in open court on November 20, 2002. On December 24, 2003, plaintiff, although represented by counsel, filed pro se motions to enforce the settlement agreement (Pl.'s Mot. Enforce Settlement Agreement at 1) and to reopen this case and set a date for trial (Pl.'s Mot. Reopen Case at 1). The Court took plaintiff's motions under advisement while recognizing that the motions were inconsistent as to the relief sought — enforcement of the settlement agreement versus rescission and reinstatement of the case. (Min. Order of 1/5/04.)

  On January 28, 2004, defendants responded to plaintiff's self-titled motions to enforce judgment and reopen the case. (Defs.' Resp. Pl.'s Mot. Enforce J. & Reopen Case at 1.) Defendants contend that the settlement agreement was sent from the Office of the Illinois Attorney General to plaintiff's attorney for execution. (Id.) Defendants argue that the settlement documents were never returned to the Office of the Attorney General for processing, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.