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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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 ...