Prentiss B. Davis v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRENTISS B. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,
and
THE BOEING COMPANY; AETNA
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35233
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01033-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Prentiss B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s order enforcing
settlement and dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion the enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v.
Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the settlement
agreement with The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) because its findings that the
agreement was comprehensive, that Davis agreed to the terms, and that Davis did
not sign under threat, intimidation, or duress, were not clearly erroneous. See id. at
1137-38 (explaining that a district court may enforce only complete settlement
agreements, and noting that an agreement is binding even if a party has a change of
heart).
We do not consider Davis’s arguments concerning the district court’s order
partially granting Boeing’s motion for summary judgment because the settlement
agreement disposes of all of Davis’s claims against Boeing in this action.
In light of Davis’s request that this court honor his agreement with Aetna
Insurance Company (“Aetna”), set forth in his November 18, 2013 filing, we deem
Davis’s appeal as to Aetna abandoned.
13-35233 2

-- 2 of 3 --

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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-35233 3

-- 3 of 3 --