Jackson v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER: The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's 20 Letter-Motion requesting that it order ADOC to implement a Halal diet. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/2/2014.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anthony Jackson, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 No. CV-12-01869-PHX-RCB ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Defendants. 14 15 After the settlement of this action through the “Prisoner Early Mediation Pilot 16 Program,” the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice. See Stip. (Doc. 17). 17 Accordingly, on January 31, 2013, among other things, this court “dismiss[ed] this case 18 with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and fees.” Ord. (Doc. 18) at 1:17-18 19 (emphasis in original). As this court further ordered, on that same date, the Clerk of the 20 Court entered judgment accordingly. See Doc. 19. Almost six months later, on June 21, 21 2013, plaintiff pro se Anthony Jackson submitted a letter request to the court, which the 22 court has deemed to be a motion. See Mot. (Doc. 20). The plaintiff is requesting this 23 court to order the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) “to implement the Halal 24 diet” which was supposedly the subject of the parties “’Settlement Agreement.’” Id. at 1. 25 The defendants, understandably, did not file a response to this request. 26 “It is axiomatic that a final order of dismissal with prejudice divests the district 27 court of jurisdiction to re-open a matter absent very limited circumstances.” Kramer v. 28 New Orleans Saints, 2004 WL 288779, at *1 (E.D.La. Feb. 12, 2004); see also Fail-Safe, 1 LLC v. A.O. Smith Corp., 2011 WL 1002838, at *1 n. 1 (E.D.Wis. March 18, 2011) 2 (“[A] dismissal with prejudice may be a final and appealable judgment that divests the 3 district court of jurisdiction over the merits of a dispute[.]”) 4 Jackson has not shown that this court retained continuing jurisdiction over this action, 5 which all parties agreed to settle and to dismiss with prejudice, the court hereby DENIES 6 his letter-motion requesting that it order ADOC to implement a Halal diet. 7 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2014. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- In part because plaintiff

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?