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)

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