Giraldes v. Hicimbothom et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING 44 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement for Lack of Jurisdiction, and DENYING 52 Motion for Photo or Video Evidence as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/22/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

LARRY GIRALDES, JR.,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00154-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION, AND DENYING MOTION
FOR PHOTO OR VIDEO EVIDENCE AS
MOOT

v.
D. HICINBOTHOM, et al.,

12

Defendants.

(Docs. 44 and 52)

13
/
14
15

Plaintiff Larry Giraldes, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28, 2009. A settlement conference

17

was held in this matter on August 12, 2010, before United States Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.

18

A settlement agreement was reached; the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal, with

19

prejudice, on August 13, 2010; and the case was dismissed on September 8, 2010.1 Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

21

On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking enforcement of the settlement

22

agreement. After obtaining an extension of time, the Attorney General’s Office, making a special

23

appearance and without conceding the Court has jurisdiction, filed an opposition on November 28,

24

2012. Plaintiff filed a reply on December 10, 2012.

25

///

26
27
28

1
Pursuant to the settlement agreement provided by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was to be transferred from Salinas
Valley State Prison to California State Prison-Sacramento, and the placement at CSP-Sacramento was to include an
elevated hospital bed, frequent small meals, protein drinks as needed, and pain management as needed. (Court doc.
44, Ex. 1.)

1

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only that power authorized by

2

Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 114 S.Ct. 1673

3

(1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The enforcement of a settlement agreement is more

4

than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit and it requires its own basis for jurisdiction.

5

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (quotation marks omitted). A court may retain jurisdiction to enforce

6

a settlement agreement, but that retention must be express. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378; Ortolf v.

7

Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 F.3d 85, 87-88 (9th Cir. 1997); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430,

8

1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

9

In this case, the parties signed and filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice,

10

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Upon receipt of the stipulation, the

11

Court issued a separate order dismissing the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

12

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not provide for jurisdiction of the court over disputes arising out

13

of an agreement that produces the stipulation, and neither the stipulation nor the dismissal order

14

expressly retained jurisdiction.2 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378; Ortolf, 111 F.3d at 87-88; Hagestad,

15

49 F.3d at 1433. Judge Vadas’ intent to retain jurisdiction for one year is evidenced by the

16

settlement agreement itself, which Plaintiff provided with his motion, but the agreement was not

17

incorporated into the stipulation or the dismissal order.3 Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1433.

18

However, even if that intent had been expressed in the parties’ stipulation and in the

19

dismissal order, jurisdiction would have been retained for only one year. Plaintiff’s motion for

20

enforcement was brought more than two years later – well after the expiration of the one year

21

deadline.

22

Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and

23

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied, with prejudice. To the extent that Plaintiff believes his current

24

conditions of confinement violate his federal rights, he is not precluded from seeking redress in a

25

new suit. Plaintiff is also not precluded from pursuing relief via a separate breach of contract action

26
27

2

Court docs. 34, 36.

28

3

Court doc. 44, Ex. 1.

2

1

in state court. However, enforcement of the 2010 settlement agreement is not relief available in this

2

action and the case shall remain closed.

3

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

4

1.

5

Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement, filed on October 18,
2012, is DENIED, with prejudice; and

6

2.

7

Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the production of photo or video evidence
to the Court, filed on December 10, 2012, is DENIED as moot.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
ie14hj

January 22, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3