McNeil v. Hayes et al

Filing 175

ORDER Denying 174 Motion for Court to Continue Retaining Jurisdiction Over Settlement Agreement Pending State Court Proceedings adn Requiring Defendants' Counsel to File Declaration in Compliance with Order filed November 21, 2014, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/24/15. 10-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL MCNEIL,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
LVN HAYES, et al.,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT TO CONTINUE RETAINING
JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT PENDING STATE COURT
PROCEEDINGS AND REQUIRING
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO FILE
DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2014,

15
(Doc. 174)
16
DEADLINE: TEN DAYS
17
_____________________________________/
18
19

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action was
21 proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto,
22 Byers, Doe, and Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims; and the parties
23 settled the case on November 13, 2014. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting
24 that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pending resolution of his state court
25 action relating to the validity of his restitution fine. Defendants did not file a response. Local
26 Rule 230(l).
27

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

28 Constitution and statute, and it is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.

1 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994) (quotation marks
2 and citations omitted).

The enforcement of a settlement agreement is more than just a

3 continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit and it requires its own basis for jurisdiction.
4 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (quotation marks omitted). A court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a
5 settlement agreement, but that retention must be express. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378; Alvarado v.
6 Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007); Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc.,
7 111 F.3d 85, 87-88 (9th Cir. 1997); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).
8 Furthermore, the party seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement must allege a violation of
9 the settlement agreement in order to establish ancillary jurisdiction. Alvarado, 509 F.3d at 1017.
10

The parties in this case reached a monetary settlement on November 13, 2014, and

11 resolution of the issue concerning Plaintiff’s restitution fine was expressly excluded from the
12 terms of the settlement. (Doc. 172.) Although the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the
13 settlement agreement, retention was limited to the terms of the settlement agreement, which may
14 not be changed by Plaintiff, post-settlement. (Doc. 173.)
15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. Alvarado, 509 F.3d

16 at 1017.
17

Based on Plaintiff’s motion, it appears that the terms of the settlement were fulfilled on or

18 before February 11, 2015. Defendants’ Soto, Byers, and Raman’s counsel is ORDERED to
19 comply with the terms of the dismissal order within ten (10) days by filing the requisite
20 declaration.
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: March 24, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2