Valencia v. Kokor

Filing 138

ORDER denying 134 Motion to Compel initial dispositional settlement documents signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/28/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL VALENCIA,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
WINFRED KOKOR, M.D., et al.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
INITIAL DISPOSITIONAL SETTLEMENT
DOCUMENTS
(ECF NO. 134)

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded on Plaintiff’s

18

fourth amendment complaint against Defendant Kokor and Sunduram for violations of

19

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.

20

On November 17, 2017, the parties attended a settlement conference and the

21

matter settled. (ECF No. 129.) Thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with

22

prejudice and the matter was closed by operation of law. (ECF Nos. 130, 133.)

23

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 18, 2017, Motion to Compel Initial

24

Dispositional Settlement Documents. (ECF No. 134.) He states he did not receive copies

25

of settlement documents as agreed and asks the Court to review the terms of the

26

settlement. Defendants respond that the motion is moot because the documents were

27

provided to Plaintiff at his address of record on December 18, 2017. (ECF No. 135.)

28

1

Plaintiff now states that the documents were not timely mailed and the defendants thus

2

should be subject to sanctions. (ECF No. 136.) He also seeks default judgment based

3

on Defendants’ failure to respond to findings and recommendations that were issued

4

prior to settlement of this case.

5

Plaintiff has received the settlement documents at issue on the motion. His motion

6

is moot in that regard. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions will not be addressed. The matter

7

was dismissed by operation of law based on the parties’ stipulation. The Court lacks

8

jurisdiction to provide Plaintiff with further relief in this action based on any of the

9

grounds Plaintiff presents. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.

10

375, 379-81 (1994) (holding there is generally no ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a

11

settlement agreement).

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 28, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2