Harris v. Malakkla et al

Filing 59

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/9/2019 RECOMMENDING 52 Motion be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID D. HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2040 JAM DB P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

N. MALAKKLA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. This action was closed on April 15, 2019 after the parties filed a stipulation for

19

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). (ECF Nos. 49, 50.)

20

Plaintiff claimed he was not being provided with proper pain medication in violation of the

21

Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for trial (ECF No. 52),

22

defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 53), and plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 55). For the reasons set

23

forth below, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion be dismissed for lack of

24

jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s Request for Trial and Notice that Settlement was Under Duress

25

I.

26

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting to have this matter heard at trial by a jury and a notice

27

that the settlement was under duress. (ECF No. 52.) Upon review of the motion it appears

28

////
1

1

plaintiff seeks to set aside the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the court construes plaintiff’s

2

motion as a request to rescind the settlement agreement.

3

Plaintiff alleges that he was in a psychiatric program and heavily medicated when he entered

4

into the settlement agreement. He states he “no longer wants to settle[] this matter, at least not for

5

the sum agreed upon.” (ECF No. 52 at 1.) In support of his request he alleges he was so heavily

6

medicated he could not sign his name properly. (See ECF No. 52 at 4, 5.) He also states he was

7

under the impression that this action was closed and forgot that there was a motion pending1

8

before the district judge.

9

II.

Defendants’ Opposition

Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 53.) In their opposition

10
11

defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to resolve plaintiff’s motion, and alternatively,

12

that the court should deny plaintiff’s motion because the settlement agreement is valid and

13

enforceable under California law.

14

In a declaration attached to the opposition, counsel for defendants set forth the following:

15

Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 53-1 at 1.) Shortly thereafter,

16

plaintiff made a verbal demand to settle the case “for $1,500 and a television, hotpot, radio,

17

headphones, clippers, and other miscellaneous toiletry and food items.” (Id. at 2.) After

18

conferring with his clients, counsel for defendants called plaintiff and made a counter offer to

19

settle the case for $1,300. Plaintiff accepted the counteroffer. Counsel stated that there was no

20

indication that plaintiff was under duress or lacked capacity during the phone call. Counsel

21

prepared the necessary paperwork and enclosed it with a letter to plaintiff explaining how to

22

complete the paperwork. Plaintiff completed the paperwork, which included signing and dating

23

settlement documents and providing his social security number that same day.

24

On May 16, 2019, counsel wrote to plaintiff and provided him with copies of the executed

25

settlement agreement, the stipulation for dismissal, and his completed payee data record. On May

26
27
28

1

The motion referred to (ECF No. 51), was an order issued by the district judge adopting the
undersigned’s recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied. (See ECF
No. 43.)
2

1

20, counsel received a letter from plaintiff acknowledging he settled the case for $1,300 and

2

informing counsel he had been transferred to a new prison facility.

3

Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction because the terms of the settlement

4

agreement were not made part of the dismissal order. (ECF No. 53 at 2-3.) Defendants further

5

claim that even if the court did have jurisdiction it should not set aside the settlement agreement

6

because plaintiff has not provided evidence to support a claim of duress and has not provided

7

competent evidence to support his claim that he lacked capacity. (Id. at 4.)

8

III.

Discussion

9

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by

10

Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that

11

a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon

12

the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

13

(1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

14

Generally, when a district court dismisses an action with prejudice, federal jurisdiction ends

15

and a dispute arising under the settlement agreement is a separate contract dispute that requires its

16

own independent basis for jurisdiction. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016).

17

However, courts do have the authority to enforce a settlement agreement while the litigation is

18

still pending or when the settlement agreement is referenced in the dismissal order or the court

19

has retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d

20

954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994); Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1095. But such ancillary jurisdiction exists only if

21

the settlement agreement was “made part of the dismissal,” by retaining jurisdiction over the

22

agreement, “or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Kokkonen,

23

511 U.S. at 281. The Ninth Circuit has held that the Kokkonen analysis applies “with equal

24

force” to “effort[s] to undo rather than to enforce a settlement agreement.” See Camacho v. City

25

of San Luis, 359 Fed. App’x 794, 798, (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse its discretion

26

when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over a request to undo a settlement agreement over which

27

the court had not previously retained jurisdiction).

28

////
3

1

Here, the parties entered into a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and this action was

2

terminated on April 15, 2019. (ECF No. 50.) The parties indicated that they “have resolved the

3

case in its entirety,” and stipulated to dismissal of this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) The

4

parties did not attach the settlement agreement, incorporate the terms of the settlement, or even

5

reference the settlement agreement. Thus, the court did not retain jurisdiction.

6

“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of

7

[state] law which apply to contracts generally.” Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.

8

1990). Even though the underlying cause of action in this case was based upon a federal statute,

9

any challenge to the settlement agreement is “treated as any other contract for purposes of

10

interpretation.” United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th

11

Cir. 1992). Without some other basis for federal jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise

12

jurisdiction over a state law claim. See Zone Sports Center Inc. LLC v. Red Head, Inc., No. 11-

13

cv-0634 JST, 2013 WL 2252016 at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (“Unless a federal court

14

expressly retains jurisdiction over the enforceability or validity of a settlement agreement, a

15

federal court cannot entertain an action to enforce or undo a settlement agreement if that action

16

lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”). The parties have not alleged, and the court

17

cannot determine any other basis for federal jurisdiction over the validity of the settlement

18

agreement. Accordingly, the court does not have jurisdiction and plaintiff’s motion should be

19

dismissed.

20

IV.

21

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion

22

Conclusion

(ECF No. 52) be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

23

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

24

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days

25

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

26

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

27

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

28

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
4

1

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

2

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: October 9, 2019

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DLB:12
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr2040.duress

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5