Corral v. Warren et al

Filing 84

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/02/2023 RECOMMENDING that the 76 Motion for Defendants to pay Plaintiff $1050 be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations.(Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,

12

No. 2:18-cv-0024 TLN CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

WARREN, et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

On December 15, 2022, this action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)

18

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. About six months later, on June 28, 2023, plaintiff filed

19

a motion asking that defendants be ordered to pay plaintiff $1,050 pursuant to a settlement

20

agreement. For the reasons which follow, the court recommends that the motion be denied.

21

I. Background

22
23
24

On March 14, 2022, the parties participated in a settlement conference and an agreement
was reached. It was ordered that a stipulation of dismissal be filed within 90 days.
On June 8, 2022, defendants requested an extension of the deadline because plaintiff had

25

not yet provided defendants with information necessary to complete settlement. The court

26

granted an extension until September 8, 2022, to file the stipulation of dismissal.

27
28

On July 15, 2022, defendants attempted to serve correspondence and a draft settlement
agreement for plaintiff’s signature on plaintiff at his address at the California Health Care
1

1

Facility. The items were returned to defendants with a notation that plaintiff was no longer at the

2

California Health Care Facility and was “out [to] court.” ECF No. 70-1 at 2. As plaintiff

3

appeared to have been transferred to a new facility, it was his obligation to inform the court of his

4

new address within sixty-three days. L.R. 183; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83. No change of address

5

notification was filed.

6

On September 1, 2022, defendants asked that this case be dismissed. Counsel for

7

defendants indicated it was not possible to execute a written settlement agreement, which was one

8

of the terms of settlement, because plaintiff could not be located. Because the terms of settlement

9

could not be carried out, a stipulation of dismissal could not be filed. The motion was served

10

upon plaintiff at the California Health Care Facility, ECF No. 70-1 at 3. Plaintiff did not file an

11

opposition to the motion.

12

On October 4, 2022, the court recommended that this the motion to dismiss be granted

13

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the court found:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

A settlement conference was held in this matter on March 14, 2022
and the case was conditionally settled. One of the terms of settlement
was the parties submit dismissal documents within 90 days. Counsel
for the remaining defendants indicates they cannot locate plaintiff so
dismissal documents cannot be filed. They ask that this matter be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). Under that rule the court may dismiss if, among other things,
the plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with a court order.
Generally, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication
on the merits.” After reviewing relevant parts of the record, the court
finds dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) appropriate.
On October 31, 2022, the court’s October 4, 2022, findings and recommendations were

21

returned to the court because plaintiff was still not at his address of record at the California Health

22

Care Facility, and plaintiff had provided no new address.

23

On December 15, 2022, the district court judge assigned to this case adopted the court’s

24

October 4, 2022, findings and recommendations and this case was dismissed with prejudice under

25

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

26

II. No Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreement

27

Even assuming the settlement agreement entered on March 14, 2022, was not breached by

28

plaintiff or is void, the court does not have any authority to enforce it in this action. In Kokkonen
2

1

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994), the Supreme Court held that federal courts

2

do not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that

3

settlement was a federal lawsuit. When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction

4

terminates. Id. A motion to enforce the settlement agreement is a separate dispute requiring its

5

own basis for jurisdiction. Id. There is no independent basis for jurisdiction here, so the court

6

has no authority to order defendants to pay plaintiff $1,050.

7

III. Vacate Judgment

8
9

A separate question not raised in plaintiff’s motion, but at least suggested in plaintiff’s
reply brief, is whether plaintiff has shown cause for vacating the Rule 41(b) dismissal with

10

prejudice. Generally speaking, a district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule

11

of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

12

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

13

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

14

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

15

In his reply brief, plaintiff confirms that he was transferred from the California Health

16

Care Facility to the Sacramento County Jail on June 15, 2022 (ECF No. 82 at 3), before

17

defendants attempted to serve plaintiff with the draft settlement agreement and before this court

18

recommended this action be dismissed under Rule 41(b).

19

Plaintiff asserts in his reply brief that while at the Sacramento County Jail, he sent the

20

court and defendants a notification of address change. The court has no record of receiving any

21

address change until plaintiff filed the motion presently being addressed, and plaintiff does not

22

indicate when any change of address was sent before judgment was entered.

23

All things considered, plaintiff has not shown that the dismissal of this action was the

24

result of anything warranting judgment being vacated. Dismissal most likely occurred because

25

neither the court nor defendants were privy to plaintiff’s whereabouts even though plaintiff is

26

required to keep the court apprised, and any suggestion that this was due to anything other than

27

plaintiff’s failure to timely submit a notice that he had been transferred to the Sacramento County

28

Jail is not supported by the record.
3

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion that the court
order defendants to pay plaintiff $1050 (ECF No. 76) be denied.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Dated: November 2, 2023
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17

1
corr0024.mte

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4