Rushdan v. Weden, et al

Filing 140

ORDER CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/13/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

SALADIN RUSHDAN, aka,
ROBERT STANLEY WOODS,

10

No. C-90-2895 TEH (PR)

Plaintiff,
ORDER CLOSING CASE

11
12

v.
JEFFREY BEARD,

13

Defendant.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

14

/

15
16
In 1990, Plaintiff, a state prisoner then incarcerated at
17
18
19
20
21
22

San Quentin State Prison, filed the instant pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs.1

undersigned who thereafter appointed volunteer counsel to represent
Plaintiff.
In January 1994, after meeting with Judge Eugene Lynch,

23
24
25
26

The action was assigned to the

the parties reached a settlement agreement and entered into a
stipulated dismissal.

On February 28, 1994, this Court dismissed

the case with prejudice.

27
1

28

Plaintiff
Prison–Corcoran.

is

currently

confined

at

California

State

1

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff, again proceeding pro se,

2

filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

3

sought an order holding the California Department of Corrections and

4

Rehabilitation (CDCR) in contempt for not complying with the terms

5

of the settlement agreement.

6

reopened the action and directed Defendant, CDCR Director Jeffrey

7

Beard, to respond to Plaintiff’s motion.

8

opposition, and Plaintiff has filed a reply.

9

filed a motion for appointment of counsel and two motions for

10

Plaintiff also

On January 15, 2014, the Court

Defendant has filed an
Plaintiff has also

emergency injunctive relief.

11

Upon closer review, however, it appears that the Court

12

does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

13

Federal courts ordinarily do not have jurisdiction to enforce

14

settlement agreements once the settled actions have been dismissed.

15

See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

16

Jurisdiction exists only if the court expressly retains jurisdiction

17

to enforce the agreement or if the terms of the settlement agreement

18

are incorporated into the dismissal order.

19

docket sheet here shows that the Court took neither of these

20

actions.2

Id.

A review of the

21
22

2

27

A court does retain jurisdiction to enforce a consent decree.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c), (g)(1), (g)(6) (distinguishing between
“consent decrees” and “private settlement agreements” in actions
concerning prison conditions and explaining that only “private
settlement agreements” are not enforceable in federal court). It is
clear here, however, that the 1994 compromise and release (Dkt. No.
119 at 12-19), is a private settlement agreement, not a consent
decree. See Christina A. v. Bloomberg, 315 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir.
2003) (“district court’s approval of the settlement agreement does
not, by itself, create a consent decree.”); Buckhannon Bd. & Care
Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S.

28

2

23
24
25
26

1

Where the court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce a

2

settlement agreement, the vehicle for the enforcement of the

3

settlement agreement is a breach of contract claim in another

4

proceeding, where “part of the consideration [for the contract] was

5

dismissal of an earlier federal suit.”

6

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994).

7

state law cause of action.

8

seek to enforce the settlement agreement by filing an action for

9

breach of the settlement agreement in state court.

10
11

Id. at 382.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Breach of contract is a

Plaintiff may therefore

Accordingly, the Clerk shall terminate all pending motions
and close the file.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15

DATED

08/13/2014
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

26

598, 604 n. 7 (2001) (“Private settlements do not entail the judicial
approval and oversight involved in consent decrees. And federal
jurisdiction to enforce a private contractual settlement will often
be lacking unless the terms of the agreement are incorporated into the
order of dismissal.”); Davis v. Gunter, 771 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1071 (D.
Neb. 2011) (settlement agreement found to be private settlement
agreement, and not consent decree, where it did not depend on court
approval, did not provide for court to retain jurisdiction for
enforcement of its terms, and did not require or provide for any
ongoing court involvement or monitoring to ensure that the parties
complied with it).

27

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.90\Rushdan 90-2895 Dismiss.wpd

22
23
24
25

28

3