Prison Legal News v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 91

ORDER dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Contempt (ECF No. 82 ). Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 04/10/2023. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cxl1)

Case 3:14-cv-02417-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 04/10/23 PageID.1016 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

Case No.: 14-cv-2417-L-NLS
Plaintiff,

7
8

v.

9

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR
CONTEMPT

Defendants.

10

[ECF No. 82]

11
12

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Pedro Rodriguez’s (“Petitioner”) motion to

13

intervene and petition for contempt. (ECF No. 82.) Defendants opposed, (ECF No. 86),

14

and Petitioner replied, (ECF No. 88). The Court decides the matter on the papers

15

submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated

16

below, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion.

17

1.

18

Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“Plaintiff”) filed the initial complaint in this matter on

BACKGROUND

19

October 9, 2014, alleging Defendants censored and failed to deliver Plaintiff’s

20

publications in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1.)

21

Following a settlement agreement, Plaintiff filed a joint motion for entry of judgment on

22

February 6, 2018. (ECF No. 79.) In the motion, the parties stipulated that the “action is

23

dismissed,” but agreed that the Magistrate Judge shall “retain jurisdiction over all

24

disputes between and among the parties arising out of the settlement agreement,

25

including but not limited to the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the

26

settlement agreement.” (ECF No. 79-1, at 2.) The Court granted the motion, dismissing

27

the case subject to the aforementioned jurisdiction retainer. (ECF No. 80.)

28
1
14-cv-2417-L-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-02417-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 04/10/23 PageID.1017 Page 2 of 3

1

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a prisoner claiming that the San Diego Sheriff’s

2

Department stopped delivering his mail on September 1, 2022, in violation of the First

3

and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 82, at 2–3, 5.) Petitioner now moves to

4

intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 1 and requests that the Court

5

hold the San Diego Sheriff’s Department in contempt for violating the settlement

6

agreement. (Id. at 1, 3.)

7

2.

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an

9

action by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties. “Once a stipulation of

10

dismissal has been filed, ‘the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims

11

and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to

12

them.’” Wells v. California Home Loan Sols., No. CIV07CV1040JAJB, 2007 WL

13

2915059, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2007) (quoting Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC v.

14

Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, the Court may maintain

15

jurisdiction over collateral matters. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,

16

395 (1990).

17

DISCUSSION

The original parties’ filing of the stipulation of dismissal divested this Court of

18

jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion to intervene. Moreover, the jurisdiction

19

invested in the Magistrate Judge concerns a collateral matter. See Kokkonen v. Guardian

20

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (“[I]f the parties’ obligation to comply

21

with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal .

22

. . a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction

23

to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.”). The Court does not have the ability to

24
25
26
27
28

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 only applies to class actions, which the above-captioned case is not.
Therefore intervention under Rule 23 is inappropriate. But even if the Court gives Petitioner the benefit
of liberal construction for pro se filings, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and
considers Petitioner’s motion as one brought under the appropriate Rule, Petitioner’s motion still fails
for the reasons stated below.
2
14-cv-2417-L-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-02417-L-NLS Document 91 Filed 04/10/23 PageID.1018 Page 3 of 3

1

expand its jurisdiction beyond collateral matters. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction

2

to rule on Petitioner’s motion, let alone grant it. See W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n

3

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the

4

underlying litigation is over, we cannot grant [the proposed intervenor] any ‘effective

5

relief’ by allowing it to intervene now.”). It follows that the Court also lacks jurisdiction

6

to issue a contempt order on Petitioner’s behalf.

7

3.

8

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to intervene and

9
10

CONCLUSION

petition for contempt due to lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: April 10, 2023

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14-cv-2417-L-NLS