Caffey v. Walker et al

Filing 203

ORDER entered by the Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown on 5/21/2014: Plaintiff's motion for a status hearing 201 is granted. Status hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record and in the attached order, the court has no jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff's motion regarding breach of the settlement agreement 194 in this case. This action is terminated. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Allen Neely Caffey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Roger E. Walker, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.

)
) No. 05 C 6803
)
) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
)
)
)

ORDER
Plaintiff=s motion for a status hearing [201] is granted. For the reasons stated in this order,
the court has no jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff=s motion regarding breach of the settlement
agreement in this case. [194.] This action is terminated.
STATEMENT
In December 9, 2008, plaintiff Allen Caffey, an Illinois state prisoner, reached a binding
settlement agreement with the defendants in this civil-rights action. [Dkt 127.] The parties also
jointly consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. [Dkt 129.] On Caffey=s motion, the
case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2010. [Dkt 166.] In 2013, Caffey filed a
document entitled ABreach of Settlement Agreement@ alleging that prison staff had breached the
settlement agreement by disciplining him without cause and removing him from his prison job.
[Dkt 194.] Caffey later requested a status hearing in regard to that filing. [Dkt 201.]
At a status hearing on May 21, 2014, Caffey acknowledged that some of the issues raised in
his motion relate to his claims in separate litigation alleging civil-rights violations. See Caffey v.
Best, No. 3:13-cv-3296-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.); Caffey v. Best, No. 3:13-cv-00457-GPM (S.D. Ill.);
Caffey v. Henry, No. 3:13-cv-00322-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Further, the court explained to

Caffey that it no longer has jurisdiction over claims for breach of the settlement agreement since

the case has been dismissed with prejudice; Caffey=s claim for breach of the settlement agreement
may be the basis of a new suit for breach of contract, but it is not a claim for this case. See
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994); Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d
807, 809 (7th Cir. 2007); Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, although Caffey=s request for a status hearing has been granted, the court has no
jurisdiction over his claim of breach of the settlement agreement. This action is terminated.

/s/ Geraldine Soat Brown
United States Magistrate Judge
May 21, 2014

2