Ali #175762 v. Betts et al

Filing 45

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 38 ; Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement 36 is DENIED; Plaintiff's request for immediate consideration for temporary injunction 40 is DENIED as moot; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Case 1:18-cv-01201-JTN-SJB ECF No. 45, PageID.229 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FATHIREE ALI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:18-cv-1201
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JOHANNA BETTS, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 2019, the parties
reached a settlement agreement through the Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation Early
Mediation Program. After receiving the amended mediation report on June 3, 2019 (ECF No. 26),
this Court issued an order dismissing the case (ECF No. 27). On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 36). The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied (ECF No. 38). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the R & R (ECF No. 39) and “Plaintiff’s Request for Immediate Consideration for
Temporary Injunction to Preserve Status Quo of Property Under Settlement Agreement Terms”
(ECF No. 40). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court
has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and
Order.

Case 1:18-cv-01201-JTN-SJB ECF No. 45, PageID.230 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 3

This issue before the Court is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement. As the Magistrate Judge correctly stated, “[a]bsent an independent jurisdictional basis,
a federal district court possesses jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only where: (1) the
order of dismissal indicates that the court retains jurisdiction over the matter, or (2) the terms of
the settlement agreement are incorporated into the order of dismissal” (ECF No. 38 at PageID.185186, citing Hehl v. City of Avon Lake, 90 F. App’x 797, 801 (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2004)). Plaintiff
does not argue that an independent jurisdictional basis exists. Nor does he argue that the order of
dismissal indicated that the Court retained jurisdiction or that the terms of the settlement agreement
were incorporated into the order of dismissal.
Plaintiff, instead, points to the “Mediation Protocol,” which states that if the case settles,
the terms of the settlement agreement will be placed on the record and the Court will retain full
authority to monitor the settlement agreement (ECF No. 13). The problem for Plaintiff is that the
terms of the settlement agreement were not part of the record at the time the case was dismissed.
Plaintiff could have filed a motion to correct this oversight but chose not to do so. The Supreme
Court has held that when one party alleges that another party breached a settlement agreement,
ancillary jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim exists only if the settlement agreement had
been made part of the order of dismissal. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511
U.S. 375, 387 (1994). The settlement agreement was not made part of the order of dismissal in
this case. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach of contract
claim.1 In sum, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis or conclusion.

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff is not without recourse. He may still be able to file a breach of
contract claim in the state courts.
2

Case 1:18-cv-01201-JTN-SJB ECF No. 45, PageID.231 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 3

Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 39) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 38) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement
Agreement (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Request for Immediate Consideration for
Temporary Injunction to Preserve Status Quo of Property Under Settlement Agreement Terms”
(ECF No. 40) is DENIED as moot.
For the same reasons the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions, the Court also concludes that
any issue Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the Court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good
faith.

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: May 6, 2022

3