Sivori v. Sparkman et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying (113) Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying (114) Motion for Relief from Judgment ; finding as moot (115) Motion to Expedite; denying (116) Motion for TRO; denying (122) Motion to Enjoin for in case 4:10-cv-00008-MPM-JMV. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 5/26/2021. Associated Cases: 4:10-cv-00008-MPM-JMV, 4:16-cv-00074-MPM-JMV (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
FRANK SIVORI

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4:10CV8-MPM-JMV

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EMMITT
SPARKMAN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

Consolidated With
FRANK SIVORI

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4:16CV74-MPM-JMV

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EMMITT
SPARKMAN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [113], [116], [122]
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [114]
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; DISMISSING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION [115] TO EXPEDITE RULING
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motions [113], [116], [122] for injunctive
relief regarding provision of his special diet, the plaintiff’s motion [114] for relief from judgment, and
the plaintiff’s motion [115] to expedite ruling. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motions
[113], [116], [122] for injunctive relief will be denied. In addition, his motion [114] for relief from
judgment will be denied, and his motion [115] to expedite ruling on this motion will be dismissed as
moot.
Motions [113], [116], [122] for Injunctive Relief and
Motion [114] for Relief from Judgment
In his various motions [113], [116], [122] for injunctive relief, Mr. Sivori seeks one remedy:
enforcement of the settlement agreements in this case by requiring the defendants to provide him with

his religious diet. Indeed, he seeks the same relief in his Motion [114] for Relief from Judgment. As
discussed below, the court does not have the power to grant that relief in this case.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court Does Not Have
the Power to Enforce the Settlement Agreements in This Case
Neither of the settlement agreements in this consolidated case constitute a consent decree
under the PLRA, as there has been no admission or court ruling in either agreement that the
defendants violated the Constitution; as such, the court does not have the power to enforce the
settlement agreements. Under the PLRA, a consent decree is “any relief entered by the court that is
based in whole or in part upon the consent or acquiescence of the parties but does not include private
settlements.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(1) (2000) (emphasis added). A federal court may only order
prospective relief in any prison conditions civil action if the relief “is narrowly drawn, extends
no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right and is the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)
(2000). Such prospective relief requires the court to find that a defendant violated a federal
right. The Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., Arminda Bepko, A Necessary and Proper Role for
Federal Courts in Prison Reform: The Benjamin v. Malcolm Consent Decrees, 52 N.Y.L. Sch. L.
Rev. 3, 52 (2008). Nowhere in either agreement do the defendants admit liability for
constitutional violations, nor has the court found such liability. Thus, neither agreement
constitutes a “consent decree” under the PLRA; instead, they are merely private settlement agreements
between the parties.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act also sets forth the framework for considering private
settlements:
(A) Nothing in this section shall preclude parties from entering into a private
settlement agreement that does not comply with the limitations on relief set forth in

subsection (a), if the terms of that agreement are not subject to court enforcement
other than the reinstatement of the civil proceeding that the agreement settled.
(B) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party claiming that a private settlement
agreement has been breached from seeking in State court any remedy available under
State law.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(2) (2000) (emphasis added). As the terms of the dismissals in the underlying
cases rise only to the level of private settlement agreements, under the PLRA, the only relief available
to Mr. Sivori is reinstatement of the underlying consolidated case as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3626(c)(2).
Two Paths Forward
Thus, there are only two paths Mr. Sivori may take: (1) continue working with MDOC under
the settlement agreements to obtain his religious diet, or (2) void the settlement agreements and
request reinstatement of this case. Mr. Sivori could now argue that the defendants have violated the
terms of the settlement agreements in the consolidated cases and seek reinstatement of this case. If he
chooses that path, then the case will be reopened and a scheduling order entered to move litigation
forward. In addition, the settlement agreements would become null and void.
The ultimate resolution of the issues in this case through litigation is, however, unknown. If
Mr. Sivori were to prevail, then he would obtain some form of relief, which could be more – or less –
favorable than that found in the settlement agreements. On the other hand, if the defendants prevail,
then Mr. Sivori would find himself in a worse position than he currently faces. He would have no
settlement agreement – and no judgment in his favor. Again, the court has no view on the merits of
either party’s arguments – and thus does not know what the ultimate outcome might be. The court
would simply like the parties to understand the various paths currently available in this case.
The defendants concede that changing to a different food service provider temporarily
disrupted Mr. Sivori’s religious diet, though Mr. Sivori contends that, even now, he sporadically

receives only part of that diet. If the parties are agreeable, the court suggests a face-to-face meeting
between Mr. Sivori and counsel for MDOC to see if they can come to a mutual agreement – and
ensure that Mr. Sivori receives his religious diet on a continuing basis.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Sivori’s motions [113], [116], [122] for injunctive relief
(which seek a remedy beyond the power of the court to provide) are DENIED. In addition, Mr.
Sivori’s motion [114] for relief from judgment (which seeks the same remedy) is DENIED. In light
of these rulings, the plaintiff’s motion [115] to expedite a ruling on these motions is DISMISSED as
moot.
SO ORDERED, this, the 26th day of May, 2021.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI