Hoskins v. Johnson et al
Filing
15
Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate Final Judgment shall be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on September 6, 2012 (dsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
OCIE HOSKINS, # 75124
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv115-KS-MTP
CANDIS JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER B.
EPPS, RONALD KING, THOMAS
RUSHING, and BETH HILLMAN
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEFORE THE COURT are pro se Plaintiff Ocie Hoskins’s pleadings. He is incarcerated
with the Mississippi Department of Corrections and brings this action alleging breach of a
settlement agreement. The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set
forth below, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2011, Hoskins settled four Section 1983 cases before the undersigned.
The Agreed Order of Dismissal, entered in each case, stated in full:
The Parties are presently before this Court, following the proceedings of
an Omnibus Hearing, held on August 2, 2011 [minute entry] [sic]. The parties
inform the Court that they have reached reasonable resolution in the following
cases: 2:10cv155-KS-MTP, 2:11cv40-KS-MTP, 2:11cv74-KS-MTP, and
2:11cv80-KS-MTP. The Parties make an ore tenus motion to dismiss these
cases.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that these cases are hereby dismissed
with prejudice.
Hoskins v. Epps, No. 2:10cv155-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2011); Hoskins v. Lew, No.
2:11cv40-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2011); Hoskins v. Epps, No. 2:11cv74-KS-MTP (S.D.
Miss. Aug. 19, 2011); and Hoskins v. Epps, No. 2:11cv80-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2011).
The order was signed by the undersigned, the Magistrate Judge, Hoskins, and counsel for
Defendants. The Settlement Agreement, signed by the parties on August 8, was filed on the
same day as the Agreed Order of Dismissal.
On July 5, 2012, Hoskins initiated the instant lawsuit claiming Defendants breached the
Settlement Agreement. He seeks damages and enforcement of the agreement.
DISCUSSION
In order to maintain this action for breach of the settlement agreement, there must be
some independent basis for jurisdiction. Langley v. Jackson State Univ., 14 F.3d 1070, 1074
(5th Cir. 1994). The mere fact that the agreement arose out of prior federal court litigation will
not suffice to provide subject matter jurisdiction over an independent action for breach of
contract. Id. If there is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the breach of contract
action, the court may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction if (1) the court incorporated the
terms of the settlement agreement in its prior dismissal or (2) the court retained jurisdiction.
Hospitality House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 380-81 (1994)).
First, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. Hoskins admits he is a Mississippi
resident, and he does not claim Defendants are non-Mississippi residents. The Court takes
judicial notice that Defendant Christopher B. Epps, the Commissioner of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections, is a Mississippi resident.
Next, Hoskins was given an opportunity to state a federal cause of action. He was asked
how the breach violated his constitutional rights. He responded, “What I[’]m trying to say to this
court I[’]m refil[ing] my lawsuit. . . . In this case the gree ment [sic] was I will be rehouse[d] at
CMCF G Bulid [sic]. . . . It was a order by this Court that is how my constitution[al] right was
2
violat[ed].” (Dkt. 14 at 1). He does not assert an independent federal claim over the breach of
contract. Rather, he invokes ancillary jurisdiction, because he states that Defendants’ alleged
breach of the court’s prior order of dismissal violated his rights under the order. Therefore, there
is no federal question jurisdiction over this breach of contract case.
Finally, the Court examines its ancillary jurisdiction, which Hoskins invokes. This
requires the Court to examine the Agreed Order of Dismissal for incorporation of the agreement
or retention of jurisdiction. As shown above, the prior Agreed Order of Dismissal did not retain
jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Court must determine the issue of
incorporation.
In order “to make a settlement agreement part of a dismissal order by incorporation,
Kokkonen requires a district court to clearly indicate its intention within the dismissal order itself
by expressly incorporating the agreement’s terms.” Hospitality House, 298 F.3d at 431. The
court’s “awareness and approval” of the settlement agreement does “not suffice to make [it] a
part of [the] order.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. For example, Hospitality House held that even
if a dismissal order attaches the settlement agreement as an exhibit, this is not enough to indicate
the district court’s intention to incorporate the agreement into the order. Hospitality House, 298
F.3d at 431. Rather, the body of the order must expressly incorporate the agreement’s terms. Id.
As set forth previously, the body of the Agreed Order of Dismissal did not expressly incorporate
the agreement’s terms. At most, the order merely reflects the Court’s awareness that the matter
was settled. According to the Supreme Court, this is insufficient to support ancillary
jurisdiction. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this breach of contract
case, it is dismissed without prejudice.
3
To the extent that Hoskins seeks to reopen the original actions that were settled and either
enforce the settlement agreement or relitigate the original cases, the Court notes Hoskins has
already so moved within two of those cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of September, 2012.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?