Wylie v. Montana Women's Prison et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby on 8/17/2015. Mailed to Wylie. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
CV 13-53-BLG-SEH-CSO

HEATHER ERIN WYLIE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.
JO ACTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Heather Wylie is a prisoner proceeding without counsel
in this civil rights action which was dismissed by order of Judge Haddon
on March 26, 2015. ECF 54. Now pending is Wylie’s “Motion for
Contempt & Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Federal (U.S.)
District Court’s Order.” ECF 55. Wylie seeks enforcement of the terms
of the settlement reached by the parties, but the Court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain Wylie’s motion.
The United States Supreme Court has held,
when . . . dismissal is pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1) ], (which does not by its terms empower a
district court to attach conditions to the parties’ stipulation
of dismissal) . . . the court is authorized to embody the
settlement contract in its dismissal order (or, what has the
same effect, retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract)
1

if the parties agree. Absent such action, however,
enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts,
unless there is some independent basis for federal
jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life. Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82
(1994). “Enforcement of [a] settlement agreement . . . is more than just
a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires it
own basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378.
As in the Kokkonen case, Judge Haddon’s dismissal order in this
case was expressly entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a) and was a dismissal with prejudice. Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice, ECF 54. This Court did not retain jurisdiction over the
settlement agreement.
As plaintiff, Wylie bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction is
proper. Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.
2014). Because no independent basis for federal jurisdiction appears or
has been shown, this Court may not enforce the terms of the settlement
agreement or hold Defendants in contempt for failing to do so. Simply
put, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over enforcement of
settlement agreements such as the one alleged here.
2

Accordingly, the Court issues the following:
ORDER
Wylie’s “Motion for Contempt & Sanctions for Failure to Comply
with Federal (U.S.) District Court’s Order” (ECF 55) is denied.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2015.
/s Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge

3