Henry v. Ferriter et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Show Contempt. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/28/2014. Mailed to Henry. (TAG, )

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
OCT 2 8 2014
HELENA DIVISION
Clerk. u.s. District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 12-0019-H-DLC

WILLIAM JOHN HENRY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

MIKE FERRITER, et aI.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff William Henry is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this
civil rights action which was closed pursuant to a settlement agreement and order
of dismissal on November 6,2013. Pending is Mr. Henry's motion to hold
Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the parties October 9, 2013
settlement agreement. (Doc 28.)
The United States Supreme Court has held,
when ... dismissal is pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(I) ], (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) 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. ofAmerica, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82, 114 S.Ct.
I

1

1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).
As in the Kokkonen case, the dismissal in this case was done pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(I)(ii) and was a dismissal with prejudice.
This Court did not retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.
"Enforcement of the settlement agreement, ... , is more than just a continuation
or renewal ofthe dismissed suit, and hence requires it own basis for jurisdiction."

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378.
Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction here, this
Court cannot enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or hold Defendants in
contempt for failing to do so. Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over
enforcement of settlement agreements such as the one alleged here.
Accordingly, the Court issues the following:
ORDER

Mr. Henry's Motion to Show Contempt (Doc. 28) is denied.
DATED this

z.e#tday of October,

014.

Hon. Dana L. Christensen, ChIef Judge
United States District Court

2