Huskey v. Hall et al

Filing 49

ORDER: Denying Motion to Reopen 41 ; Finding as Moot Motion for Leave 43 Finding as Moot Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 45 ). Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 04/04/2022 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (Copy sent to pro se on this date) (rsm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

ARNOLD R. HUSKEY,

Case No. 1:09-cv-01529-CL

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
GUY HALL et al.,
Defendants.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.

On December 31, 2009, Plaintiff Arnold R. Huskey ("Plaintiff'), a self-represented
litigant in custody at Oregon State Correctional Institution, filed this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 41 (a)( l )(ii) (ECF No. 39), and the Court entered
judgment dismissing this case with prejudice the next day (ECF No. 40).

I -ORDER

Eleven years later, on March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to reopen
this case "based on the Defendants' breach of contract [and] breach of trust, upon which the
voluntary dismissal of this action was fundamentally based." (Mot. for Leave to
Reactivate/Reopen Case (ECF No. 41 ), at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are
retaliating against him in violation of the parties' settlement agreement by using photographs and
"unauthorized video footage of Plaintiff'' in Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC")
training materials for "the sole purpose of ... creat[ing] and instill[ing] in the minds and
opinions of all [ODOC] employees and contractors ... a negative, highly prejudicial and
deleterious opinion of Plaintiff." (Aff. of Arnold R. Huskey in Supp. of Mot. (ECF No. 44)

~~

9-

10.)
Rule 60(b) "allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of
his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered
evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). "Motions for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) ... are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court[.]" Allmerica

Fin. Life Ins. and Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664,665 (9th Cir. 1997). "A motion under
Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time" and "no more than a year after the entry of
the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(l). Plaintiffs motion
to reopen this case comes eleven years after entry of judgment and therefore it is untimely.
Furthermore, "[w]hen a district couii dismisses an action with prejudice pursuant to a
settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually ends." Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094
(9th Cir. 2016) (citing O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530,532 (9th Cir. 1995). "Ordinarily, a
dispute arising under a settlement agreement is 'a separate contract dispute requiring its own

1

The one-year period applies to motions filed pu~suant to Rule 60(b)(l)-(3).
2-ORDER

independent basis for jurisdiction."' Id. "Therefore, unless the parties agree that the district retain
ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and incorporate its stipulated terms into its order
of dismissal, the Court lacks the power to enforce the terms of settlement." Avery v. Beard, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00699-BTM-RNB, 2018 WL 4462163, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) (citing
Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1095.) The parties here did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce
the settlement agreement or incorporate its terms into the stipulation ofdismissal. The Court thus
lacks jurisdiction to address the Defendants' alleged breach of the settlement agreement.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES
Reactivate/Reopen Case (ECF No. 41) and DENIES AS MOOT Plainti
File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) and Motion for Preli1

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _4_ day of April, 2022.

3-ORDER

to