Carter v. McGowan et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/5/2017 DENYING 42 Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Tommie L. Carter at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TOMMIE L. CARTER
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-838-JPS

ALLISON MCGOWAN, AMY
GUNDERSON, DEREK SCHOUTEN,
and JOEL SANKEY,
Defendants.
TOMMIE L. CARTER
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-CV-1676-JPS

v.
TORRIA VANBUREN and C.O. DEREK
SCHOUTEN,
Defendants.
TOMMIE L. CARTER
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-CV-1688-JPS

v.
ANTHONY WALKER,
Defendant.
TOMMIE L. CARTER
Case No. 17-CV-8-JPS
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

TRAVIS P. BRADY,
Defendant.

On May 9, 2017, the parties in each of the four above-captioned cases,
all brought by prisoner Tommie L. Carter (“Carter”), filed joint stipulations

of dismissal of the actions with prejudice, each party to bear their own fees
and costs. The Court adopted each of those stipulations and dismissed each
case with prejudice. Carter has now filed a “motion to clarify” relating to a
$1,000 payment he was purportedly supposed to receive to settle these
cases. His complaint is that he has not yet been paid.
Initially, the Court notes that it is unsure what Carter wants to have
clarified, as the Court is not in the business of helping the parties negotiate
settlement terms. Moreover, to the extent Carter’s motion is an oblique
request for the Court to order the payment he expects to receive, the Court
must decline, for it has no power to do so. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994), the Supreme Court found
that federal courts have the power to enforce a settlement agreement even
after a case has been dismissed with prejudice. However, that power is
limited to three situations, none of which have arisen here.
First, a court may reopen a case to enforce a settlement agreement
when the terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated into the order
of dismissal. Id.; Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1079 (7th Cir. 2009). Because
the stipulations of dismissal entered in each of Carter’s cases did not
incorporate any terms of any underlying settlement agreement, and
because the Court’s dismissal order did not do so, this exception does not
apply. Second, a court may reopen a case to enforce a settlement agreement
if the order of dismissal contains language expressly retaining jurisdiction
over the enforcement of the settlement agreement. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 581;
Bond, 585 F.3d at 1079. The Court’s orders of dismissal, modelled after the
parties’ own submissions, includes no language retaining jurisdiction over
settlement enforcement. Thus, the second exception does not apply.

Page 2 of 4

The final exception allows district courts to reopen cases to enforce
settlement agreements if there is an independent basis for federal
jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382. For this exception, it is not sufficient
that there was jurisdiction over the underlying case. Thus, it does not matter
that the Court had original jurisdiction over each of Carter’s cases as a result
of him raising federal constitutional claims. Instead, the question is whether
there is federal jurisdiction over the present dispute—that is, a state-law
contract claim arising from the parties’ settlement agreement. See United
Cent. Bank v. Maple Court LLC, No. 10–CV–00464, 2014 WL 2441046, at *4
(E.D. Wis. Aug. 19, 2014); HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Daya, Case No. 16–CV–
80–JPS, 2016 WL 7156551, at *8 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 7, 2016) (“A settlement
agreement is a contract and therefore governed by the law applicable to
contracts generally—that is, state law”) (citing Laserage Tech. Corp. v.
Laserage Labs., Inc., 972 F.2d 799, 802 (7th Cir. 1992)). No jurisdiction exists
in this Court over such a claim, since there are no federal questions present
and there is no diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
Thus, the final exception does not apply either.
As explained in Kokkonnen, in the absence of federal jurisdiction over
a settlement agreement dispute, “enforcement of the settlement agreement
is for state courts.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382. That is the answer in this case:
if Carter believes that Defendants in these cases have breached their
settlement agreements, the only forum in which he can raise such claims is
state court. See Kay v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“[t]he normal remedy for a failure to abide by a settlement of federal
litigation is a suit on the settlement contract,” which must proceed in state
court absent a basis for federal jurisdiction). This Court has no power to act
on such a claim.
Page 3 of 4

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to clarify in each of the four
above-captioned cases (16-CV-838, Docket #42; 16-CV-1676, Docket #22; 16CV-1688, Docket #21; and 17-CV-8, Docket #21) be and the same is hereby
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 5th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4