Carter, Tommie v. Cummings, Antonio et al

Filing 150

ORDER denying plaintiff's 149 motion for clarification. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/8/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOMMIE L. CARTER,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

16-cv-55-wmc

v.
ANTONIO CUMMINGS and ROBERT PICKLE,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff and prisoner Tommie Carter filed this lawsuit against defendants and
correctional officers Antonio Cummings and Robert Pickle for allegedly failing to prevent
plaintiff from harming himself. On May 8, 2017, the court received a stipulation of
dismissal from the parties, dkt. #147, so the clerk of court closed the case. Now plaintiff has
filed what he calls a “motion for clarification,” in which he says that he has not yet received
his settlement. Dkt. #149. Plaintiff does not request specific relief in his motion, but
presumably he wants the court to help him enforce his settlement.
Plaintiff does not provide a copy of the settlement agreement with his motion, so it
is impossible to know whether defendants are violating its terms. In any event, I am denying
plaintiff’s motion because this court has no authority to provide plaintiff relief. The case is
now closed and the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement,
which is a matter of contract under state law. Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1079 (7th Cir.
1

2009) ("[W]here the dismissal order neither incorporated the parties' settlement agreement
nor expressly retained jurisdiction over it, the court lack[s] ancillary jurisdiction to enforce
it and any action for breach of the agreement belong[s] in state court."). Thus, if plaintiff
seeks to enforce the settlement agreement, he must do so in state court.
The court hastens to note that only a month has passed since the parties agreed to
dismiss this case and plaintiff does not allege that defendants have missed any deadlines for
implementing any settlement that the parties have, so it is not surprising that plaintiff is still
waiting. If defendants miss a deadline or fail to implement the settlement agreement in a
reasonable amount of time, plaintiff may ask counsel the reason for the delay and the
proposed time line for implementing the agreement. Failing that, any remedy the plaintiff
may have must be sought in state, not federal court.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Tommie Carter’s “motion for clarification,” dkt. #149,
is DENIED.

Entered this 8th day of June, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2