Opinion
No. CIV S-07-0807 MCE GGH P.
April 25, 2011
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By Order, filed on March 4, 2010, this case was dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the stipulation by counsel for the parties, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Thereafter, plaintiff pro se filed a motion for relief from judgment/motion for withdrawal from the voluntary dismissal, purportedly pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case in limited circumstances, "including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). "Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court." Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annunity Company v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff includes a copy of the stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice signed by counsel for all parties (which was originally filed in this court on February 25, 2010 (docket # 74)), and a copy of the settlement agreement signed by plaintiff himself and an individual on behalf of CDCR and defendant Cate. Exhibit A to Motion (docket # 77), pp. 4-8. By his motion, plaintiff pro se alleges that the settlement agreement to which all parties stipulated has been breached, inasmuch as, he claims, his transition from a three-meal a day Kosher diet to a Halal diet has been limited to one dinner meal being a Halal meat diet with a vegetarian breakfast and lunch diet. Motion, pp. 7-9.
Plaintiff provides no basis for the court's continuing jurisdiction in this matter and the court's review of the settlement agreement plaintiff provides indicates therein no provision for a basis for the court's continued jurisdiction.O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 531 (9th Cir. 1995), citingKokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676-77 (1994), stated:
[T]he Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a federal lawsuit. When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates. Id. A motion to enforce the settlement agreement, then, is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent basis for jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiff's motion should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment/motion for withdrawal from the voluntary dismissal, filed on November 5, 2010 (docket # 77), be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).