From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ochoa v. Fletcher

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:19-cv-01431 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-01431 JAM DB P

10-11-2022

ADRIAN R. OCHOA, Plaintiff, v. SHERRI FLETCHER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a letter with the court seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement previously reached between the parties. (ECF No. 41.) This action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) after the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. (ECF No. 39.) The case was subsequently closed. (ECF No. 40.) The purported settlement agreement was not mentioned and the terms of that agreement were not included in the joint stipulation for dismissal. (See ECF No. 39.)

Federal district courts “have no inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into by parties litigating before them.” K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Arata v. Nu Skin Int'l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1268 (9th Cir.1996)). Federal jurisdiction over a case ends when a case is dismissed with prejudice. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016). Where an action is dismissed with prejudice, a dispute over a settlement agreement is “a separate contract dispute” except where the court's order dismissing a case incorporates the terms of a settlement agreement. Id. (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994)).

Here, this action was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 39.) As this case was dismissed with prejudice, the court's jurisdiction over the case has ended. K.C. ex rel. Erica C., 762 F.3d 963, at 967. The court did not issue an order dismissing the case as it was done voluntarily pursuant to Rule 41(a). The stipulation filed by the parties did not mention a settlement agreement or incorporate the terms of any such agreement. (See ECF No. 39.) Thus, the court does not maintain jurisdiction over the purported settlement agreement. Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1094. Given these facts, the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement as is requested in plaintiffs letter.

Plaintiff is also advised that this case is closed. (See ECF No. 40.) Future filings will be disregarded and no orders will be issued.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff's request to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement (ECF No. 41) is denied.


Summaries of

Ochoa v. Fletcher

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:19-cv-01431 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)
Case details for

Ochoa v. Fletcher

Case Details

Full title:ADRIAN R. OCHOA, Plaintiff, v. SHERRI FLETCHER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 11, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-01431 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)