Ellis v. Brandon et al
Filing
27
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/02/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
No. C 10-2957 TEH (PR)
RANDALL E. ELLIS,
13
Plaintiff,
14
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
15
16
17
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A
STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
v.
K. BRANDON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
18
19
20
21
On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff Randall E. Ellis, an inmate at
22
Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), filed a civil rights complaint
23
alleging a First Amendment claim against PBSP Captain K. Brandon and
24
PBSP Officers J. Silveira and C. Countess.
25
this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for a
26
settlement conference.
27
stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
28
2012, an Order of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice was entered by
On September 27, 2011,
On April 2, 2012, the parties filed a
On April 3,
1
2
3
the Court.
The Order provides, in relevant part, that the parties:
stipulate to a dismissal of this action with prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
. . . The filing of this stipulation automatically
terminates the action.
4
On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the
5
Court stating that, on March 30, 2012, the parties entered into a
6
settlement agreement that called for its terms to be met within six
7
months from the date of signing but that, to date, Defendants had
8
not met the terms of the agreement.
Plaintiff requests that the
9
Court order Defendants to file a final status report before it
10
dismisses the case with prejudice.
11
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case
12
with prejudice, this case has been closed since April 2012.
If the
13
settlement agreement provides that the Court retains jurisdiction
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
over it, then this Court would have jurisdiction to order a status
report regarding the parties’ performance of their mutual
obligations under the agreement.
If the settlement agreement does
not provide that the Court retains jurisdiction, the Court would
lack jurisdiction to order such a report.
Because the settlement
agreement was not filed with the Court, the Court cannot ascertain
whether it provides that the Court has jurisdiction over it.
However, whether the Court retains jurisdiction does not
have to be decided at this time.
The March 30, 2012 settlement
agreement allowed Defendants six months in which to perform their
obligations.
Six months have not yet elapsed and there is still
time for Defendants to meet the terms of the agreement.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a status conference is
2
1
premature and, thus, it is denied without prejudice.
2
have not performed after six months have passed, Plaintiff may
3
refile his request for a status report, with a copy of the
4
settlement agreement and a short brief, not more than two pages in
5
length, explaining why the Court retains jurisdiction over the
6
agreement.
If Defendants
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
DATED
08/02/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\Ellis - 10-2957DenyStatusRptRequest.wpd
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
