(PC) Taylor v. Patel et al, No. 1:2014cv01754 - Document 83 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 79 Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Judgment Relief be DISMISSED for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction re 9 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/8/2019. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELTON L. TAYLOR, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al., 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POSTJUDGMENT RELIEF DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTON Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought a claim of deliberate BACKGROUND 19 indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties reached a settlement 20 agreement, ECF No. 74, and defendants filed a stipulation and request for voluntary dismissal 21 with prejudice under Rule 41. ECF No. 75. Accordingly, on March 20, 2018, the court closed 22 this case. 23 II. 24 On October 17, 2018, plaintiff moved for the court to compel “the California Department PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 25 of Correction and Rehabilitation to comply with the Settlement Agreement Reached between both 26 parties.” ECF No. 79 at 2. In essence, plaintiff argues that defendants misrepresented the 27 amount of restitution owed by plaintiff during the settlement negotiations and have thereby 28 1 1 2 contravened the agreement. Id. On October 29, 2018, the court ordered defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion. ECF 3 No. 80. On November 9, 2018, defendants responded, arguing that “[t]here is no legal basis to set 4 aside the settlement agreement. The parties entered into the agreement in good faith.” ECF No. 5 81 at 3. Specifically, defendants allege that, during the settlement conference, defendants 6 provided plaintiff an estimate of the amount he owed in restitution, but informed him that this was 7 merely an estimate—the final figure could be different. Id. at 2. 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 10 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “When a district court dismisses an action with prejudice 11 pursuant to a settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually ends.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 12 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995)). 13 However, “[w]hen a court’s order dismissing a case with prejudice incorporates the terms of a 14 settlement agreement, the court retains ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement because a 15 breach of the incorporated agreement is a violation of the dismissal order.” Id. (citing Kokkonen, 16 511 U.S. at 378). 17 18 Here, the court does not retain jurisdiction because the order dismissing the case, reproduced below in its entirety, did not incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement: 19 23 On March 20, 2018, Defendants filed a Stipulation and Request for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 75 ) under Rule 41. In light of the joint voluntary dismissal, this action is terminated by operation of law without further order from the Court. Rule 41(a)(2)(A)(ii). This Court VACATES all pending dates and matters. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 24 ECF No. 76. Neither the order nor the stipulation that prompted it reference the 25 settlement agreement. Because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, 26 this case must be dismissed. 20 21 22 27 28 2 1 IV. 2 We recommend that plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 79, be dismissed for lack of subject 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION matter jurisdiction. 4 The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 6 Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 7 recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 8 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 10 and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties’ failure to file objections 11 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 12 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: March 8, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 No. 203. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.