Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT G. BAKER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND FOR 

SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 86)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded 

against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical 

care. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

A settlement conference was held on August 22, 2016, and the matter settled. 

(ECF Nos. 82, 83.) The matter was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulation, and the case was closed. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 26, 2016 motion to effectuate the 

settlement and to sanction Defendant for breach of the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 

86.) Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 88 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. Legal Standard

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the 

Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce settlement 

agreements. The Court held that once parties to a lawsuit have settled and the District 

Court has dismissed the case, the District Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to 

enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. at 379-81. Ancillary jurisdiction to enforce 

a settlement agreement may arise if the “parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of 

the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal – either by [a] 

separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement 

agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Id.

at 381; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kokkonen, 

511 U.S. at 381). Such specific language confers the requisite jurisdiction because a 

breach of the agreement thereby violates the order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. Absent 

such language or an independent basis for jurisdiction, the enforcement of a settlement 

agreement is for the state courts. Id. at 382.

To the extent that Plaintiff's motion can be construed as a request brought 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the Ninth Circuit has held that the 

repudiation or “complete frustration” of a settlement agreement can be grounds to set 

aside a judgment. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 

1991); see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (distinguishing enforcement of a settlement 

agreement from reopening a dismissed suit because of breach of the agreement that 

was the basis for dismissal). 

II. Parties’ Arguments

It appears that part of Plaintiff’s motion is missing, as the motion itself cuts off 

mid-sentence. In the portion of the motion filed with the Court, Plaintiff claims that, 

pursuant to the settlement agreement, Defendant had forty five days to provide the 

agreed-upon settlement funds to Plaintiff. No such funds were received as of the date of 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 88 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

filing.

Defendant responds that he had forty five days following receipt of an executed 

release and request for dismissal in which to send the settlement funds to Plaintiff. He 

received the executed documents on September 6, 2016, and therefore had until 

October 21, 2016 to distribute the funds to Plaintiff. The settlement agreement 

specifically provided that the funds would be sent to the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation Accounting Department for distribution to Plaintiff’s 

prison trust account. The funds were sent to the accounting Department on October 10, 

2016. Pursuant to the return receipt received by Defendant, the Accounting Department 

received the funds on October 14, 2016. Defense counsel also spoke with Christyne 

Mills in the Accounting Department to confirm receipt. 

III. Discussion

The Court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. 

(See ECF Nos.84, 85.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 

Nor does Plaintiff show grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as it appears his 

request is without merit. Defendant submits evidence to show that he has complied with 

the settlement agreement. Plaintiff provides no evidence or argument to the contrary. 

Nothing before the Court reflects frustration of the settlement agreement or any basis 

for sanction.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement 

and for sanctions is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 88 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 88 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 4