Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00205-78/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

BARRY LAMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-JLT PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT 

FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

(Doc. 332)

I. Procedural History

On March 17, 2016, the parties filed a fully executed stipulation for voluntary dismissal of 

this action with prejudice. (Doc. 330.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action pursuant to 

that stipulation and closed the case, the next day. (Doc. 331.) Approximately a week later, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of his consent to the terms of the settlement in which he 

moved to stay entry of final judgment in this action until the terms of the settlement are met. 

(Doc. 332.) The Court ordered the Defendants to file a response. (Docs. 333, 334.) The motion is 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). Given that this matter has been dismissed, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction and Plaintiff motion is DENIED. 

II. Discussion and Order

In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that on March 11, 2016, in settlement of the matter, he was 

escorted to the “confiscated inmate property room” where he was permitted to view and select 

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 335 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 5
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

various items. (Doc. 332, p. 2.) On March 15, 2016, the KVSP Litigation Coordinator appeared 

at the door of Plaintiff’s cell with a box that was taped shut and instructed Plaintiff to sign the 

stipulation and settlement papers before he would be allowed to receive the box of items he had 

selected. (Id., at p. 3.) When Plaintiff asked to be allowed to inspect the items in the box, the 

Litigation Coordinator told Plaintiff that it contained the items he had selected, that he did not 

have time for Plaintiff to inspect the contents of the box, and inquired whether Plaintiff was going 

to accept the offer. (Id.) Plaintiff signed the documents and received the box without first 

inspecting its contents. (Id.) When Plaintiff inspected the box, he discovered that various items 

he had selected were missing, that the typewriter he had chosen was inoperable, and that none of 

the items had been inscribed with his name1per CDCR and KVSP policy to prevent their 

confiscation as contraband. (Id.) Despite Plaintiff’s repeated efforts, the above has not been 

rectified. (Id., at p. 4.) Plaintiff asserts that these actions by KVSP personnel amount to fraud and 

render the settlement agreement void and unenforceable. 

On the other hand, Defendants report that the Litigation Coordinator, Mr. Hancock,

personally delivered the items Plaintiff selected. Mr. Hancock attests that he presented Mr. 

Lamon the items he selected and, indeed, Mr. Lamon acknowledged in writing that he received the 

items selected. (Doc. 334 at 4, 15) Mr. Hancock notes that the typewriter, which Mr. Lamon 

describes as “inoperable,” only lacks a “printwheel or ribbon cartridge,” which are “consumable 

items akin to toner in a printer. Id. at 16. Thus, Mr. Lamon merely needs to purchase a 

replacement and, in fact, will need to do this over the life of the typewriter. Id. On the other hand, 

Mr. Hancock acknowledges that the items should have been inscribed with Mr. Lamon’s name 

and he will ensure that this occurs. Id. at 16.

Notably, after receiving his items, Mr. Lamon contacted counsel for Defendants. (Doc. 

334 at 19-22) In this letter, Plaintiff complains only that the items were not inscribed with his 

name and that he had not received a full copy of the settlement agreement. Id. He does not 

complain about missing items or about the condition of the typewriter. Id.

///

 

1

Plaintiff further indicates that a number of items retained other inmates’ names and inmate numbers.

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 335 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 5
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

A. Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only that power authorized by 

Constitution and statute, and it is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994) (quotation marks 

and citations omitted). The enforcement of a settlement agreement is more than just a 

continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit and it requires its own basis for jurisdiction. 

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (quotation marks omitted). A court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction 

to enforce a settlement agreement only where the settlement order incorporates the settlement 

terms, or retention jurisdiction is express. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378; Alvarado v. Table 

Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007); Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 

F.3d 85, 87-88 (9th Cir. 1997); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Where, as here, neither of these basis exist, jurisdiction is lacking. 

The settlement agreement (Doc. 334, pp. 7-11), the stipulation filed by the parties (Doc. 

330), and the order thereon (Doc. 331) are all silent as to this Court’s jurisdiction over the 

settlement. In fact, the settlement agreement explicitly states, “the terms, conditions, and 

provisions of this agreement are governed by and interpreted under California state law.” 

Accordingly, the Court lacks ancillary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s motion both for relief from and 

enforcement of the settlement. Alvarado, 509 F.3d at 1017.

Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over disputes pertaining to the 

settlement agreement and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied, with prejudice. This action is simply 

not the proper vehicle for conveyance of relief Plaintiff seeks, though he is not precluded from 

seeking relief in the proper forum. This case shall remain closed.

B. Fraud

Plaintiff asserts that his agreement to the settlement was induced by fraud under Rule 

60(b)(3). Indeed, “[c]ourts have inherent equity power to vacate judgments obtained by fraud.” 

Hendricks & Lewis PLLC, v. Clinton, 766 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2014) quoting United States v. 

Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 

32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991)); see also Dixon v. Comm'r, 316 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) 

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 335 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 5
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

(“Courts possess the inherent power to vacate or amend a judgment obtained by fraud on the 

court.”). This power should be exercised “with restraint and discretion,” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 

44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, and only when the fraud is established “by clear and convincing evidence,”

England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir.1960). 

However, “not all fraud is fraud on the court.” In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th 

Cir. 1999). In determining whether fraud constitutes fraud on the court, the relevant inquiry is not 

whether fraudulent conduct “prejudiced the opposing party,” but whether it “ ‘harm[ed]’ the 

integrity of the judicial process.” Hendricks, 766 F.3d at 444, quoting Alexander v. Robertson, 

882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1989). Fraud on the court involves “far more than an injury to a single 

litigant.” Id., quoting Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246, 64 S.Ct. 

997 (1976). One asserting fraud as a basis to void a judgment must show that the complained of 

act prevented “the judicial process from functioning in the usual manner.” Hendricks, 766 F.3d at 

445. Mere non-disclosure of evidence is typically not enough to constitute fraud on the court so as 

to warrant vacating a judgment. Id. Even perjury by a party or witness by itself, is not normally 

fraud on the court. Id. 

Plaintiff’s assertions pertaining to compliance/non-compliance with the terms of the 

settlement arrived at in this action do not amount to a fraud on the court to justify relief from the 

judgment entered. Rather, they raise construction and enforcement issues pertaining to the 

settlement agreement, which is “governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation 

of contracts generally.” United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 

856 (9th Cir.1992).

C. Void Judgment

Plaintiff also asserts that resolution of this action is void under Rule 60(b)(4). However, 

Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain 

type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the 

opportunity to be heard (such as on entry of default). See United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 

909 F.2d 657, 661 (C.A.1 1990); Moore's § 60.44[1][a]; 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, 

& Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2862, p. 331 (2d ed.1995 and Supp.2009); cf. 

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 335 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 376, 60 S.Ct. 317 (1940); Stoll 

v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171-172, 59 S.Ct. 134 (1938). A judgment is not void simply because it 

is erroneous or may have been erroneously obtained. Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 6 (C.A.1 1995); 

12 J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.44[1][a], pp. 60–150 to 60–151 (3d ed.2007) 

(hereinafter Moore's). Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that the dismissal of this action 

is void. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff=s motion to 

withdraw consent to the settlement and to stay final judgment until the settlement terms are met, 

filed on March 25, 2016 (Doc. 332), is DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00205-JLT Document 335 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 5