Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02291/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02291-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02291-HSG 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SET 

A CONFERENCE TO DETERMINE 

STATUS OF SETTLEMENT

PAYMENT AND TO ENFORCE THE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 4, 2018, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice pursuant 

to the parties’ joint voluntary stipulation. Dkt. No. 29. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s request 

that the Court schedule a status conference between the parties to determine the status of the 

settlement award payment and that the Court enforce the settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 30. For 

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s requests are DENIED.

After dismissal of a suit, a district court lacks authority to decide any dispute arising from a 

settlement agreement, e.g., a motion to enforce the agreement, unless it has specifically retained 

jurisdiction. A district court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement only if (1) the 

agreement specifically states that the court retains jurisdiction, or (2) the court embodies the 

agreement in its dismissal order. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-

82 (1994).1 Here, this civil rights action was settled by the parties, after which they filed a 

 

1 Plaintiff misstates the holding of Kokkonen in his motion. ECF No. 30 at 2. Kokkonen does not 

hold that a court retains ancillary jurisdiction to enforce his settlement agreement. Rather, 

Kokkonen holds that 

where the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower 

a district court to attach conditions to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal), . . .[a]bsent [the 

court embodying the settlement contract in its dismissal order or specifically retaining 

Case 4:18-cv-02291-HSG Document 32 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

stipulation to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Dkt. No. 29. The stipulation did not require 

the Court to retain jurisdiction, and the Court did not do so. Therefore, this Court no longer has 

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement and cannot grant the relief sought by Plaintiff. 

If Plaintiff seeks judicial enforcement of the agreement, he must file suit in the state courts. 

Absent the district court retaining jurisdiction, “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for 

state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 

at 382. Enforcement of a settlement agreement does not itself raise a federal question. Id. at 381.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 30. This case remains closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

jurisdiction over the settlement contract], enforcement of the settlement agreement is for 

state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381–82.

5/31/2019

Case 4:18-cv-02291-HSG Document 32 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 2