FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13375 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 1 4 3 2 2 - C V - D MM S T A N L E Y N . T A V O RN , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C H A R L E S S H O C K L E Y , D A V I D F A R C U S , M . L . E N G L I S H , R . F . C A R T E R , K . J . G R E E N , C O N N I E S H O O T S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 26, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Th e di stri ct c ourtdi sm is sedth e other d efen dants , C harl es S ho ckl ey , Davi d Farcu s, R. F. 1 Cart e r, and

K. J. Gre e n, in a

n o rde r t hat is no t at is su eon

a pp e a l. 2 F l ori da st at e pri soner S t anl ey N . T avorn app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c i vi l c om pl a i nta ga i ns tpr i s on of f i c i a l s M . L . E ngl i s h a nd C o n n i e S h o o t s. T av o rn co n t en d s th e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d i sm i ssi n g h i s case 1 be c a us e he di d nota gr e e t o s e tt l e the i ns t a ntc a s e . A c c or di ng t o T a vor n, he a nd the de f e nda nt s or a l l y di s c us s e d s e tt l e m e ntof a s e pa r a t e c a s e , butthe y di d notr e a c h a fi nal , bi nd i ng agre em entthatext ended t o the i nst antca se . G e n e r a lly , a p a r ty w h o c o n s e n ts to th e e n try o f a ju d g m e n t la c k s s ta n d in g to ap p e a l it. R e

y n o ld s v . R o b e r ts , 20 2 F . 3d 13 03 , 13 12 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). H ow ever , th e r e a r e tw o e x c e p tio n s to th is g e n e r a l ru le : “( 1 ) w h e r e th e p a r ty d id n o t a c tu a lly c ons e ntor( 2) w he r e the c our tl a c ke d s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e rthe j ud gm ent . ” W

hi t e v . C om m ’ rof

I nt e r nal R e v e nue , 77 6 F . 2d 97 6, 97 7 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ). W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s e nforcement of a s ett l em entagre em entfor a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . See B r ook

s v . G e or gi a Stat e B d. of

E l e c t i ons , 59 F . 3d 1114, 1 1 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “[ T ]h e d u ty o f a n ap p e lla te c o u r t is s im p ly to a s c e r ta in w he the rornotthe tr i a l j udge c l e a r l y a bus e d hi s di s c r e t i on i n appr ovi ng orr e j e c t i ng3

a s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t.” ) ; Mur c his on v . G r and C y pr e s s H ot e l C or p. , 13 F . 3d 14 83 , 14 85 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( “ W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ' s dec i si on t o enforce a s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t w ith o u t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” ) . A l tho ug h t he di stri ctcourthas the autho ri ty t o sum m ar i l y e nforce a se tt l em entagre em entw i tho utan evi dent i ary hea ri ng , “ the di stri ctcourtm ay enforce on l y c om pl et e s ett l em entagre em ent s. ” Mur c his on , 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 4 8 6 .

“ S u m m ary en fo rcem en to f an al l eg ed sett l em en ti s i m p ro p er w h en th ere i s a subst ant i al fa ctual di sput e a s t o t he t erm s of the se tt l em ent . ” I d. T h e p art i es m u st b e a llo w e d a n e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g w h e n th e r e is a d is p u te a b o u t th e m a te r ia l f a c ts c o n c e r n in g th e e x is te n c e o rte r m s o f a s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t. I d. I n L on do no v. C ity o f G a in e s v ille , 76 8 F . 2d 12 23 , 12 29 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ), w e vac at ed a di stri ct c our t ’ s or de re nf

or c i ng a s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntthe de f e nda ntde ni e d a gr e e i ng t o, and w e r em anded t he ca se for a n evi dent i ary hea ri ng because, base d o n the re cord be f or e us , w e w e r e una bl e t o di s c e r n the t e r m s of the s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nta nd the fa ctual basi s f

or the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thatan enforce abl e c on tra ctw as f o r m e d . In thi s c as e, the re cord do es no tcont ai n the se tt l em entagre em ent , evi dence of the or a l s e tt l e m e ntdi s c us s i ons , ora n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng on the s e tt l e m e nt a g r e e m e n t , a n d th e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e th e t e r m s o f a n y s u c h a g r e e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , we4

c a nnota s c e r t a i n ourow n j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e , w i thoutthe t e r m s of the s e tt l e m e nt agre em ent , w e a re un abl e t o d et erm i ne w hether T avorn con se nt ed t o the di sm i ss al o r d e r . See W

h ite , 776 F . 2d a t977. M or e ove r , a s i n L ondono , w e c anno tre vi ew th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p a r e n t c o n c lu s io n a n e n f o r c e a b le a g r e e m e n twa s f

o r m e d . T h e r e f

o r e , e v e n i f

we c o u l d e s t a b l i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n , we c a nnotde t e r m i ne w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of the c a s e w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a t e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e rd i s m i s s i n g th e c a s e , a n d we r e m a nd thi s c a s e t o the di s tr i c tc our tt o hol d a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng t o de t e r m i ne th e e x is te n c e a n d te r m s o f th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.