N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R UFUS C ATC HINGS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SALLY JEW E LL, * i n he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Se c re ta ry of the Inte rior; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17116 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00625-THE
M EM O R ANDUM * *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia T he lton E. He nde rson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

b e r 23, 2014 *** B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. R ufus C at c hings a

ppe a ls pro se from

a m a g i strate judge ’ s orde r re quiring him to e xe c ute a

se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt in his Title VII a c tion a lle ging ra c ia l



# FIL ED OCT 7 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* Sa lly

Je we ll ha s be e n substitute d for he r pre de c e ssor, Ke n Sa la z ar, a s Se c re t ary of the Inte rior unde r Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2).

** This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc rim ination. W e dism iss thea ppe a l a nd va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s 2012 orde r. Pursua nt to a se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, the distric t c ourt e nte re d a fina l orde r dism issing the a c tion with pre judic e in 2011, a

nd did not re ta in jurisdic tion. The distric t c o urt, the re fore , la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion to issue a m a gistra te judge orde r e nforc ing these ttle m e nt in 2012. S e e Arizonans for Offic ial English v
. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 73 (1997) (this c ourt ha s a n obliga tion to inquire

into its subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion a nd tha t of the lowe r c ourt); K

ok k one n v . Guardian Life Ins. C o. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (c onc luding tha t the distric t c ourt la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r a m otion to en forc e se ttle m e nt following
e ntry of a stipula te d dismissa l with pre

judic e whe re the re wa s no provision in the
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt re ta i ning jurisdic tion, a nd the se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nt wa s not inc o rporate d into the orde r dism issing with pre judic e ). The notic e of a

ppe a l is untim e ly

a s to the distric t c ourt’ s 2011 orde r dism issing the c a se with pre judic e ba se d on thepa

rtie s’ se ttle m e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a )(1)(B )(iii) (“ The notic e of a ppe a l m ay

be file d by any

pa rty within 60 da

y s a fte r e ntry

of the judgm e nt or orde r a ppe a le d from

if one of the pa

rtie s is . . . a Unite d State s offic e r or e m

ploy e e sue d in a

n offic ia l c a

p a c ity [.] ” ); Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a )(7)(A)(ii) (whe re a se pa rate judgm e nt is re quire d but not ente re d, judgm e nt is de e m e d e nte re d 150 da

y s a fte r e ntry

of the fina l orde r that the pa rty se e k s to
1 2
- 1 7 1 1 6 2a

ppe a l); B row d

e r v . Dir., De

p ’t. of C orr. of Ill. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (tim e ly filing of a notic e of a

ppe a l in a c ivil c a se is m andatory

and jurisdic tiona l). Ac c ordingly , we dism iss thea ppe a l and va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s 2012 orde r. APPE A L DISM ISSE D; Distr ic t Cour t O r de r VACAT E D.

1 2
- 1 7 1 1 6 3