Peters v. Davis ( 2021 )

Case: 20-40180 Document: 00516001669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 20-40180 FILED
September 2, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Michael Geoffrey Peters,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Lorie Davis,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:17-CV-595
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Geoffrey Peters, Texas prisoner # 2019190, brought this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against officials and employees of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), including Lorie Davis, its director.
He alleged that the defendants violated his federal rights by interfering with
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40180 Document: 00516001669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
No. 20-40180
his religious freedom as a Jew, in violation of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), by
ignoring his requests for kosher meals and relocation to a prison unit with a
kosher kitchen; violating his right to equal protection by preventing him from
taking trade school classes; tampering with and misappropriating his legal
and media mail and thus violating his right of access to the courts;
misappropriating $18.79 from his inmate trust fund; and neglecting his back
pain and other medical issues. The district court screened the case under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed all claims other than the RLUIPA claims
against Davis and two other defendants. Later, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of those two other defendants, dismissing the
complaint against them without prejudice. Also, the district court granted
Davis summary judgment on any individual capacity claim against her and
any claim for monetary relief but otherwise denied her summary judgment.
The district court thereafter appointed two attorneys to represent
Peters in pursuing his RLUIPA claims at trial but not in pursuing the already
dismissed parts of the lawsuit or his claims on appeal. In a status conference
some months later, the parties advised the court that a settlement had been
reached. Davis filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the action in its entirety
with prejudice and also filed a release by Peters of all claims against all
defendants arising by reason of the occurrences set forth in the suit.
Additionally, she filed a compromise and settlement agreement executed by
Peters that used wording substantially similar to the release’s and in which
Peters agreed to dismiss all legal proceedings against not only Davis but the
TDCJ and any official or employee thereof in connection with all matters
forming the basis of the suit. After the unopposed motion and the settlement
papers were filed, the district court entered an order dismissing the suit with
prejudice and terminating the appointment of Peters’s attorneys and entered
a separate document final judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice.
2
Case: 20-40180 Document: 00516001669 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
No. 20-40180
Peters filed a timely notice of appeal (NOA) that encompassed all claims
other than the RLUIPA claims. See C. A. May Marine Supply Co. v. Brunswick
Corp., 649 F.2d 1049, 1056 (5th Cir. 1981).
Months later, Peters moved in the district court to enforce the
settlement agreement, alleging that prison officials had breached it. Citing
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 381-82 (1994)),
the district court denied the motion because its dismissal order and final
judgment did not incorporate the parties’ dismissal agreement or explicitly
retain jurisdiction. Peters filed another NOA.
We conclude that the record unequivocally establishes that the parties
filed a stipulation of dismissal of all claims. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Conkling v. Turner, 138 F.3d 577, 592 (5th Cir. 1998);
Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., Inc. v. Mont Boat Rental Serv., 799 F.2d 213, 218
(5th Cir. 1986). The district court’s dismissal order and final judgment were
therefore “of no consequence.” Meinecke v. H & R Block of Houston, 66 F.3d
77, 82 (5th Cir. 1995); see Ramming v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 390 F.3d
366, 369 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Peters does not show why the
stipulated dismissal of all claims other than the RLUIPA claim should not
stand, he has abandoned any challenge to it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
To the extent that Peters filed the second NOA to appeal the
stipulated dismissal of his RLUIPA claims, that NOA is untimely; thus, we
lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago,
138 S. Ct. 13, 20 (2017). And to the extent that Peters attempts to appeal the
dismissal of his motion to enforce, we affirm on the alternative basis that the
district court lacked jurisdiction because the stipulation of dismissal
3
Case: 20-40180 Document: 00516001669 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
No. 20-40180
contained no provision permitting that court to enforce the settlement
agreement. See Nat’l City Golf Fin., a Div. of Nat’l City Com. Cap. Co.,
L.L.C. v. Scott, 899 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2018); SmallBizPros, Inc. v.
MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 461-64 (5th Cir. 2010); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d
504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION; MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL DENIED; MOTIONS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF GRANTED;
MOTION TO EXPAND SCOPE OF THE APPEAL DENIED;
MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE DENIED.
4