Rufus Catchings v. Ken Salazar , 585 F. App'x 363 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUFUS CATCHINGS, No. 12-17116
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00625-THE
v.
MEMORANDUM**
SALLY JEWELL,* in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Interior; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014***
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rufus Catchings appeals pro se from a magistrate judge’s order requiring
him to execute a settlement agreement in his Title VII action alleging racial
*
Sally Jewell has been substituted for her predecessor, Ken Salazar, as
Secretary of the Interior under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discrimination. We dismiss the appeal and vacate the district court’s 2012 order.
Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the district court entered a final order
dismissing the action with prejudice in 2011, and did not retain jurisdiction. The
district court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a magistrate
judge order enforcing the settlement in 2012. See Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 73 (1997) (this court has an obligation to inquire into its
subject matter jurisdiction and that of the lower court); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (concluding that the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to enforce settlement following
entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice where there was no provision in the
settlement agreement retaining jurisdiction, and the settlement agreement was not
incorporated into the order dismissing with prejudice).
The notice of appeal is untimely as to the district court’s 2011 order
dismissing the case with prejudice based on the parties’ settlement. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(B)(iii) (“The notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days
after entry of the judgment or order appealed from if one of the parties is . . . a
United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity[.]”); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(7)(A)(ii) (where a separate judgment is required but not entered, judgment is
deemed entered 150 days after entry of the final order that the party seeks to
2 12-17116
appeal); Browder v. Dir., Dep’t. of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is mandatory and jurisdictional).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and vacate the district court’s 2012
order.
APPEAL DISMISSED; District Court Order VACATED.
3 12-17116