(PC) Blacher v. Johnson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No. 1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC) MARLON JESSIE BLACHER, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT v. 12 (ECF No. 189) 13 S . JOHNSON, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Marlon Blacher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 13, 2018, this case settled. 18 (ECF No. 150). On March 16, 2018, the case was closed. (ECF No. 153). Plaintiff later tried 19 to rescind the settlement agreement, or alternatively, to enforce it. The Court issued an order 20 denying Plaintiff’s motions on December 10, 2018. (ECF No. 168). Plaintiff filed motions for 21 reconsideration, which the Court denied on January 7, 2019 (ECF No. 174). Plaintiff appealed 22 (ECF No. 176). The appeal was dismissed as frivolous on September 23, 2019. (ECF No. 23 187). 24 On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as another motion to enforce 25 the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 189). Plaintiff asks that he be given the property he 26 previously refused on May 4, 2018. (ECF No. 189, p. 2; ECF No. 191-1, p. 5). This motion is 27 now before the Court. 28 The Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to rescind the settlement agreement, or 1 alternatively, to enforce it, on December 10, 2018, and denied his motion for reconsideration 2 on January 7, 2019. His appeal was dismissed as frivolous on September 23, 2019, and the 3 mandate issued on October 15, 2019. Now, approximately a year and a half later, Plaintiff asks 4 the Court to enforce the settlement agreement to obtain the property he previously refused. 5 On April 15, 2021, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 191). Defendant argues that the 6 Court does not have jurisdiction over this action. Defendant also argues that he “did not fail to 7 perform under the settlement agreement.” (Id. at 1). “According to the settlement agreement, 8 Defendant agreed to ‘issue’ Plaintiff a CD player, guitar, and fan, and ‘make good faith efforts 9 to secure an A/C power cord for the C.D. player.’ (ECF No. 189 at 7.) CDCR also agreed to 10 pay Plaintiff $7,500. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff received the monetary compensation associated with 11 this action on July 25, 2018. (Lee Decl., Ex. B.) And CDCR delivered the property required 12 under the settlement agreement to Plaintiff on May 4, 2018, but Plaintiff refused performance 13 of the injunctive relief terms; stating that he no longer wanted the items. (Lee Decl., Ex. A.) 14 Thus, Defendant has not breached the terms of the settlement as alleged by Plaintiff.” 15 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion because it does not have jurisdiction to enforce 16 the settlement agreement. “When a district court dismisses an action with prejudice pursuant 17 to a settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually ends. Ordinarily, a dispute arising under 18 a settlement agreement is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent basis for 19 jurisdiction.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and internal 20 quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has held that dismissal of a federal suit pursuant 21 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), as occurred in this case, divests the court of 22 jurisdiction over a state law breach of contract action. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 23 America, 511 U.S. 375, 380-82 (1994). Kokkonen further held that absent the Court 24 embodying the settlement agreement or retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement in 25 the dismissal order, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, absent “some 26 independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 381-82. 27 Here, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement or embody its 28 terms in the dismissal order (see ECF No. 153), and there does not appear to be any 1 || independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to 2 || enforce the settlement agreement in this action, and IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion 3 || (ECF No. 189) is DENIED.’ 4 As this case settled over three years ago, and as the Court does not have jurisdiction to 5 || enforce the settlement agreement, no further motions from Plaintiff will be entertained in this 6 || case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° |! Dated: _ April 30, 2021 [see heey □ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Without deciding the issue, the Court also notes that Defendant made the monetary payment in the 47 || settlement agreement and also appears to have delivered the CD player, guitar, and fan as required under the settlement agreement. However, Plaintiff refused to take the items. Thus, it does not appear that Defendant failed 2g || to comply with the settlement agreement.