Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

D. Colorado

Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

DecidedApril 10, 2020

Docket1:12-cv-01570

StatusUnknown

This text of Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (D. Colo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01570-CMA-MEH

HAROLD CUNNINGHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER MOTION

This matter is before the Court on Michael Bacote, Jr.’s Motion for Order Confirming [that he] Appropriately Exercised his Right Not to Be Bound by Settlement Agreement. (Doc. # 455.) For the following reasons, the Motion is stricken. I. ANALYSIS This case involves a class action that was resolved by a settlement agreement. After the Court accepted the agreement, this case was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court entered final judgment on January 17, 2017. (Doc. ## 398, 399.) Nearly three years later, Mr. Bacote filed the instant Motion in which he requests “that this Court affirm that he has exercised his statutory right not to be bound by the settlement agreement . . . .” (Doc. # 455 at 1.) “It is fundamental that federal courts do not render advisory opinions and that they are limited to deciding issues in actual cases and controversies.” Alexander v. Mullarkey, 340 F. App'x 455, 457 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Burlington N. R.R., 200 F.3d 679, 699 (10th Cir. 1999)). In fact, “[t]he rule against advisory Opinions is ‘the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 925 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968)). Because the Court entered a final judgment that resolved this dispute years ago, there is no case or controversy currently pending. Therefore, the relief Mr. Bacote is seeking would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. ll. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Mr. Bacote’s Motion for Order Confirming [that he] Appropriately Exercised his Right Not to Be Bound by Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 455) is STRICKEN.

DATED: April 10, 2020 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01570-CMA-MEH

HAROLD CUNNINGHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER MOTION

This matter is before the Court on Michael Bacote, Jr.’s Motion for Order Confirming [that he] Appropriately Exercised his Right Not to Be Bound by Settlement Agreement. (Doc. # 455.) For the following reasons, the Motion is stricken. I. ANALYSIS This case involves a class action that was resolved by a settlement agreement. After the Court accepted the agreement, this case was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court entered final judgment on January 17, 2017. (Doc. ## 398, 399.) Nearly three years later, Mr. Bacote filed the instant Motion in which he requests “that this Court affirm that he has exercised his statutory right not to be bound by the settlement agreement . . . .” (Doc. # 455 at 1.) “It is fundamental that federal courts do not render advisory opinions and that they are limited to deciding issues in actual cases and controversies.” Alexander v. Mullarkey, 340 F. App'x 455, 457 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Burlington N. R.R., 200 F.3d 679, 699 (10th Cir. 1999)). In fact, “[t]he rule against advisory Opinions is ‘the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 925 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968)). Because the Court entered a final judgment that resolved this dispute years ago, there is no case or controversy currently pending. Therefore, the relief Mr. Bacote is seeking would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. ll. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Mr. Bacote’s Motion for Order Confirming [that he] Appropriately Exercised his Right Not to Be Bound by Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 455) is STRICKEN.

DATED: April 10, 2020 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons-cod-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack