Prison Legal News v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:14-cv-02417
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, Case No.: 14-cv-2417-L-NLS

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 8 v. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR 9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., CONTEMPT 10 Defendants. [ECF No. 82] 11 12 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Pedro Rodriguez’s (“Petitioner”) motion to 13 intervene and petition for contempt. (ECF No. 82.) Defendants opposed, (ECF No. 86), 14 and Petitioner replied, (ECF No. 88). The Court decides the matter on the papers 15 submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated 16 below, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion. 17 1. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“Plaintiff”) filed the initial complaint in this matter on 19 October 9, 2014, alleging Defendants censored and failed to deliver Plaintiff’s 20 publications in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1.) 21 Following a settlement agreement, Plaintiff filed a joint motion for entry of judgment on 22 February 6, 2018. (ECF No. 79.) In the motion, the parties stipulated that the “action is 23 dismissed,” but agreed that the Magistrate Judge shall “retain jurisdiction over all 24 disputes between and among the parties arising out of the settlement agreement, 25 including but not limited to the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the 26 settlement agreement.” (ECF No. 79-1, at 2.) The Court granted the motion, dismissing 27 the case subject to the aforementioned jurisdiction retainer. (ECF No. 80.) 28 1 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a prisoner claiming that the San Diego Sheriff’s 2 Department stopped delivering his mail on September 1, 2022, in violation of the First 3 and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 82, at 2–3, 5.) Petitioner now moves to 4 intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 231 and requests that the Court 5 hold the San Diego Sheriff’s Department in contempt for violating the settlement 6 agreement. (Id. at 1, 3.) 7 2. DISCUSSION 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an 9 action by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties. “Once a stipulation of 10 dismissal has been filed, ‘the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims 11 and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to 12 them.’” Wells v. California Home Loan Sols., No. CIV07CV1040JAJB, 2007 WL 13 2915059, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2007) (quoting Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC v. 14 Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001)). However, the Court may maintain 15 jurisdiction over collateral matters. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 16 395 (1990). 17 The original parties’ filing of the stipulation of dismissal divested this Court of 18 jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion to intervene. Moreover, the jurisdiction 19 invested in the Magistrate Judge concerns a collateral matter. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 20 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (“[I]f the parties’ obligation to comply 21 with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal . 22 . . a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction 23 to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.”). The Court does not have the ability to 24

25 26 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 only applies to class actions, which the above-captioned case is not. Therefore intervention under Rule 23 is inappropriate. But even if the Court gives Petitioner the benefit 27 of liberal construction for pro se filings, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and considers Petitioner’s motion as one brought under the appropriate Rule, Petitioner’s motion still fails 28 1 || expand its jurisdiction beyond collateral matters. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction 2 || to rule on Petitioner’s motion, let alone grant it. See W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n 3 || v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the 4 underlying litigation is over, we cannot grant [the proposed intervenor] any ‘effective 5 relief’ by allowing it to intervene now.”). It follows that the Court also lacks jurisdiction 6 || to issue a contempt order on Petitioner’s behalf. 7 3. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to intervene and 9 || petition for contempt due to lack of jurisdiction. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 ||Dated: April 10, 2023 pee ep? 14 H . James Lorenz 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28