Skip to main content

PRINCE v. Samuel Sublett; et al., Defendants. (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Larry Joe PRINCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Director, sued in his official & individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Samuel Sublett; et al., Defendants.

No. 19-15618

Decided: January 27, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Holly R. Gieszl, Esquire, Attorney, The Gieszl firm, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees


Larry Joe Prince, an Arizona state prisoner housed in Illinois, appeals from the district court's order denying for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his post-judgment motion to enforce a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Prince's motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the court had previously dismissed the action with prejudice and did not expressly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement in its order. See Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (“If a district court wishes to retain jurisdiction to later enforce the terms of a settlement agreement, the order dismissing a case with prejudice must incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement or expressly retain jurisdiction.”).

All pending motions are denied.


Copied to clipboard