United States District Court, D. Nevada
GEORGE A. TOLIVER, Plaintiffs,
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
before the court is pro se plaintiff George
Toliver's motion to reopen case. (ECF No. 25). Defendant
Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) filed a
response. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff has not replied, and the
time for doing so has since passed.
before the court is plaintiff's “motion for ruling
on appeal from State Court.” (ECF No. 26). Defendants
have not filed a response, and the time to do so has since
February 22, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against defendant. (ECF No. 8). On July 6, 2016, this court
entered an order granting the parties' stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice based upon a settlement,
the case was terminated. (ECF No. 20.)
settlement agreement entered into between the parties
contains a “Future Jurisdiction for Enforcement
In the event that either party feels that the opposing party
is not living up to their end of the bargains contained
herein and wishes to institute an enforcement action, such an
action must be filed in the Nevada state district court as a
contract action, in the venue where the inmate is currently
housed. Both parties understand that this provision acts as a
forum selection clause, and that Nevada rules of contract
will apply to the enforcement action. Where state law is to
be applied, this Agreement, or the relevant portions thereof,
shall be construed, interpreted, and enforced in accordance
with the laws, rules of procedure, and/or common law of the
State of Nevada.
No. 28-2 at 3).
instant action, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to
honor the terms of the settlement, and seeks reinstatement of
his prior lawsuit on the basis of contractual repudiation.
(ECF No. 25 at 2).
motions request (1) that this court re-open plaintiff's
case against, among others, the Nevada Department of
Corrections; and (2) that this court exercise appellate
review over an adverse state court judgment. The court will
address these requests in turn.
Motion to re-open
a district court dismisses an action with prejudice pursuant
to a settlement agreement, federal jurisdiction usually
ends.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094
(9th Cir. 2016). Here, the parties negotiated within their
agreement to adjudicate future enforcement actions in state
district court. (ECF No. 28-2 at 3). Therefore, this court is
not the proper forum for bringing an enforcement
action. See Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1094.
Plaintiff's motion to re-open the case will be denied.
Motion to review a state court judgment
federal district court ordinarily does not possess appellate
jurisdiction over a state district court's judgments. As
the Ninth Circuit explained in Carmona v. Carmona,
603 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir 2010), “de facto” appeals
of state court judgments are prohibited by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 1050.
“A suit brought in federal district court is a
‘de facto appeal' forbidden by
Rooker-Feldman when ‘a federal plaintiff
asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a