FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 8 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD F. MARTINEZ, No. 13-15269
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05293-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. EVANS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald F. Martinez appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to invalidate the deduction of restitution from his
settlement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from a lockdown at his prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo the issue of whether the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1432-33 (9th Cir. 1995). We
vacate.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to decide Martinez’s “Motion Alleging
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Preempts Cal. P.C. 2085.5 Restitution Deduction from
Settlement Agreement,” which Martinez filed after the court ordered dismissal
with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See Arizonans for Official
English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 73 (1997) (this court has an obligation to inquire
into its jurisdiction and that of the lower court); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (concluding that the district court lacked
jurisdiction over a motion to enforce settlement following entry of a stipulated
dismissal with prejudice where there was no provision in the settlement agreement
retaining jurisdiction, and the settlement agreement was not incorporated into the
order dismissing with prejudice); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. The Boeing
Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a notice of voluntary
dismissal is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction
and cannot exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of
dismissal.”). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order.
We reject Martinez’s contentions that the district court had ancillary
2 13-15269
jurisdiction, and that it should have treated his preemption motion as a motion for
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) or (6).
Because Martinez states in his reply brief that he appeals from the denial of
his preemption motion only, we do not address the district court’s denial of his
other post-dismissal motions.
Because we vacate based on the district court’s lack of jurisdiction, we do
not address Martinez’s arguments concerning the merits of his preemption motion
or his request for inquiry into any payment of restitution made to his victim’s
mother.
Martinez’s motion for judicial notice, filed on January 8, 2014, is denied as
unnecessary.
VACATED.
3 13-15269