United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 9, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30313
Summary Calendar
JOHN POULLARD,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. TURNER, Captain; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JOSEPH M. TURNER, Captain; LONNIE EDMONDS, Lieutenant;
MICHAEL LEVATINO, Lieutenant; DON THAMES; Sergeant,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-777-D
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Poullard, Louisiana prisoner # 98999, appeals the
denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion. The appellees have
moved for FED. R. CIV. P. 38 sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
Poullard argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction
to enforce the settlement agreement reached between the parties,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30313
-2-
because it had already entered judgment dismissing the case
with prejudice. We reject this argument because Poullard did not
move the district court to enforce the settlement agreement, his
postjudgment motion moved to reopen the litigation to litigate
the punitive damages issue he contended was not encompassed by
the terms of the settlement. Cf. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) (“enforcement of a
settlement agreement, . . . is more than just a continuation of
the renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own
basis for jurisdiction”). We further hold that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the case
to litigate the punitive damages issue; the settlement agreement
is not ambiguous insofar as it purports to settle “any and all
claims.” See Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.,
204 F.3d 222, 230 (5th Cir. 2000) (unambiguous settlement
agreement reviewed de novo). Furthermore, the district court
found that Poullard was informed by the court during the
settlement conference that he was releasing both compensatory
and punitive damages claims.
The appellees motion for Rule 38 sanctions is denied.
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS MOTION DENIED.