Abre Jackson v. Aaron J. Campbell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 2, 2023*
Decided November 7, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2576
ABRE JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AARON J. CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 19-cv-1148-RJD
Reona J. Daly,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Abre Jackson, who received payment in exchange for settling his Eighth
Amendment claims against correctional officer Aaron Campbell, appeals the dismissal
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2576 Page 2
of his suit. Because Jackson never offered to return his settlement payment and provides
no argument as to why the settlement agreement is invalid, we affirm.
Jackson, an Illinois prisoner, sued Campbell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
he and other officers strip-searched him, repeatedly sprayed him with a chemical
irritant, and moved him to a filthy cell. The magistrate judge (presiding by consent for
all purposes, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)) determined that Jackson could proceed on his claims
for excessive force and failure to intervene.
Nearly two years later, before setting a trial date, the magistrate judge ordered
Jackson to serve Campbell with a settlement demand and then held a settlement
conference. According to the transcript of the post-conference proceedings, Jackson
agreed to receive $2,000 in exchange for settling all claims against Campbell. The
magistrate judge gave the parties time to execute the settlement documents, which
included a general release, and then directed the case to be dismissed with prejudice
because “all claims have been settled.”
Jackson filed both a notice of appeal and a timely motion to vacate the judgment.
In his motion, Jackson protested that Campbell had not paid him and objected to the
release of claims against officers other than Campbell. The magistrate judge denied his
motion months later after concluding that Jackson had not identified any grounds for
relief other than the non-payment, which appeared to have been resolved by then.
(Campbell’s response to the motion explained that, a few days after Jackson filed his
motion, the settlement papers were forwarded to the Illinois Department of Central
Management Services so that payment could be disbursed.)
Jackson appeals, asking us to vacate the dismissal of his lawsuit or to award him
damages and injunctive relief for the violation of his constitutional rights. The latter
request is a non-starter because our appellate jurisdiction extends only to reviewing the
decisions on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (jurisdiction to review final decisions of district
courts); Wegbreit v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 21 F.4th 959, 963 (7th Cir. 2021) (appeals
are for evaluating “reasoning and result reached by” district courts (citation omitted)).
With respect to reinstating his case, Jackson provides no grounds for vacating the
dismissal of his suit pursuant to the settlement agreement, though we glean from his
district-court filings that he believes the release is too expansive and the settlement
proceedings were unfair. We review the decision to enforce a settlement agreement for
abuse of discretion. Beverly v. Abbott Lab’ys, 817 F.3d 328, 332 (7th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2576 Page 3
But first we must address Campbell’s argument that this case is now “moot”
because Jackson received his settlement payment in November 2022, after Jackson
appealed. Jackson’s receipt of payment, in Campbell’s view, dispenses with any live
controversy because Jackson obtained relief. Documents in the record indeed reflect
that the state comptroller issued payment on November 1, 2022, and it arrived in
Jackson’s prison trust account. This does not moot the case, however, because it is not
“impossible” for this court to provide Jackson with the relief he requests. See Knox v.
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012); Matter of Mem'l Hosp. of Iowa
Cnty., Inc., 862 F.2d 1299, 1301–03 (7th Cir. 1988) (“[A] settled case is not moot.”). If
appropriate, we could order the district court to vacate the settlement.
Still, the payment of the settlement has consequences for the appeal. Before a
court will consider unwinding a settlement agreement, the plaintiff must first return or
offer to return the consideration he received for settling his claims. See Hampton v. Ford
Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 717 (7th Cir. 2009). Jackson does not dispute that he accepted
the money, and Campbell’s brief makes clear that Jackson has neither returned nor
offered to return it. Jackson’s continued possession of the settlement money is sufficient
grounds for affirming. Id. Further, Jackson’s appellate brief does not mention the
settlement agreement or develop any argument for vacating it, so he has forfeited any
argument for reversal. F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8); Hackett v. City of S. Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 510
(7th Cir. 2020); Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --