Larry Joe Prince v. TERRY L. STEWART, Director, sued in his official & individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY JOE PRINCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TERRY L. STEWART, Director, sued in his
official & individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SAMUEL SUBLETT; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-15618
D.C. No. 2:00-cv-01084-SRB-JRI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15618
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.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --