1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Derek Tate, No. 2:18-cv-00822-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J. Anders, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The parties reached an agreement to settle plaintiff Derek Tate’s claims, and the case was 18 | dismissed by the parties’ stipulation. See Stip., ECF No. 108; Clerk’s Not. Dismissal, ECF No. 19 | 109. In 2024, Tate moved to “re-open” the settlement proceedings based on his argument that the 20 | California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had wrongly deducted fees and 21 | restitution payments from his inmate trust account. ECF No. 110. This court did not retain 22 | jurisdiction over the enforcement of the settlement agreement, and the parties identify no basis for 23 | this court to assert jurisdiction over their current dispute. The motion at ECF No. 110 is therefore 24 | denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 25 |

(1994) (“[E]nforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless 26 | there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”). 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 DATED: February 26, 2025.