United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
TERRY J. COLLEY
DR. DANDAN, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a “Motion for Court to Dismiss Joint
Stipulation of Dismissal” (Doc. 26) and a “Motion
to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal” (Doc. 27) filed by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges his case was only partially
settled and, therefore, should not have been dismissed in its
entirety. Those motions should be denied.
Terry J. Colley, an inmate confined by the Bureau of Prisons,
filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971),  and the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA"),  28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. The
named Defendants are Dr. Dandan, Zita Guerrero, Willie
Vasquez, L. Parker, M. Lofstrom, Charles T. Texada, Heather
Falgout, and the United States of America. Colley alleges
that, while he was confined in the United States Penitentiary
in Pollock, Louisiana (“USP-Pollock”), medical
care for his torn Achilles was delayed seven months, and he
was denied appropriate post-operative case at the prison.
was notified by a letter dated May 3, 2017, from BOP Regional
Counsel Jason A. Sickler, that his FTCA claim was
“considered for administrative settlement under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2672, et
seq.” (Doc. 27-1).
and Sickler reached a settlement and executed a settlement
agreement entitled “Stipulation for Compromise
Settlement and Release of Federal Tort Claims Act Claims
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2672” (Doc. 27-1). Section
4 of the Settlement Agreement states: “This settlement
is entered into by all parties for the purpose of
compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims
Act” (Doc. 27-1). The Agreement states in Section 2
that the sum paid would be in full settlement of all claims
against “the United States of America, its agents,
servants, and employees” (Doc. 27-1, § 2). In
Section 4, the agreement states: “This settlement is
entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising
disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
(Doc. 27-2, § 4). The agreement was signed by Plaintiff
and “Jason Stickler, Attorney for United States of
America” (Doc. 27-1).
“Joint Stipulation of Dismissal” (Doc. 24),
signed by Plaintiff Colley and Assistant United States
Attorney Frederick, asked the Court to dismiss the case on
behalf of Colley, the United States of America, Dandan,
Guerrero, Vasquez, Parker, Lofstrom, Texada, and Falgout,
because the case had been settled. A Judgment of Dismissal
was signed by the District Judge (Doc. 25).
filed a Motion for Court to Dismiss Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal (Doc. 26) and a Motion to Vacate Judgment of
Dismissal (Doc. 27). Defendants oppose those motions (Doc.
Law and Analysis
asks the Court to reinstate his case, arguing the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because he
had not exhausted his administrative remedies for his federal
tort claim, and because the federal agency improperly
exercised “jurisdiction” over the case (Docs. 26,
27). Colley contends the government attorney committed a
fraud upon the Court because Colley was offered a settlement,
unbeknownst to the Court, after he had submitted his case to
the jurisdiction of the Court. Colley also alleges the
attorneys did not have the authority to settle claims on
behalf of the United States. Colley points out that he did
not discuss a settlement with AUSA Frederick, who represented
the Bivens claim Defendants.
appears to bring his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. rule
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order,
or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court
may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or ...