Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON JAQUAY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN LEPE

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS

REGARDING SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

(ECF No. 49)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The action, now closed, concerned Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Lepe. (ECF Nos. 15 & 16.)

On January 28, 2015, counsel for Defendant Lepe filed a stipulation for dismissal 

of the action with prejudice, signed by Plaintiff and defense counsel. (ECF No. 47.) On 

February 2, 2015, the stipulation was approved, the action was dismissed with prejudice, 

and the case was closed. (ECF No. 48.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 10, 2015 declaration containing various 

requests to the Court. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff asks that the Court file the written 

settlement agreement. He seeks dated signatures approving the settlement from the 

undersigned and from Dennis Wong, Regional Counsel apparently involved in paying a 

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 50 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

settlement to Plaintiff. Finally, he asks that the settlement funds agreed upon be paid 

within thirty days. 

This action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ signed 

stipulation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). To the extent Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the 

settlement agreement, the Court lack jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). The stipulation does not contain any provisions regarding the 

Court’s retention of jurisdiction, and neither “Rule [41(a)(1)(A)(ii) nor any provision of law 

provides for jurisdiction of the court over disputes arising out of an agreement that 

produces a stipulation.” Id. at 378. Any enforcement of the settlement agreement is a 

matter for state court. Id. at 382.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests are HEREBY DENIED and this case remains 

CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 50 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 2