Opinion ID: 8416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against United States

Text: 21 Vander Zee also complains that the district court failed to address his request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States for violations of his constitutional rights brought about as the result of the Agreement and Addendum. We understand these claims to have been addressed by the district court's holding that actions pertaining to the settlement of litigation are within the exclusive discretion of the Department of Justice, and therefore fall within one of the exceptions to the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity for non-monetary claims against the United States found at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2). Without deciding the question of whether the settlement authority of the Department of Justice is so far reaching, we also conclude that Vander Zee's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly dismissed. However, we find this result to be dictated by different concerns. 22 Section 702 of the APA provides for judicial review of agency action, and waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking relief other than money damages. However, the federal courts are specifically excluded from the APA's definition of agency by Sec. 701(b)(1)(B). In the case at bar, the Agreement specifically provided that it would not become effective and binding until approved by order of the district court. 7 Therefore, Vander Zee seeks declaratory and injunctive relief not from an agency action, but instead seeks to collaterally attack the district court order approving the terms of the settlement. Should Vander Zee wish to challenge the district court's order approving the term of the settlement, the proper avenue would be to seek to intervene before the district court which has retained jurisdiction in order to enforce the terms of its order. 8 23 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 24 AFFIRMED.