Dickerson v. Ibrahim et al

Filing 104

ORDER effectuating enforcement of the settlement agreement. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 8/3/2016. (Hawley, Jonathan)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 03 August, 2016 03:36:11 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
DERRELL DICKERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:13-CV-04003-JEH

ROCK ISLAND POLICE OFFICER
IBRAHIM RAMIREZ, CITY OF
ROCK ISLAND, SHERIFF OF ROCK
ISLAND COUNTY and COUNTY
OF ROCK ISLAND,
Defendant.
Order
Before the Court is Defendant City of Rock Island’s and Officer Ibrahim
Ramirez’s (“City”) oral motion for relief related to enforcement of the settlement
agreement reached between the Plaintiff, Derrell Dickerson, and the Defendants.
The Court GRANT’s the Defendants’ motion.
I
On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint in which he
alleged that he was “unreasonably arrested” on February 17, 2011, injured by the
arresting officer’s “unreasonable force” used against him during the arrest, and
then placed in the Rock Island County Jail from February 18, 2011 to February 20,
2011. Dickerson alleged that Defendant Officer Ramirez used excessive force
when arresting him and that “[t]his misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the
[Defendant] City of Rock Island’s pervasive, long-standing, practices and
customs relating to its officers’ use of excessive and unreasonable force.” (D. 41 at
ECF p. 3). He also made three claims against the Sheriff of Rock Island County
1

(Sheriff) and the County of Rock Island (County) based upon the circumstances
of his detention at the jail: 1) a violation of the Rehabilitation Act (RA); 2) a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and 3) a violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 1
At the request of the parties, Magistrate Judge Stephen Jackson, Jr. held a
settlement conference with all parties on March 1, 2016. At the conclusion of that
settlement conference, the parties reported that the case was settled as to all
Defendants. The material terms of the settlement agreements were stated on the
record before Magistrate Judge Jackson and Dickerson stated on the record that
he understood the material terms of the agreement, that he agreed to be bound
be the terms of the agreement, and that he had discussed everything with his
attorney. 2
On March 28, 2016, Dickerson filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing
all claims against the Sherriff and the County, pursuant to the settlement
agreement. (D. 93). However, on May 26, 2016, Dickerson himself, i.e. not
through counsel, filed a Motion to Withdraw Settlement as it relates to Officer
Ibrahim and the City of Rock Island. (D. 96). Most of the motion is gibberish, but
Dickerson legibly asserted that he was “miss led[sic] in this case.” Id. Then, on
May 31, 2016, Dickerson filed a Motion to Remove Attorney from his case. (D.
97). In that motion, he again asserts that his attorney “misled me.” Id. He states
that he did not want to “take this plea,” that he owes Medicaid $27,000, and that
he will only receive $7,000 from the settlement. Id. Dickerson filed a second
Motion to Withdraw Attorney on June 15, 2016, which was also mostly gibberish,
although he did reassert that he was misled by his attorney. (D. 100).

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this case. (D. 67).
The facts surrounding the record made before Magistrate Judge Jackson come from the audio recording
made of the hearing, which is part of the record in this case.

1
2

2

This Court held a hearing on all pending motions, with Dickerson
personally present, on June 28, 2016. At that hearing, Dickerson made clear that
the basis for all his motions was the existence of a Medicaid lien which,
according to him, would reduce the amount of money he expected to receive
from the settlement. Dickerson’s counsel noted that at the settlement conference,
counsel and Dickerson had agreed upon how the settlement proceeds would be
divided between them. When the existence of the Medicaid lien became known,
Dickerson’s counsel began efforts to negotiate the amount of the lien down, or
away entirely, but those efforts were stopped when Dickerson sought to remove
his counsel.
This Court, in a written Order entered July 5, 2016, denied both
Dickerson’s motion to remove his counsel and his motion to withdraw from the
settlement. In doing so, the Court found that, based upon the record made by
Magistrate Judge Jackson, the settlement agreement between the Defendants and
Dickerson was valid and enforceable. The Court ordered the Defendants to
tender payment to Dickerson’s counsel within 30 days, pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement reached. Upon tendering such payment, the
Defendants would be released from any and all claims according to the terms
agreed upon in the settlement agreement. Additionally, upon tendering such
payment, the Defendants were directed to file a Notice with this Court informing
the Court that the Defendants had fully performed under the settlement
agreement, at which time this Court would dismiss the case with prejudice.
On August 2, 2016, the Defendants requested a status conference call
regarding its efforts to comply with this Court’s Order of July 5, 2016. This Court
held that status conference call, with counsel for the City and Ibrahim present,
along with counsel for Dickerson. At the hearing, the Defendants informed the
Court that Dickerson has refused, both personally and through his refusal to
3

cooperate with his counsel, to perform two actions necessary for the Defendants
to complete their performance.

Specifically, the Defendants argued that, in

breach of the settlement agreement, Dickerson has refused—despite repeated
attempts--to complete an IRS W-9 form which is required before the City can
issue a check to Dickerson. Secondly, as a condition of payment, Dickerson was
required by the agreement to provide proof of final payment to Medicare, said
agency having a lien in this case. Again, Dickerson has failed to provide such
proof.

Consequently, in order to allow the Defendants to complete their

performance under the agreement, they ask that this Court: 1) order Dickerson’s
counsel to verify Dickerson’s Social Security number so that it can complete the
paperwork necessary to issue Dickerson a check without the signed IRS W-9; and
2) allow the Defendants to make Medicare a payee on the check issued to
Dickerson, to address any potential liability of the Defendants for issuing a check
to Dickerson without proof that Medicare’s lien has been satisfied. 3
II
As noted, this Court has already held that a valid, enforceable settlement
agreement exists between the Defendants and Dickerson. This Court entered an
order enforcing that agreement. Where necessary to effectuate that order
enforcing the settlement agreement, this Court has the inherent power to fashion
an alternative remedy to the specific terms of the agreement, where such
alternative remedy is necessary to effectuate the terms of the settlement
agreement. See, e.g. Cook v. Village of Maywood, 1995 WL 124105 (N.D. Ill. March
20, 1995). In other words, Dickerson cannot defeat this Court’s order enforcing
the settlement agreeing by refusing to cooperate with his own counsel or the

3

The facts in this paragraph are taken from the audio recording of the August 2, 2016 hearing.

4

Defendants’ counsel to effectuate the terms of the enforceable settlement
agreement into which he entered.
Accordingly, to effectuate the enforcement of the settlement agreement
and allow the Defendants to complete their performance, the Court orders as
follows:
1. Dickerson’s counsel shall, on or before August 10, 2016, provide to
Defendants’ counsel verification of Dickerson’s Social Security number
so that the Defendants can complete the paperwork necessary to issue
Dickerson a check without his signed IRS W-9;
2. The Defendants shall make Medicare a payee on the check issued to
Dickerson, to address any potential liability of the Defendants for
issuing a check to Dickerson without proof that Medicare’s lien has
been satisfied; and
3. Upon completion of the Defendants’ performance under the terms of
the settlement agreement and the alternative relief fashioned herein to
effectuate that settlement agreement, the Defendants shall file a Notice
with this Court informing the Court that the Defendants have fully
performed.
Upon completion of the Defendants performance, this Court will dismiss the case
with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement.
It is so ordered.
Entered on August 3, 2016
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5