Merrick v. Ramos

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 3, 2022
• Docket: 4:19-cv-00474-DCB
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 JD Merrick, No. CV-19-00474-TUC-DCB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Miguel Ramos, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On July 6, 2021, the parties stipulated to dismiss this action pursuant to a Settlement 16 Agreement entered on May 24, 2021, by and between Plaintiff Merrick and the Defendants 17 State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) employees Herman, 18 Ramos, Ryan, and Shinn. The dismissal expressly incorporated the terms of the Settlement 19 Agreement, including a provision authorizing Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald to 20 retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Order (Doc. 67) at 1 21 (citing Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016)); (Settlement Agreement 22 (Doc. 66-1) ¶ 18.) On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Re-open Merrick v. 23 Ramos (Doc.68) because the Defendants have allegedly violated the Settlement 24 Agreement. 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s allegations that 27 they are in violation of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including 28 1 || his request to compel compliance, for reimbursement of legal costs related to this motion, || and for sanctions. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Response shall address whether the Court 4|| shall refer the matter of non-compliance to Magistrate Judge Macdonald, pursuant to the || Settlement Agreement 418. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 21 days of the filing date of this Order, the Defendants shall file the Response. The Plaintiff shall have 14 days to file a Reply. 8 Dated this 30th day of September, 2022. 9 SS QS Honorabje David C. But 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-