Merrick v. Ramos

1 WO 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 v. Miguel Ramos, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On July 6, 2021, the parties stipulated to dismiss this action pursuant to a Settlement Agreement entered on May 24, 2021, by and between Plaintiff Merrick and the Defendants State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) employees Herman, Ramos, Ryan, and Shinn. The dismissal expressly incorporated the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including a provision authorizing Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Order (Doc. 67) at 1 (citing Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016)); (Settlement Agreement (Doc. 66-1) ¶ 18.) On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Re-open Merrick v. Ramos (Doc.68) because the Defendants have allegedly violated the Settlement Agreement.

25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s allegations that they are in violation of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including || 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.

SS QS Honorabje David C. But 13 United States District Judge -2-