Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-02772/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-02772-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of the State of California

DAVID S. CHANEY

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

THOMAS S. PATTERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

TRACE O. MAIORINO, State Bar No. 179749

Deputy Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5975

Fax: (415) 703-5843

Email: Trace.Maiorino@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Melching, Woodford,

Gomez, Brau, Lawson, Holmstrom, Lipkowitz,

Calderon, Wooten, Dixon, Lindsey, Bard, Nelson,

Reese, Campbell, Carl, N. Burke, and R. Sanchez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15

20

16

17

18

19

MARCELINO RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

C 95-2772 MJJ

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The parties have reached a resolution in this action and agree to the following:

A. Decedent Marcelino Ramos (Decedent) filed two separate complaints in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California against Defendants

Melching, Woodford, Gomez, Brau, Lawson, Holmstrom, Lipkowitz, Calderon,

Wooten, Dixon, Lindsey, Bard, Nelson, Reese, Campbell, Carl, N. Burke, and R.

Sanchez (Defendants) all of whom are California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR) employees, or former employees. First, on August 1, 1995,

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Dismissal Marcelino Ramos v. James Gomez, et al.

C 95-2772 MJJ

1

Case 3:95-cv-02772-MJJ Document 105 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Decedent filed a Complaint in action no. 95-2772. On December 27, 1995, he filed a

First Amended Complaint in action no. 95-2772. Next, on December 6, 1995,

Decedent filed a Complaint in action no. 95-4347. On July 20, 2000, the Court

consolidated action nos. 95-2772 and 95-4347, and designated action no. 95-2772 as

the action number for the consolidated matter. (Ct. Docket No. 36.) Finally, Decedent

filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 16, 2005 in action no. 95-2772. (Ct.

Docket No. 66.)

B. In his Second Amended Complaint, Decedent alleged that he had been deprived of the

protections afforded him under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution from 1993 to 2005 while incarcerated at California State

Prison at San Quentin (San Quentin). Decedent alleged that he was wrongfully

assigned to San Quentin's Condemned Inmate Grade B Status without a legitimate

penological goal by Defendants. Additionally, Decedent alleged that his equal

protection rights were violated and that he was discriminated against because of his

race. Decedent also alleged that Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his

rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Decedent further

alleged that Defendants violated his rights under the California Code of Regulations

title 15, Sections 3336-3339, California Penal Code Sections 2600, 2601(b), 2601(d),

2079, and 5052, and California Government Code Section 844.6(d). Defendants

expressly deny any and all liability.

C. The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on December 18, 2006, advising the Court that

the parties had reached a full and final settlement of this action. (Ct. Docket No. 102.)

Decedent died on January 22, 2007. A Suggestion of Death was filed on January 25,

2007. (Ct. Docket No. 103.)

///

///

///

///

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Dismissal Marcelino Ramos v. James Gomez, at al.

C 95-2772 MJJ

2

Case 3:95-cv-02772-MJJ Document 105 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 5
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

D. The parties seek to fully resolve all matters that were or could have been asserted in

this action. Therefore, they now enter into this stipulation in order to fully settle and

discharge all claims that are, or might have been, the subject matter of the action, upon

the terms and conditions set forth below.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION,

THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Decedent agreed to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the above-captioned

action under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. In consideration for a release of all claims and a stipulation of dismissal in this action,

the CDCR, on behalf of Defendants, agrees to pay Decedent five-hundred dollars and

no cents ($500.00).

3. At the time that attorneys for Decedent sign this stipulation, a signed Payee Data

Record form shall also be returned to the attorneys for Defendants. Upon receipt of the

executed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal and Payee Data Record Form, CDCR will

have up to ninety days to issue the settlement payment check

4. At the time of settlement, Decedent expressly waived and assumed the risk of any and

all claims for damages that existed as of the date of the settlement, but that he did not

know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or

otherwise, and which, if known, would materially affect his decision to enter into this

settlement agreement. Decedent had read the contents of section 1542 of the Civil

Code of the State of California, or they were read to him, and expressly waived the

benefits of this section. Section 1542 reads as follows: "A general release does not

extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her

favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have

materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor."

///

/I/

///

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Dismissal Marcelino Ramos v. James Gomez, et al.

C 95-2772 MJJ

3

Case 3:95-cv-02772-MJJ Document 105 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 5
P

1 5.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 6.

9

10

11

12

13 7.

14

.15 8.

16 ///

17 ///

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

In consideration of the obligations set forth in Paragraph 2, Decedent had completely

released and forever discharged Defendants, all served and unserved defendants,

CDCR, San Quentin, and any unnamed defendants, from any and all claims that are the

subject of the action as alleged in Decedent's Complaint, as identified in Paragraph A,

that are based on, related to, or derived from the alleged acts or omissions of

Defendants, CDCR, or San Quentin as alleged in Decedent's complaints filed in this

action.

Under California Penal Code Section 2085.5, all outstanding restitution orders and

fines must first be paid directly from this settlement. The restitution fines and fees, if

any, shall be deducted from the settlement proceeds, and the remainder of the

settlement amount will be issued by check payable to Decedent or to his estate. At this

time, neither party is aware of any restitution or other fees owed.

This agreement does not constitute an admission of liability or any wrongdoing on

behalf of any party.

Each party shall bear his own attorneys' fees and costs.

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Dismissal Marcelino Ramos v. James Gomez, et al.

C 95-2772 MJJ

Case 3:95-cv-02772-MJJ Document 105 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 5
11/01/2007 14:42 FAX Z 002/002

4

ti

9. This stipulation shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties arising from

the allegations alleged in this action, and it is expressly understood and agreed that this

stipulation has been freely and voluntarily entered into by all parties. It may not be

altered, amended, modified, or otherwise changed in any respect except by writing duly

executed by the parties to this agreement.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10

Date: 1. _ 1 ZBy:

Lucas T . Hwzar

Attorneys for Decede ) arcelino Ramos

PARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP

Icy

17

IS

1')

20

2l

22

Attorney General's Office Date:/(//(o

%I/'if i// y

Trace ^'. Mai nno

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants Melchittg,

Woodford, Gomez, Brau, Lawson,

Holmstrom, Lipkowitz, Calderon,

Wooten, Dixon, Lindsey, Bard, Nelson,

Reese, 'Campbell, Carl, N. Burke, and R.

Sanchez

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case against Defendants shall be dismissed with

prejudice.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2,t

25

2rj

Dated:

THE HONORABLE MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Court Judge

27

23

Sap. & [Prop.] Order Dismissal Marcetino Ramos v. James Gome et al.

C 95-2772 MJJ

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Martin J. Jenkins

11/06/07

Case 3:95-cv-02772-MJJ Document 105 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 5