Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01141-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ONTRIEL JONES a/k/a ONTRIEL 

HORNBECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; SCOTT R. JONES; 

GUSTAVUS B. YOUNGBERG,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-01141-TLN-CKD

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE

On October 8, 2014, the parties noticed the Court that they have reached a settlement in 

this case. (See Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 71: “[the parties] hereby respectfully notify the 

court that this entire case has been settled”). 

On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, in which Defendants represent: 1) 

the settlement agreement states that after signature by Plaintiff and payment of settlement funds, 

Plaintiff would dismiss with prejudice the complaint;1and 2) Plaintiff’s counsel’s paralegal has 

picked up the settlement check for Plaintiff from Defense counsel’s law firm and provided written 

acknowledgement of that fact. Defendants attach a copy of the signed acknowledgment. (See 

Def.’s Mot. to Dism., ECF No. 74-1 at 2; Cronin-Prather Decl., ECF No. 74-2 at 4.) Defendants 

 

1 The most recent First Amended Complaint was filed on August 25, 2014. (ECF No. 69.)

Case 2:12-cv-01141-TLN-CKD Document 81 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

submit that they have been unable to reach Plaintiff’s counsel by phone or email in order to obtain 

a signed stipulation for dismissal. (ECF No. 74-1 at 2.)

Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2015, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to respond. (ECF 

No. 77.) Counsel did not respond to that order, and on September 11, 2015, the Court imposed 

monetary sanctions. (ECF No. 78.) The Court has received no further communication from 

Plaintiff or his counsel regarding this matter. 

Good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss any claims 

that remain in this matter. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall 

close the case.

Dated: March 24, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-01141-TLN-CKD Document 81 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 2