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

WO SKC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Patricia Schmidt, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 18-01189-PHX-MTL (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, who is currently confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Florence, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 60), and Plaintiff opposes the 

Motion. (Doc. 62.)1 Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Injunction Due to Safety and in 

Suicide Cell” (Doc. 64), which the Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

The Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss, dismiss this action with prejudice, and 

deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

On screening of Plaintiff’s two-count Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 

the Court determined that Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim in 

Count Two against Defendant former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director 

1 Plaintiff titled her Response “Motion for Rule 60 Relief Opposed to Dismissal,”

and the Clerk of Court docketed it as both a Rule 60 Motion for Relief and a Response. 

(Doc. 62.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she does not identify any judgment or order in this 

action as to which she seeks relief, and the Motion will be summarily denied.

Case 2:17-cv-03941-MTL-MHB Document 83 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Charles Ryan and directed Ryan to answer the claim. (Doc. 18.) The Court dismissed the 

remaining claims and defendants. (Id.) The Court subsequently substituted current ADC 

Director David Shinn for Ryan in his official capacity, but Ryan remains a Defendant in 

his individual capacity.

II. Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Ryan moves to dismiss this action with prejudice based on the August 9, 

2019 Settlement Agreement and Release (“the Settlement Agreement”) the parties 

executed in separate action Valenzuela v. Mooney, CV 18-00555-PHX-MTL (MHB). 

(Doc. 60 at 1.) In the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to the dismissal of ADC 

Defendants with prejudice in that action and three other then-pending actions, including 

this one. (See Doc. 60, Attach. A.) The Court previously stayed all three actions until 

several post-judgment motions Plaintiff had filed in Valenzuela v. Mooney, including a 

motion that the Court construed as a Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen, were resolved. (See

Doc. 63.) The Court subsequently denied all of Plaintiff’s post-judgment motions in

Valenzuela v. Mooney, ordered that action to remain closed, lifted the stay in this and the 

other two remaining actions against ADC Defendants, and directed the Clerk of Court to 

file that Order in each of these actions. (See Doc. 65.)2

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that her signature 

on the Settlement Agreement was forged and defense counsel failed to make Court-ordered 

changes to that agreement. (Doc. 62.) The Court already addressed these and other similar 

arguments in Valenzuela v. Mooney and finds they are not a basis to deny Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss. In brief, the Court held a hearing in Valenzuela v. Mooney on August 

9, 2019, at which the parties agreed on the record to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

2 The other two actions are Valenzuela v. Rogers, CV 18-00211-PHX- MTL (MHB),

in which the Court has since granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the 

merits and denied as moot ADC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on the Settlement 

Agreement (Doc. 114), and Valenzuela v. Monts, CV 17-03941-PHX-MTL (MHB), in 

which ADC Defendants have also filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the Settlement 

Agreement (Doc. 60.) In Valenzuela v. Monts, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory 

Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently pending a pre-filing 

review order from the Ninth Circuit. (Id., Docs. 79, 80.) 

Case 2:17-cv-03941-MTL-MHB Document 83 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

as amended at that hearing (“the Revised Settlement Agreement”). (See Valenzuela v. 

Mooney, CV 18-00555, Docs. 171, 173.) As relevant here, the Revised Settlement

Agreement included the dismissal with prejudice of this action. Plaintiff subsequently 

moved to have the settlement set aside on the grounds that it had been coerced and 

Defendants had failed to make changes to the signed Settlement Agreement in accordance 

with the August 9, 2019 hearing. (See id. Doc. 180.) The Court found the first argument 

without merit, noting that, at the August 9, 2019 hearing, 

Plaintiff entered into numerous substantive exchanges with the 

Court and opposing counsel, sought reasonable clarifications 

and assurances, and requested or agreed to various additions or 

deletions prior to verbally assenting to the Settlement 

Agreement and moving to withdraw her Rule 60(b) Motion.

(Id., Doc. 188 at 4.) The Court also found that, substantively, Plaintiff failed to identify 

any changes to the Settlement Agreement she wished to make that she had been unable to 

request. (Id.) The Court went on to find, however, that “Plaintiff nonetheless raises 

legitimate concerns that the revised Settlement Agreement failed to make a substantive 

change defense counsel agreed to and the Court ordered at the August 9, 2019 hearing.” 

(Id. at 5.) Consequently, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the action 

should not be reopened under Rule 60(b) due to their failure to revise the Settlement 

Agreement in accordance with the August 9, 2019 hearing. (Id., Doc. 190.) Thereafter, 

the Court ordered Defendants to the make those changes and re-execute the Settlement

Agreement. (Id., Doc. 194.)

Defendants complied with the Court’s Order to the extent that they revised the 

Settlement Agreement (see id., Doc. 191, Ex. A); Plaintiff, however, refused to sign the 

Revised Settlement Agreement, even though the terms therein were consistent with her 

stipulations on the record at the August 9, 2019 hearing.3 The Court found that “Plaintiff’s 

3 The Court found that “[a] simple comparison of the document signed by Plaintiff 

on August 9, 2019 . . . with the Revised Settlement Agreement shows that the changes 

accurately reflect the agreements put on the record and that the cases that Plaintiff agreed 

to dismiss are the same.” (Valenzuela v. Mooney, CV 18-00555, Doc. 191 at 2.)

Case 2:17-cv-03941-MTL-MHB Document 83 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

after-the-fact refusal to sign the Revised Settlement [Agreement], despite it being 

consistent with the terms she already agreed to on the record, [wa]s not a reason to reopen 

this closed action under Rule 60(b),” and that Defendants’ duty to re-execute the Settlement

Agreement had been discharged. (Id., Doc. 194.)

Plaintiff has since filed numerous motions in this and the other actions subject to 

the Revised Settlement Agreement, and continues to do so, including in those actions that 

are already closed and on appeal, wherein the Court has informed her it lacks jurisdiction 

following her Notice of Appeal. In each instance, Plaintiff continues to make the same 

arguments regarding the alleged impropriety of the settlement of these actions that the 

Court has already thoroughly adjudicated both at the August 9, 2019 hearing and in 

multiple follow-up Orders. In short, Plaintiff has already agreed on the record to the 

dismissal of ADC Defendants with prejudice in this action as part of her settlement of 

Valenzuela v. Mooney, CV 18-00555, and she presents no valid bases for the Court to 

withdraw that settlement. Wherefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

and will dismiss ADC Defendants and this action with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant Ryan’s

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 60), Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60 Relief Opposed to Dismissal

(Doc. 62), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 64).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 60) is granted, and ADC Defendants 

and this action are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement 

discussed herein. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60 Relief Opposed to Dismissal (Doc. 62) is 

summarily denied, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 64) is denied

for lack of jurisdiction.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-03941-MTL-MHB Document 83 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 4