Prison Legal News v. Jones et al
Filing
68
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/19/2020 VACATING 60 Consent Decree. The Court's jurisdiction over this matter is hereby TERMINATED, and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. (Huang, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP
John A. Lavra, CSB No.: 114533
Amanda L. McDermott, CSB No.: 253651
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95864
Phone: 916-974-8500
Facsimile: 916-974-8510
Attorneys for County of Sacramento,
Sheriff Scott Jones
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP
Ernest Galvan, CSB No.: 196065
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 433-6830
Fax: (415) 433-7104
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Case No.: 2:11-cv-00907-JAM-DAD
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT R. )
JONES, individually and in his capacity as
)
Sheriff of the County of Sacramento; DOES 1- )
20, in their individual and official capacities, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
VACATE CONSENT DECREE
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)]
21
22
This Stipulation and Order Vacating the Consent Decree is entered into by and among
23
Plaintiff Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, (“Plaintiff”) and
24
Defendants County of Sacramento and Scott R. Jones (“Defendants”) (collectively, “the
25
Parties”), by and through their respective counsel.
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Parties negotiated a settlement by Consent Decree that was entered on
July 16, 2012, resolving all claims asserted in the Complaint [Dkt. No. 60];
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2012 the claims against Defendants were dismissed with
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)]
1
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), subject to the condition that the Court retained
2
jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the Consent Decree until such jurisdiction is terminated
3
by the Court upon motion of either party [Dkt. No. 62];
4
WHEREAS, Defendants have complied with the terms of the Consent Decree and have
5
affirmed that they do not intend to modify or cease the current practice at its jail facilities of
6
removing staples and/or mailing labels from publications, correspondence, and documents sent
7
by Publishers to prisoners prior to their delivery to the prisoner [See Exhibit 1 attached hereto];
8
9
10
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agree that that it would be in the
interests of justice and judicial economy and that good cause exists to vacate the Consent Decree
at this time.
11
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that there is good cause to
12
ORDER that the Consent Decree entered in this matter be VACATED, the Court’s jurisdiction
13
thereover be terminated, and the case be dismissed in its entirety.
14
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
15
16
Dated: November 19, 2020
17
LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP
By: /S/ Amanda L. McDermott
JOHN A. LAVRA
AMANDA L. MCDERMOTT
Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento,
Sheriff Scott Jones
18
19
20
21
Dated: November 18, 2020
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP
22
23
24
By: /S/ Ernest Galvan
ERNEST GALVAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)]
1
ORDER
2
Upon review and consideration of the Parties’ stipulation and supporting materials
3
submitted therewith, it is hereby ORDERED that the Consent Decree entered on July 16, 2012 in
4
this matter is VACATED, the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter is hereby terminated, and this
5
case is dismissed in its entirety.
6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: November 19, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)]
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?