United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. CAMPBELL SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Russell Doemer has filed motions to reopen and continue this
case. Docs. 145, 150, 152. Defendants oppose the motions.
Docs. 147, 151. No. party requests oral argument. For reasons
stated below, the Court will deny the motions.
is confined in Arizona state prison. In July 2017, he filed a
pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Doc. 1. The complaint asserts various constitutional
violations, including Eighth Amendment medical claims against
Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan,
Corizon Health Care Corporation, Assistant Facility Health
Administrator Maureen Johnson, and Nurse Jennifer Fox.
See Id. at 6 (Count One); Doc. 27 at 2-8. These
claims allege a denial of medical treatment for
Plaintiff's hepatitis, prostate cancer, and blocked
urethra. See Id. All other claims and Defendants
were dismissed in the screening order. Doc. 27 at 19-20.
parties agreed to settle the case for a confidential amount
in early January 2019 and filed a notice to this effect.
See Docs. 135, 136. The Clerk administratively
terminated the case on March 1, 2019 because the parties
failed to timely file a stipulation to dismiss. Docs. 136,
138. The parties subsequently filed separate stipulations to
dismiss with prejudice the claims against the individual
Defendants (Doc. 139) and Corizon (Doc. 143), which the Court
granted (Docs. 140, 144).
filed a motion to reopen and continue the case on April 8,
2019. Doc. 145. He filed another motion to continue the case
several weeks later. Doc. 150. Defendants responded to each
motion. Docs. 147, 151.
makes several arguments as to why the case should be
reopened. None has merit.
Plaintiff contends that the stipulation to dismiss the
individual Defendants is not effective due to an
“illegal name for Plaintiff.” Doc. 145 at 1. The
stipulation was prepared by defense counsel and misidentifies
Plaintiff as “Richard G. Doemer.” Doc. 139 at 1.
But Plaintiff crossed out this name and wrote “Russell
G. Doemer” when he signed the document. See
Id. The stipulation, as amended, contains
Plaintiff's correct legal name.
Plaintiff contends that the settlement agreement and all
stipulations are moot because “no sum of money has been
utilized, cashed, or used” by Plaintiff. Doc. 150 at 2.
The settlement agreement provides that it “shall become
effective following tender of payment and execution by
[Plaintiff].” Doc. 147 at 12. Plaintiff signed the
agreement on March 8, 2019. Id. The agreement became
effective when the settlement check was sent to Plaintiff on
April 1. Id. at 14-17. The fact that he has not
cashed the check or used the money does not make the
agreement and stipulations moot.
Plaintiff contends that the stipulations to dismiss were to
be filed only after he received the settlement check. Doc.
150 at 2. He notes that the stipulation to dismiss the
individual Defendants was filed before the check was issued.
Id. But that stipulation provides that no monies
were to be paid on behalf of the individual Defendants. Doc.
139. The settlement agreement also makes this point,
explaining that the “[c]laims against Charles Ryan,
Maureen Johnson, [and] Jennifer Fox have been dismissed with
prejudice against them - with no monies paid on their
behalf.” Doc. 147 at 6. The filing of the stipulation
to dismiss on March 12 provides no basis for reopening this
Plaintiff claims that an examination by a new doctor shows
that his hepatitis is in an advanced stage and the condition
clearly was misdiagnosed by Corizon. Doc. 145 at 1-3.
Plaintiff seeks to reopen the case and amend his complaint.
Id. at 3. But Plaintiff released all medical claims
he may have against Defendants when the settlement agreement
became effective on April 1. The agreement provides for the
release of all claims whether “known or unknown,
matured or unmatured, asserted or unasserted, or which may
hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, on account of
[his] injuries[.]” Doc. 147 at 7. Plaintiff expressly
waived and assumed the risk of any claims for damages that
are unknown, “including any claims which, if known,
would materially affect his decision to enter into [the
agreement].” Id. Plaintiff fully understood
and voluntarily accepted the agreement's terms. See
Id. at 11. The agreement is a binding contract that
precludes Plaintiff from pursuing any claim against
Defendants based on the circumstances alleged in his
complaint. See Doc. 147 at 2-3 (citation
has failed to show that this case should be reopened. His
motions to reopen and continue the case therefore will be