Walker

Walker v. Gomez

Good Law
609 F. Supp. 2d 1149·2009 WL 666316·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21011
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 11, 200996cv609 PCLCalifornia4,770 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lewis, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I.

INTRODUCTION

K. Jamel Walker first sued Defendants for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution in April 1996. (Doc. No. 1.) Now, more than twelve years later, after a favorable Ninth Circuit ruling in a published opinion, countless motions, dozens of conferences, an eventual settlement between the parties, a relocation to a different prison, and seemingly the opportunity to tranquilly serve his life-sentence, Plaintiff renews his original allegations. He claims that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in violation of their settlement agreement with Walker, continues to discriminate based on race as a policy, has discriminated against him based on his race, and has retaliated against him for his success in the courtroom against Defendants.

After extensive briefing, an evidentiary hearing, oral arguments, and careful deliberation, the Court determines Walker has not shown Defendants violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement under applicable law. Although Walker has been subjected to prison lockdowns and has had privileges…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.