RELEASEANDSETTLEMENTAGREEMENT

This RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Release") is made by Human Rights
Defense Center ("Plaintiff') with regards to the claims brought against the County of Sonoma, Sheriff
Eddie Engram, Detention Division Operations Captain Melissa Parmenter, and John and Jane Does, 1-10,
Staff ("County"). This Release is made in consideration of and with respect to each of the following
recitals:
WHEREAS,
A.
This dispute concerns Plaintiff's claims that the polices, customs and/or practices regarding
the delivery of incoming publications and correspondence to incarcerated persons at the County of
Sonoma's Main Adult Detention Center were unlawful and failed to provide adequate notice and
opportunity to challenge the refusal to deliver incoming mail to incarcerated people.
B.
Plaintiff submitted a state tort claim to the County of Sonoma on July 22, 2024, and an
amended claim on August 14, 2024. The County denied the claim on August 30, 2024.
C.
On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for injunctive relief and damages under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the
California Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, and Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution against County of Sonoma; Sheriff Eddie Engram, individually and in his official
capacity; Melissa Parmenter, Detention Division Operations Captain, individually and in her official
capacity; and John and Jane Does, 1-10, Staff, individually and in their official capacities, in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-00361-WHO, captioned Human
Rights Defense Center v. County ofSonoma et al (the "Action").
D.
The County denies Plaintiff's allegations, but acknowledges Plaintiff is the prevailing party
and is entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under applicable law.
E.
In order to avoid expense, delay, uncertainty, and burden of litigation, and without
admission of liability, Plaintiff and County have agreed to enter into a stipulation for consent decree.
F.
On May 15, 2025, the parties reached an agreement on a consent decree resolving
Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. The parties also agreed, contingent upon approval of the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors, to settle Plaintiffs claims for damages and attorneys' fees and costs for the
sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000). The parties memorialized this agreement in a
Memorandum of Understanding executed by the parties and their counsel on May 15, 2025, a copy of
which attached hereto as Exhibit A.

[4708069.11 Release and Settlement Agreement - HRDC v. County ofSonoma et al

Page I of 4

G.
On May 21, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation and [Proposed] Consent Decree
resolving Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief, which was filed with the Court on May 22, 2025. On
June 2, 2025., the Court adopted and entered the Consent Decree and retained jurisdiction over the matter
for the purposes of enforcement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
H.
On June 3, 2025, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved the settlement of
Plaintiffs claims for damages and attorneys' fees and costs for the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($350,000).
I.
Pursuant to the Consent Decree and this Release, Plaintiff executes this release of all claims
in the Action in this matter in order to effect a full and complete release of the County and its current and
former agents, servants, employees, officers, Board members and representatives of all the facts and
circumstances referenced in these Recitals, including any fact or circumstance raised by the Action or
relating thereto, or arising out of any interaction between and among the County and Plaintiff, excepting
that the Court has continuing jurisdiction under the Consent Decree to enforce its provisions as set forth
in paragraph 2(d) below.
IT ISt THEREFOREt AGREED THAT:
1.
Within 21 days after this Release is fully executed, the County shall pay a total of Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) for Plaintiffs damages, attorneys' fees and costs, by check
or wire transfer to the Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP Client Trust Account.

2.
In consideration of the matters set forth above, Plaintiff shall, and hereby does, waive,
release and relinquish any and all claims of right or causes of action (including attorney's fees and costs)
that it may now or hereafter have against the County arising from or related to the facts and circumstances
referenced in the Recitals, above, any facts or circumstances raised by the Actions, and any facts or
circumstances related to the County's interaction or involvement with Plaintiff as of the date this release
is executed by all Parties.
(a)
This waiver and release is made specifically on behalf of Plaintiff, its
successors, representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, and/or any and all related parties
and anyone acting on their behalf. Such waiver and release shall and does inure to
the benefit of the County, its current and former agents, servants, employees,
officers and any other person or legal entity charged with responsibility, whether
directly, indirectly or vicariously, for the facts and circumstances in the abovementioned recitals, the Actions, or any aspect of the interaction and relationships
between and among the County and Plaintiff.
(b)
This waiver and release are intended to and shall include all claims of every
kind, whether past, present or future, known or unknown, that has arisen or may
hereafter arise from the facts and circumstances in the above-mentioned recitals,
arising from, raised by, related to, or referenced in the Action through the date this
release is executed. For such purposes, Plaintiff acknowledges the provisions of
Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California and hereby knowingly
14108069.11 Release and Settlement Agreement - HRDC v. County ofSonoma et al

Page 2 of 4

waives the benefits of such provisions after having had full opportunity to consult
with independent counsel regarding this matter. Plaintiff understands that the said
Section 1542 provides:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist io bis or her favor at the time ofexecutiag the release,
which if known by him or her must have materially affected bis or her
- e a t with the debtor.

;'fl, w

Paul Wright Initials
(c)
County shall bear the responsibility for and pay their own attorney's fees
and costs which may have been be incurred as a result ofor relating to the facts and
circumstances in the above-mentioned Recitals, any facts and circumstances raised
by or referenced in the Action, and any aspect of the interaction and relationships
between and among the County and Plaintiff.
(d)
Specifically excepted from this release is the Court's continuingjurisdiction
as set forth in paragraph 11 of the Consent Decree regarding enforcement of
paragraphs 6-8 ofthe Consent Decree.
3.
Plaintiffand the County unc;lerstand and warrant that this document and the Consent Decree
contain the entire agreement between the parties. There are no promises, inducements or assurances not
expressed in this Release which have been made to Plaintiff.
4. This is a compromise settlement of a disputed claim, and the payment of the consideration of
this Release shall not be deemed to be, nor construed as, an admission of liability for any purpose by the
parties to be released which deny any such liability. However, the County acknowledges the existence
and effect of the Consent Decree in the Action and all provisions and conditions therein, to which it has
stipulated.

S.
This Release may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Release. Counsel for the County shall
provide all parties a conformed copy ofthe executed documents. For such purposes, an executed email or
facsimile copy shall be deemed an original.
6.

This Release may be enforced by any party hereto by a motion before the Court in this

Action.
7.
The invalidity of any provision of this Release as determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction shall in no way affect the validity of any other provision hereof.

(47rS)68.1J Release and Settlement Agreement- HRDC v. County ofSonoma et al

Page 3 of 4

8.
The parties acknowledge that they have read and understand this Release, have had the
opportunity to review it with legal counsel, and agree to be bound by ilS terms.

By:_ _-+~-----1-+-+1~-----~-Pa
d Executive Director
of
Defense Center, Plaintiff

Date:

Date: ~

//,

Date: June 4, 2025

>

2025

anell Crane, Director ofHuman Resources,
Risk Manager, County of Sonoma, for
Defendants

p z__

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & ORUNFELD LLP

By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ben Bien-Kahn
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By_~._,_,,~:..,_-'----fr;..._ttorn ys for Defendants

(4718)8!1.IJ Release and Settlement Agreement• HRDC v. County ofSonoma et al

Page4of4

,.
i

II

I

• I

i

-;

\
I

1.

- I

.l
I

-EXBIBITA
r27·.. .
i

.l -

Memorandum or Undersla11dirn.!
The parties lo this ,1gree111e11t me l luma11 Rights Defense Center (''Plaintiff') a11d
the County of Sonoma, Sheri ff Edd ie Engrnm, Detention Di\ ision Oper.1ti o11s Caption
rvlelissa Parmenter. and .lohn and .lnne Docs, 1-10. Swff c·Dck11dants .. ). with regards 10
Plaint iff:,; claims that the policies. customs, and/or pract ices regardi ng the delivery or
incom ing publications ;ind correspondence to incarccrntcd persons .11 the Cou nty or
Sonorna·s f\tlain Adult Detention Center viol;ite l'laintitrs free speech and due process
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constituti on. the C,ll iforni a
Banc /\ct. and Article I, Sections 2 ancl 7 of the California Co11s1i1u1io11. On .l,111t1ary I0,
2025, Pia inti rrs filed a Co111plaint !or injuncti ve relief aml damngcs in the United Stntcs
District Court. Northern Dis1rict ol-C.1 li fornia, Case No. 3:25-c\·-003(11-WI-IO. capti oned
/-/11111011 Rigl!fs Defense C ellfer ,: C o 11ll(v o(S011011w, et 11/.

On May 15. 2025, the parties re;ichecl an agreen1cnt on a consent decree resolving
Plaint iff's claims for injunctive reli ef, which will be executed and filed shortly.
The parties also agreed , contingent upon Board approv,1I. lo settle Plainti ffs
cl,1ims lo r damages and allorneys· lees ancl costs lor a lump sum or $350.000.00.
Plain1ifT agreed lo release all claims asserted in 1hi~ act io11, subject to approval of 1hc
consent decree by the Court and to the Board of' Supervisors· npproval of the above
payment. as set fo rth below.
The parties contemplate entering into a mutua l sclllemcnt agreeme nt and release.
This agreemi.;nt is contingent 0 11 t1pproval by the.: Sonoma Coun ty Board of
Superviso rs. which wi ll be prese111ed 10 the Bonrd on Ju11c 3. 2025 . or. irthc Bonrd docs
not consider it 011 that date, the next avni lable Board 111cc1ing. This agreement shall not
be wi thdrawn by either party until nfter the decision by the Board or Supervisors as sci
l'orth herein.

-

i\ grccd to by:_ ~ - -=="- -11--- - - -- - S-_-_ ) _5_~
_1._~_

I

.!

·EXBIBITB
I
.
.
.

\
/"'

I

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 1 of 8

1
2

3
4

5

6

Marshall E. Bluestone, Esq. [SBN 151632]
BLUESTONE FAIRCLOTH & OLSON, LLP
1825 4th Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Telephone: (707) 526-4250
Facsimile: (707) 526-0347
Email: marshall@bfolegal.com
Attorneys for Defendants

7.
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 3:25-cv-00361-WHO
STIPULATION AND [PR-OPOSED]
CONSENT DECREE

vs.
COUNTY OF SONOMA; EDDIE
ENGRAM, Sheriff, individually and in his
official capacity; MELISSA PARMENTER,
Detention Division Operations Captain,
individually and in her official capacity; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Staff,
individually and in their official capacities,

Hon. William H. Orrick

Defendants.

19
20

The parties to this action, represented by counsel, stipulate to and request entry of a Consent
21

22
23

Decree by the Court as follows:
1.

On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center ("Plaintiff' or

24

"HRDC") filed suit in the above-entitled matter against Defendants County of Sonoma, Sheriff

25

Eddie Engram, former Detention Division Operations Captain Melissa Parmenter, and John and

26

Jane Does 1-10, Staff, (collectively, "Defendants") seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

;::::== = = =='l
T7= 1t= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =t== =

damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintitrs complaint alleges unlawful and unconstitutional
28
(4700737.11 Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [PrepeseEl] Consent Decree

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

1

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 2 of 8

policies, customs, and/or practices regarding the delivery of incoming publications and

2

correspondence to incarcerated persons at the County of Sonoma's Main Adult Detention Facility

3

(''MADF"), and the provision of inadequate notice and opportunity to challenge the Defendants'

4

refusal to deliver incoming mail to incarcerated persons, in violation of Plaintiff's free speech and

5

due process rights. The Complaint alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

6

United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, as well as violations of the Article I,

7
Section 2, and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, and of the Bane Act, California

8
9

Civil Code §52.1. Pursuant to California Government Code §910, Plaintiff submitted a state tort

10

claim to the County of Sonoma on July 22, 2024, and an amended claim on August 14, 2024, which

11

included invitations to negotiate resolution of these issues. The County denied the claim on August

12

30, 2024.

13

2.

14

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin

Defendants from refusing to deliver publications and correspondence mailed by Plaintiff to

15
incarcerated persons at the MADF and from failing to provide due process to challenge censorship

16
17

decisions. On March 17, 2025, the parties stipulated to the entry of a preliminary injunction

18

prohibiting Defendants from censoring or rejecting Plaintiffs' publications and correspondence and

19

requiring Defendants to provide adequate written notice and an administrative appeal process to

20

both incarcerated persons and senders when Defendants refuse to deliver publications, which the

21

Court granted on March 19, 2025. See Docket Nos. 31, 32.

22
3.

Defendants deny the allegations but acknowledge that Plaintiff is the prevailing party

23
24
25

26

in the lawsuit and is entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under applicable law.
4.

Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the "Parties"), in order to avoid expense,

delay, uncertainty, and burden of litigation, and without admission ofliability, agree to the entry of

F ·- ffiisConsent ecree.
28
(4700737.11 Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [PFepesee] Consent Decree

2

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

1

5.

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 3 of 8

The Parties agree that this Consent Decree resolves all claims for relief alleged in the

2

Plaintiffs' Complaint, with the exception of Plaintiffs claims for damages and for attorneys' fees

3

and costs, which will be subject to a separate settlement and release agreement.

4

6.

5

6

DEFINITIONS:
a.

As used herein, PUBLISHER shall mean any publisher, commercial or non-

profit distributor of printed materials, or bookstore that does mail order business directly mailed

7

from a publisher or distributor to a named incarcerated person or readers via the United States Postal
8
9

10

Service.

b.

As used herein, STAPLES shall mean the type of light-duty small wire fastener

11

staples commonly used to attach a few sheets of paper, as currently used by Plaintiff to bind the

12

sheets of its monthly publications.

13
14

C.

As used herein, MAILING LABELS shall mean the type of adhesive sticker used by

Plaintiff to affix an address to an item of mail.

15
16
17
18
19

7.

The Parties agree that Defendants and their successors, officers, agents, servants, and

employees, and all others in active concert or participation with them:
a.

Shall not refuse to deliver publications, correspondence or documents to

named incarcerated persons at the MADF sent by any PUBLISHER, as defined above, including

20
21

22

Plaintiff, and that named incarcerated persons at the MADF shall be allowed to purchase and receive
books, newspapers, magazines, and other publications and correspondence that are accepted for

23

delivery by the United States Postal Service, with or without subscription from the PUBLISHER,

24

except that Defendants may refuse to deliver or may censor portions of publications, correspondence

25

or documents that pose a threat to the order, safety or security of the MADF, so long as they provide

26

written notice of the specific basis for the rejection and an administrative review process, as described

7

in Paragraph 7(e), infra.
28
{4700737.11 Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [PFe13esed] Consent Decree

3

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

1

b.

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 4 of 8

Shall not refuse to deliver publications, correspondence, or documents sent to

2

named incarcerated persons at the MADF by any PUBLISHER on the grounds that they contain

3

STAPLES, provided that Defendants may comply by removing the STAPLES. Defendants shall

4

ensure that publications from which STAPLES are removed are delivered to incarcerated persons in

5

substantially the same condition as received in the mail.

6

7

c.

Shall not refuse to deliver publications, correspondence, or documents sent to

8

named incarcerated persons at the MADF by any PUBLISHER on the ground that they include

9

MAILING LABELS, provided that Defendants may comply by removing the MAILING LABELS

10

prior to delivery to the incarcerated person at the MADF.

11

12

d.

Defendants agree that Plaintiffs' publications and mailings have been

13

acceptable for delivery to named incarcerated persons at the Jail and have not to posed any threat to

14

the order, safety or security of the MADF. Should Defendants in the future conclude that a publication

15
16

or mailing by Plaintiff contains material that may be rejected or censored, Defendants shall promptly
send notice to Plaintiff via to the process described in Paragraph 7(e), infra.

17

18

e.

Shall provide adequate written notice and an administrative review process

19

to any PUBLISHER whenever Defendants refuse to deliver or censor any publication,

20

correspondence, or document mailed by a PUBLISHER to a named incarcerated person at the

21

MADF. IfMADF personnel reject a publication or other mailing for delivery, or if a portion thereof

22

23
24
25

26

is censored prior to delivery, Defendants shall mail written notice to the sender of the rejected or
censored mailing within fifteen (15) calendar days of the mail item being processed at the MADF.
The written notice shall include:
(1) the name and address of the sender;
(2) the name(s) of the intende recipient(s).

28
(4700737.1) Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [Prepesed] Consent Decree

4

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

1

2
3

4
5

6

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 5 of 8

(3) a description of the rejected or censored item of mail;
(4) clear citation to the objectionable portion(s) of the publication or correspondence
and the specific reason that the item of mail was rejected or censored;
(5) a description of the action taken, i.e., whether the item of mail was rejected for
delivery or redacted and, if so, what was redacted; and
(6) notification to the sender of the right to appeal the censorship decision, and of

7

the method and procedural requirements for doing so.
8
9

The incarcerated person to whom the rejected or censored publication or other mailing is addressed

10

shall be provided with the same written notice as the PUBLISHER, within the same timeframe and

11

incarcerated people shall utilize the grievance procedure set forth in the MADF Custody Manual for

12

the administrative review for refused mailings.

13
14

The PUBLISHER shall be entitled to file an appeal for any censorship decision and/or
refusal to deliver an item of mail to an incarcerated person at the MADF, within thirty (30) calendar

15
days of the post mark dated on the written notice from the County of Sonoma. The Sonoma County
16
17

Sheriffs Office shall provide a written response to all such appeals within fifteen (15) calendar days

18

of receiving the appeal. The written response shall either document the reversal of the censorship

19

decision or shall respond to the appeal with a written explanation of the reason(s) for affirming the

20

initial censorship decision. The appeal shall be considered and resolved by a supervisor other than

21

22

the person who originally refused to deliver or censored the publication or other mailing in question.
The supervisor shall conduct an independent review of the item of mail in question and in the case

23
24

of a reversal of a censorship decision, it shall cause the item to be delivered immediately. The

25

rejected or censored item of mail shall be retained by the MADF pending the disposition of all

26

appeals as described herein and the rejected mailing will be available for review by the supervisor

2-

respons16le for cons1denng and resolvmg e appea.

28
[4700737.1] Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [Prepesed] Consent Decree

5

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

f.

1
2

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 6 of 8

Shall post the appeal process on the public website of the Sonoma County

Sheriff's Office, and shall include an explanation of the terms of the MADF's mail policy regarding

3

the delivery of publications and correspondence and the administrative review process for rejected

4

or censored mailings in the MADF Custody Manual, and the handbook, rulebook or equivalent

5

materials that are provided to incarcerated persons at the MADF.

6

g ..

Shall train all employees whose job duties include receipt, collection,

7

screening, review and delivery of mail to incarcerated people at the MADF on the changes to the
8
9

10
11
12

13
14

MADF's mail policy regarding the delivery of publications and correspondence and the
administrative review process for rejected or censored mailings.

8.

MADF shall provide incarcerated people with the right to utilize the grievance

procedure set forth in the MADF Custody Manual for the administrative review for rejected or
censored mailings.
9.

Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to release or waive any claim, cause of

15

action, demand, or defense in law or equity that any party to this Consent Decree may have against
16
17
18

any person or entity, not a party to this Consent Decree.
10.

The Parties stipulate that this case concerns the First and Fourteenth Amendment

19

rights of a publisher and is therefore not a case concerning prison conditions as defined in the Prison

20

Litigation Reform Act of 1996. The parties further stipulate that the relief ordered is narrowly drawn,

21

extends no further than necessary to correct the harm alleged by Plaintiff and requiring injunctive

22
relief, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged harm.
23

24

11.

The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing its Order.

25

Defendants are not waiving the right to modify or terminate the consent decree under all applicable

26

law. Plaintiff will not seek attorneys' fees for monitoring the consent decree, unless a violation of

-,

- the consent decree occurs, m which case Plamfift may seek attorneys' fees related to that viola 10n.

28

Plaintiff reserves the right to seek attorneys' fees to enforce the consent decree.
(4700737.11 Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [Prepesea] Consent Decree

6

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

12.

Document 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 7 of 8

No person who has notice of this Consent Decree shall fail to comply with it, nor

1

2

shall any person subvert the Consent Decree by any sham, indirection, or other artifice.

3

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5

DATED: _ _ _ 2025
6

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Paul Wright,
Editor and Executive Director of
Human Rights Defense Center

7

8
9
10

DATED: ____2025

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Eddie Engram
Sheriff, County of Sonoma

11
12

13
14

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED: _ _ _2025

15

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Attorneys
for Plaintiff

16
17

18
19
20

DATED:____ 2025

BLUESTONE FAIRCLOTH & OLSON, LLP

21
22

23

By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Marshall E. Bluestone, Attorneys
for Defendants

24

25

26

[4700737,11 Case No. 25-cv-00361-WHO: Stipulation and [PrepeseEI] Consent Decree

7

Case 3:25-cv-00361-WHO

Docu ment 41

Filed 06/02/25

Page 8 of 8

ORDER
2

3

Based upon the stipulation of the parties,

4

IT IS SO ORDERED

5

Date: June 2, 2025

6
7

United States District Court
Northern District of Cali fomia

8

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22

23
24
25

26
_7-

28
[4700737.11 Case No. 25-cv-00361 -WHO: Stipulation and [PrepeseEI] Consent Decree

8