Armstrong v. Brown

• Decision Date: 03 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 94–2307 CW,C 94–2307 CW
• Citation: 103 F.Supp.3d 1070
• Parties: John Armstrong, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

103 F.Supp.3d 1070

John Armstrong, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al., Defendants.

No. C 94–2307 CW

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed February 3, 2015

Linda D. Kilb, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., Donald H. Specter, Sara Linda Norman, Alison Hardy, Corene T. Kendrick, Penny Marie Godbold, Warren E. George, Jr., Arlene Brynne Mayerson, Berkeley, CA, Michael William Bien, Blake Thompson, Ernest James Galvan, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Lisa Adrienne Ells, Michael Louis Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Geoffrey T. Holtz, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kenneth Michael Walczak, Nassiri & Jung LLP, Shawn Hanson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jennifer Lee Jonak, Jonak & Pugh, Caroline Nason Mitchell, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, Mark Raymond Feeser, Mark R. Feeser–Attorney at Law, San Luis Obispo, CA, Megan Hagler, Attorney at Law, San Rafael, CA, Rebekah B. Evenson, Prison Law Office, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Paul Brian Mello, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Edward Rheem Fluet, Jay Craig Russell, Jose Alfonso Zelidon–Zepeda, Rochelle C. East, Bryan An–Chieh Kao, Giam Minh Nguyen, Janelle M. Smith, Michael James Quinn, California State Attorney General's Office, Kyle Anthony Lewis, Jay Michael Goldman, Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Patrick R. McKinney, California Department of Justice, Sharon Anne Garske, Office of the Attorney General, Scott John Feudale, Oakland, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT

CLAUDIA WILKEN, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Armstrong, et al., move for an order for further enforcement of the 2007 injunction, applicable to all California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) prisons. They allege that Defendants Brown, et al., continue to place Class Members in administrative segregation due to a lack of accessible housing. Having considered the parties' briefs and their arguments at the January 29, 2015 hearing, the Court finds that Defendants are regularly housing Armstrongclass members in administrative segregation due to lack of accessible housing, in violation of this Court's previous orders and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found that Defendants' treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the amended ArmstrongRemedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own policies and plans to come into compliance with their obligations under these federal laws. Among other things, the ARP addressed the housing of class members in administrative segregation.

In 2012, the parties developed jointly a system by which Armstrongclass members are moved out of administrative segregation as CDCR looks for an accessible bed. SeeDocket No. 2209 at 6–7. In relevant part, the parties' agreement stated:

(b) Defendants agreed to provide internal documents showing all Armstrongclass members housed in administrative segregation and housed two levels above their designated security level due to lack of bed space, (c) Defendants agreed to make their best effort to classify and transfer prisoners housed two levels out of their security level within 30 days, (d) Defendants agreed to draft model Local Operating Procedures (LOPs) that state that it is departmental policy not to house prisoners in administrative segregation due to lack of bed space and requiring institutions to take immediate action to transfer such prisoners, including contacting CDCR headquarters to expedite the transfer if not resolved within 72 hours.

Id.Despite this agreement, according to CDCR's logs from July 2013 through July 2014, 211 Class Members were held in administrative segregation for some period of time, thirty-five of them in July 2014 alone. These time periods ranged from less than twenty-four hours to a month or more. SeeDocket No. 2436 at 11.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that housing disabled class members in administrative segregation solely because of their disabilities violates this Court's prior orders, including the 2001 Injunction, which declares that the “CDCR has a duty to maintain in operable working condition structural features and equipment necessary to make the prison system's services, programs, and activities accessible to disabled inmates.” Mar. 21, 2001 Permanent Injunction, Docket No. 694, at ¶ 4. The practice also violates the 2007 Injunction, which prohibits CDCR from “hous[ing] [class members] at any placements without adequate accessible housing ...” and orders adherence to the ArmstrongRemedial Plan requirement that no prisoner with a disability “shall, because...