Hawkins v. Cassani
| Citation | 251 F.3d 1230 |
| Decision Date | 30 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,99-55394,COMPARET-CASSANI,REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST-APPELLANT,Nos. 99-55187,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,s. 99-55187 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) RONNIE HAWKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLASS OF PERSONS DEFINED IN AVERMENT 16,, v. JOAN; LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT; LA SUPERIOR COURT; SHERMAN BLOCK; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; JANE DOE 1; 100 UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS; DONNA JACOBS, DEFENDANTS, AND SHERMAN BLOCK, FORMER SHERIFF, WHO IS NOW DECEASED, BUT DOES NOT YET HAVE A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,, AND LEE BACA, NEWLY ELECTED SHERIFF, |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Michael D. Fitts, (briefed and argued) Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland Llp, Beverly Hills, California; Kevin C. Brazile, Deputy County Counsel, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellant.
Stephen Yagman (argued), Yagman & Yagman, P.C., Venice, California; Marion R. Yagman (briefed), Yagman & Yagman, P.C., Venice, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae United States.
Paul L. Hoffman, Bostwick & Hoffman, Llp, Santa Monica, California, and William J. Aceves, San Diego, California, for amicus curiae Amnesty International.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-98-05605-DDP
Before: James R. Browning and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges, and Samuel P. King, District Judge.1
Defendants Lee Baca, et al., appeal a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a stun belt on prisoners appearing in Los Angeles County courts. We conclude the injunction was too broad, and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff and Appellee Ronnie Hawkins was a convicted criminal defendant scheduled to appear for sentencing. Before the hearing, the bailiffs informed the presiding judge that Hawkins was "being difficult," "acting up in the lockup area," "violent," and "threatening to spit on deputies to give them A.I.D.S. because he was H.I.V. positive." Because of Hawkins' behavior and his previous threats of violence, the Los Angeles County Sheriff sought and secured an order authorizing placement of a "stun belt" on Hawkins during the hearing. The belt was activated during the hearing for the stated reason that "Hawkins made several statements out of order and acted in a generally disruptive manner."2 Hawkins v. Comparet Cassani, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1248 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
The device used upon Hawkins was a Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt, which is a "remotely operated electronic restraint device " designed to cause an electric shock that will "disorient, temporarily immobilize and stun a person without causing permanent injuries." It can be activated by a law enforcement official up to 300 feet away using a remote control. Stun belts are used by the Sheriff's staff to control high-risk defendants in court, during transportation, and in other prison contexts. The belts are usually worn under a prisoner's clothing while in the courtroom.
When activated, the belt delivers a 50,000-volt, three to four milliampere shock lasting eights seconds. Once the belt is activated, the electro-shock cannot be shortened. It causes incapacitation in the first few seconds and severe pain during the entire period. Activation may lead to involuntary defecation and urination; immobilization may cause the victim to fall to the ground. Other courts have found the shock can "cause muscular weakness for approximately 30-45 minutes," see, e.g., People v. Melanson , 937 P.2d 826, 835 (Colo. 1996), and it is suspected of having triggered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. See Shelley Dahlberg, Comment, The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners and Human Rights Groups into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, 30 St. Mary's L.J. 239, 251-52 (1998). The "belt's metal prongs may leave welts on the victim's skins" that take months to heal. Id. at 249.
According to the Sheriff's written policy, the belt may not be used on pregnant women or persons with heart diseases or muscular dystrophy, or to "unlawfully threaten, coerce, harass, taunt, belittle, injure, punish or abuse any person." The written policy statement also specifies the circumstances under which the belt may be used:
The R.E.A.C.T. Belt may be placed around the waist of any prisoner whose actions pose a physical threat to the safety of deputies, a Judge or courtroom staff. The belt may only be placed on a prisoner under the following circumstances:
i. An attempted escape while in custody or in a courtroom
ii. Violent or assaultive behavior while in custody or in a courtroom
iii. Documented past incidents of violent or assaultive behavior while in custody or in a courtroom iv. Documented past incidents of escapes or attempted escape from custody or from a courtroom.
v. Documented incidents in which the person has threatened to escape or attempt to escape from custody; or has threatened violent or assaultive behavior while in custody.
vi. Documented or objectively observable evidence that the prisoner poses a threat because he/she is suffering from a mental disorder or disease.
vii. Overt acts or attempt [sic] to remove restraints or the R.E.A.C.T. Belt itself.
viii. The R.E.A.C.T. Belt may also be used pursuant to a facially valid court order communicated to Sheriff's personnel by the Judge.
Use of the stun belt in court "requires the approval of the Judge hearing the case."3
The written policy permits activation of the belt (i.e. stunning the wearer) under the following circumstances:
- Any attempt to escape or to assault the Court, courtroom staff, deputies or spectators.
- To prevent any battery or physical injury from being inflicted upon the Court, courtroom staff, deputies or spectators.
- Any attempt to remove the belt or other physical restraints.
- A facially valid court order issued by a Presiding Judge.
The policy requires that warnings be given where and when possible and that the prisoner receive immediate medical treatment after activation of the belt.
In Los Angeles County, the belt has been placed on approximately 200 detainees, at more than a thousand court proceedings. It has been activated on three people, including Hawkins, once apparently by accident.
Hawkins filed suit against the presiding judge, the Los Angeles Municipal and Superior Courts, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, and the County of Los Angeles. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, a declaratory judgment that use of the stun belt is unconstitutional, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the stun belt"on any person by any judge or law enforcement officer in Los Angeles County." In his claim for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, Hawkins purported to represent, and moved to certify, a class consisting of all individuals in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff who may be brought before a county superior or municipal court and required to wear a stun belt.
After a hearing, the district court filed an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. See Hawkins, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 1244.4
The district court granted Hawkins' motion to certify a class of all persons in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff who are appearing in state court and may be subjected to use of the stun belt.5 Id. at 1260. The court found common issues of law and fact because "the issue is whether using stun belts is a per se constitutional violation." Id. at 1259. The court concluded that Hawkins' interests would not be antagonistic to the interests of other prisoners. Id. at 1260.
The preliminary injunction ordered the Los Angeles County Sheriff "not to seek a judicial order to either place or activate a stun belt on a prisoner in his custody pending the outcome of trial." Id. at 1262. The court concluded that the mere placement of the belt on a detainee raises"serious questions going to the merits of the Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims" and held that the balance of hardship tips in favor of the plaintiffs. Id. The court also addressed Sixth Amendment concerns, referring to the belt as a "pain infliction device that has the potential to compromise an individual's ability to participate in his or her own defense."6 Id.
The Sheriff appealed the preliminary injunction and the class certification separately.7 We granted the Sheriff's motion to consolidate.
Defendants challenge Hawkins' standing individually to seek injunctive relief, relying on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). In Lyons, the Supreme Court denied standing where the plaintiff could not show a sufficient likelihood that he would be injured in the future by the police chokehold he sought to enjoin. See id. at 105-07. In LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985), we distinguished Lyons on three grounds equally applicable here. We focus our analysis on Hawkins' standing at the time the class was certified. Although Hawkins' individual claim may have since become moot,8 the existence of the class preserves the live case or controversy demanded by Article III. See United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 409 (1980).9
First, there is a likelihood of recurrence. At the time of class certification, Hawkins remained imprisoned and in custody of Defendants. Since use of the belt is based on past conduct, Hawkins need not have been arrested or engaged in illegal behavior to subject him to its use. Cf. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chances, Inc. v. Norton, CIV-S-01-0248 DFL GGH (E.D. Cal. 7/29/2002)
...who seek prospective injunctive relief must demonstrate both a sufficient likelihood of future injury, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001), and that there is "a `likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.'" City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.......
-
Stanley v. State
...the jury has the potential to prejudice a defendant. See Weaver v. State, 894 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2004) (citing Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1240 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing the prejudice concerns posed by shackles)). Here, however, Jones makes a conclusory allegation of prejudi......
-
People v. Jackson
...to be shocked for verbally interrupting her. ( Id. at p. 1223, fn. 6, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 161, 52 P.3d 95, citing Hawkins v. Comparet–Cassani (9th Cir.2001) 251 F.3d 1230.) There have been "a disturbing number of accidental activations," including at least one instance in a California courtroom......
-
People v. Mar
...of movement than shackles or chains. (See, e.g., Garcia, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1356, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 350; Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, supra, 251 F.3d 1230, 1240-1242.) This reasoning would tend to suggest that in most instances in which security measures are warranted, a stun belt pro......
-
A Circuit by Circuit Analysis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Appeals
...as a result, affirmed decertification of the class.90 The Ninth Circuit's second Rule 23(f) appeal was in Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001), 2 CLASS 443, 6/22/01. Hawkins involved a class action brought by a prisoner who was required to wear a stun belt when appeari......
-
U.S. appeals court restraints use of force.
...v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001). A convicted prisoner who had a "stun belt" placed on him, and activated, when he appeared in court for sentencing, brought a [section] 1983 action. The district court certified a class action and granted a preliminary injunction. The appea......
-
U.S. appeals court restraints.
...v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230(9th Cir. 2001). A convicted prisoner who had a "stun belt" placed on him, and activated, when he appeared in court for sentencing, brought a [section] 1983 action. The district court certified a class action and granted a preliminary injunction. The appeal......
-
U.S. appeals court stun belts restraints.
...v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001). A convicted prisoner who had a "stun belt" placed on him, and activated, when he appeared in court for sentencing, brought a [section] 1983 action. The district court certified a class action and granted a preliminary injunction. The appea......