Armstrong v. Brown

• Decision Date: 28 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. C 94–2307 CW.,C 94–2307 CW.
• Citation: 857 F.Supp.2d 919
• Parties: John ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

857 F.Supp.2d 919

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.

April 11, 2012.
Opinion Granting Motion in Part and Denying Motion in Part Aug. 28, 2012.

[857 F.Supp.2d 923]

Donald H. Specter, Sara Linda Norman, Alison Hardy, Arlene Brynne Mayerson, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc., Berkeley, CA, Michael William Bien, Blake Thompson, Ernest James Galvan, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Kenneth Michael Walczak, Lisa Adrienne Ells, Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP, Loren Dougherty Stewart, Federal Public Defender's Office, Shawn Hanson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jennifer Lee Jonak, Lukens Law Group, Warren E. George, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Caroline Nason Mitchell, Jones Day, Martin H. Dodd, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark Raymond Feeser, Megan Hagler, Attorney at Law, San Rafael, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Paul Brian Mello, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Attorney General's Office, Jay Craig Russell, Rochelle C. East, Scott John Feudale, Kyle Anthony Lewis, Office of the Attorney General Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, Department of Justice, Gregg McLean Adam, Esq., Jennifer Spencer Stoughton, Ronald Yank, Esq., Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, LLP, Edward W. Swanson, Swanson & McNamara LLP, San Francisco, CA, Benjamin Cornelius Sybesma, Christine Albertine, California Correctional Peace Officers' Association, West Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO TRACK AND ACCOMMODATE NEEDS OF ARMSTRONG CLASS MEMBERS HOUSED IN COUNTY JAILS, ENSURE ACCESS TO A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND TO ENFORCE 2001 PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Docket No. 1912)
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move for an order requiring Defendants to track and accommodate the needs of Armstrong class members housed in county jails and to provide access to a workable grievance procedure. Defendants oppose the motion. The matter was heard on October 27, 2011. Having considered oral arguments and all of the materials submitted by both parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit was originally filed seventeen years ago by disabled prisoners and parolees against the California officials with responsibility over the corrections and parole systems. This Court certified Plaintiffs as representatives for a class

[857 F.Supp.2d 924]

including “all present and future California state prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, developmental and kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities.” Order Granting Pls.' Mots. to Am. Compl. and Modify the Class, Docket No. 345, January 5, 1999, at 2.¹ On behalf of the class, Plaintiffs sought accommodations for their disabilities, as required under federal statutes and the United States Constitution.

Initially, Plaintiffs sued two divisions of the then California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority (the Agency). The two divisions sued had separate areas of responsibility toward prisoners and parolees: the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) had authority over parole and parole revocation hearings, and the California Department of Corrections (CDC) was responsible for all other aspects of prisoners' and parolees' lives, including supervision of parolees. ² By agreement of the parties, litigation against the two divisions was initially bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks.

On September 20, 1996, 942 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D.Cal.1996), this Court ordered CDC and related Defendants to develop plans to ensure that their facilities and programs were compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and readily accessible to and usable by prisoners and parolees with disabilities. The order also required Defendants to develop policies to provide a prompt and equitable disability grievance procedure, to allow approved assistive aids for prisoners with disabilities in segregation units and reception centers, and to ensure accessibility in new construction and alterations. Remedial Order, Injunction and Certification for Interlocutory Appeal, September 20, 1996. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Id. at 5.³

Following a bench trial in April and May 1999, the Court found on December 22, 1999 that BPT and other Defendants responsible for conducting parole proceedings were in violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, December 22, 1999, Docket No. 523.

The Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law held that:

Defendants cannot avoid ADA and Section 504 liability by delegating responsibility for their delivery of programs, services and activities, or for the facilities in which they provide these programs, to

[857 F.Supp.2d 925]

the CDC or any other entity. The implementing regulations of both the ADA and Section 504 prohibit covered entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.” The BPT is thus legally obliged to ensure non-discrimination wherever programs, services or activities are provided to Plaintiff class members. Additionally, the BPT cannot avoid liability for violations of the physical accessibility standards by holding its programs in locations under the control of other entities.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 90 (internal citations omitted). At that time, the Court also found that certain large jail facilities utilized by these Defendants for parole proceedings, including the Los Angeles County Men's Jail, were inaccessible for people with disabilities, which raised an inference that this was a system-wide problem. Id. at 31–32. The Court determined that these Defendants violated the rights of class members in county facilities for parole revocation proceedings in many of the same ways alleged in the instant motion, including depriving them of assistive devices for mobility problems or accommodations for hearing and vision impairments. Id. at 32–38, 41–43, 45–47, 49–52, 60–66. The Court also recognized that these Defendants did not have an adequate system for tracking the facts of parolees' disabilities in their files, or for allowing parolees to communicate their accommodation needs. Id. at 38–40. Based on its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court entered a permanent injunction as to these Defendants. Permanent Injunction, Docket No. 524.⁴

On January 3, 2001, the CDC Defendants amended their Court Ordered Remedial Plan regarding the provision of programs and services to inmates and parolees with disabilities. The Remedial Plan requires Defendants to ensure that prisoners and parolees with disabilities are accessibly housed, that they are able to obtain and keep necessary assistive devices, and that they receive effective communication regarding accommodations. Id. at 1–7, 27–28, 32, 34, 46–47. The Remedial Plan also requires Defendants to include in all contracts language that requires subcontractors to comply with the ADA. Id. at 46.

[857 F.Supp.2d 926]

The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction against the BPT Defendants on February 11, 2002. The Revised Permanent Injunction requires these Defendants to provide accommodations, at all parole proceedings, to prisoners and parolees with disabilities. Revised Permanent Injunction, February 11, 2002, ¶ 17. The subsequent Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction issued on May 30, 2006, requires that Defendants develop and implement a plan to ensure that necessary accommodations are provided to class members without delay. Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction, May 30, 2006, at 8–9. In that Order, the Court found that Defendants did not have an adequate system to track parolees with disabilities. Id. at 4. The Court also found that, as a result, parolees with disabilities were not being provided with required accommodations, including mobility assistance for paraplegics and sign language interpreters for deaf parolees. Id. at 5–6. At that time, Defendants did not contest the extensive evidence that Plaintiffs submitted to demonstrate ongoing violations of the same type alleged in the instant motion, such as evidence that a paraplegic parolee had to drag himself up stairs. Id.

On September 11, 2007, 2007 WL 2694243, in response to Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the May, 2006 Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction, this Court Ordered:

Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel which housing units in Alameda, Sacramento and Los Angeles County Jail facilities are wheelchair accessible and how Defendants ensure that class members at those institutions who are designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible facilities and receive necessary accommodations and assistive devices in both their housing units and at their hearings. Within ninety days of this order, Defendants shall do the same with the remaining county jails. A necessary component of both reports is how Defendants track class members who are housed in county facilities due to parole holds.

Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the May 30, 2006 Order, ¶ 19. At that time, the Court found that Defendants' tracking system for information about disabilities of prisoners and parolees was still inadequate. Id. at 4–6. The Court also found that Defendants had failed to develop an adequate plan to provide needed accommodations for parole proceedings in county jails and rejected Defendants' assertion that “county jails provide adequate access to necessary assistive devices for class members” as without proof. Id. at 9–10.

On May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Require Defendants to Track and...