Armstrong v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-15132,00-15132 |
| Citation | 275 F.3d 849 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) JOHN ARMSTRONG; JAMES AMAURIC; RICHARD PONCIANO; JACK SWENSEN; BILLY BECK; JUDY FENDT; WALTER FRATUS; GREGORY SANDOVAL; DARLENE MADISON; PETER A. RICHARDSON; STEVEN HILL; DAVID ROSE; DAVID BLESSING; ELIO CASTRO; ELMER UMBENHOWER; RAYMOND HAYES; GENE HORROCKS; KIAH MINCEY; CLIFTON FEATHERS; WILLIE JOHNSON; DAVID BADILLO; JAMES SIMMONS; FLORA ABRAMS; JOEY GOUGH; TIMOTHY WHISMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GRAY DAVIS, Governor of the State of California; ROBERT PRESLEY, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; JAMES NIELSEN, Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms; CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, DOES 1-100, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] James M. Humes, California Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellants.
Donald H. Specter, San Quentin, California; Arlene B. Mayerson, Berkeley, California; Michael W. Bien, San Francisco, California; Elaine B. Feingold, Berkeley, California; Eve Shapiro, San Francisco, California; Warren E. George, San Francisco, California; Shawn Everett Hanson, San Francisco, California; for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-02307-CW.
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Concurrence by Judge Berzon.
The facts established at trial, and not disputed on appeal, demonstrate that the State of California regularly discriminated against disabled prisoners and parolees during its parole and parole revocation hearing processes. The district court found that the California Board of Prison Terms (the state parole authority) failed to make proper accommodations for numerous disabled prisoners and parolees, with the result that a number of such individuals forfeited their rights to parole and parole revocation hearings and appeals, while others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings, all in contravention of federal law. Following a ten-day bench trial, the district court held that the defendants engaged in systematic and widespread discrimination which violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, holdings that the state officials and agency do not now challenge on the merits. The district court entered a system-wide injunction requiring the Board to modify its policies and practices to comply with federal statutory and constitutional standards.
On appeal, the Board asks us to dissolve the district court's injunction principally for the following reasons: (1) the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge its policy; (2) the district court must defer to the Board's decisions as long as they potentially further any penological interest; (3) the plaintiffs' settlement agreement with the Department of Corrections prohibits injunctive relief for any acts the Board delegates to the Department; (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system-wide relief; (5) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act and federalism concerns preclude the type of injunctive relief ordered. In addition, the Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292.
The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments; hearing disabilities; visual disabilities; learning disabilities; mental retardation; and renal impairments. Initially, the plaintiff class sued two divisions of the California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority (Agency or YACA): the Board of Prison Terms (Board or BPT) and the California Department of Corrections (Department or CDC). The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. The plaintiffs alleged that the state's policies and practices as implemented by both divisions discriminated against them on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as violated the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
By agreement of the parties, litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. This appeal involves only the order and injunction directed to the Board of Prison Terms and certain state officials responsible for its operations, and not the separate order and injunction addressed to the Department of Corrections. Neither the Board nor the state officials challenge the district court's conclusions that they engaged in system-wide violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings, and parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1
The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis, the Governor of the State of California; Robert Presley, Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; James Nielsen, Secretary of the Board of Prison Terms; and the Board itself. The Agency oversees the activities of its various boards and departments, including the Board of Prison Terms.2 As the Secretary of the Agency, defendant Robert Presley is directly responsible to the Governor, for the operations of each department within the Agency. The Secretary is a member of the Governor's Cabinet, and advises the Governor on correctional matters and on any changes necessary to properly conduct the work of the Agency.
As noted, plaintiffs initially sued two of YACA's divisions in this lawsuit: the California Department of Corrections and the Board of Prison Terms. The Department, which is not a party to the portion of the action on appeal, is responsible for all relevant aspects of prisoners' and parolees' lives, except that it does not have authority over parole and parole revocation hearings.3 That authority is vested in the Board, which is one of the parties to this appeal.
The Board serves as the parole authority for the State of California, see Cal. Penal Code 3000(b)(7). It conducts parole hearings for prisoners sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole, who are the only adult prisoners subject to such hearings under California law.4 See Cal. Penal Code 1168, 1170. In addition, the Board conducts revocation hearings for parolees accused of violating conditions of parole, Cal. Penal Code 2645, and revocation extension hearings for prisoners who allegedly commit an offense while incarcerated because they have had their parole revoked.5 Finally, the Board also conducts various custody hearings for offenders who are designated mentally disordered or sexually violent. It is the Board's discriminatory policies concerning against the disabled that form the basis for this appeal.
Pursuant to a "settlement agreement" entered into in its part of the instant case, the Department (which is not involved in the present appeal) filed a motion regarding the applicability of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act as applied to prisons. The agreement provided that if the district court held the Acts applicable, the Department would be found liable.6 The stipulation explicitly stated, however, that it did "not resolve any issues between plaintiffs and the Board of Prison Terms or defendant Neilsen." The district court denied the Department's motion for summary judgment, held that the two statutes are applicable to prisons, entered a remedial order and permanent injunction, and certified the issue of the applicability of the Acts to the Department for interlocutory appeal. We affirmed the district court's holding on that issue.7
Plaintiffs continued to litigate their action against the Board. On January 5, 1998, the district court entered the parties' stipulation and order amending the class by including developmentally disabled prisoners so that the class" consists of 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." Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reflecting the amended class designation, and named the defendants listed in the caption of this appeal, as well as a number of other individuals who were associated with the Department.
The Board moved to dismiss or strike all defendants other than Nielsen and the Board from the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that the "settlement agreement "had resolved the plaintiffs' claims against them.8 The court denied the Board's motions (other than as to the Director of the Department and his subordinates), on the ground that the Second Amended Complaint did not involve claims addressed in the settlement agreement, and that it did not constitute an attempt to retry the merits of those claims, nor to enforce the agreement collaterally. Thus, the court allowed the case against Governor Davis and Secretary Presley to proceed with respect to the matters now before us. Finally, at pre-trial conference, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint by adding three more named plaintiffs. Defendants did not object, and the third amended complaint was filed on April 7, 1999.
The parties engaged in a ten-day bench...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellman v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc.
...if at least one named plaintiff meets the requirements." Bates v. UPS , 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Armstrong v. Davis , 275 F.3d 849, 860 (9th Cir. 2001) )."Beyond the constitutional requirements, the federal judiciary has also adhered to a set of prudential principles that b......
-
Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc.
...courts have broad discretion to revisit class certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court, Armstrong v. Davis , 275 F.3d 849, 872 n. 28 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court finds it unnecessary to do so here. The class definition is sufficiently defined to ensure members within it......
-
Olden v. LaFarge Corp.
...and will be reversed `only upon a strong showing that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion.'" Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). "Abuse of discretion is defined as `a definite and firm conviction that the trial......
-
Fikre v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
...violative of the plaintiffs' [federal] rights.’ " Nordstrom v. Ryan , 762 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis , 275 F.3d 849, 861 (9th Cir.2002) )(omission and bracketed text in original). Nonetheless, in all circumstances in which a plaintiff may "seek injunctive relie......
-
Veterans' Benefits and Due Process
...also Brinkman, 433 U.S. at 420 ("Only if there has been a systemwide impact may there be a systemwide remedy."). 279. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 870 (9th Cir. 280. Finally, it is worth pointing out that certain concerns relevant to imposing in-junctive relief in other circumstances a......
-
Sentencing
...Act (ADA) requires that parole policies and practices accommodate inmates with disabilities to ensure due process. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 863-64 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 (2005). Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has suggested th......
-
Involuntary Commitment of People With Mental Retardation: Ensuring All of Georgia's Citizens Receive Adequate Procedural Due Process - Laura W. Harper
...See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 260 (1967). 209. 386 F. Supp. 378 (M.D. Ala. 1974). 210. Id. at 397. 211. Id. at 396. 212. Id. 213. 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). 214. Id. at 856-58. 215. Id. at 879. 216. Id. at 865. 217. Id. at 863. 218. Id. at 862-63. 219. Id. at 863. 220. 424 U.S. 31......
-
Release.
...Appeals Court PAROLE- POLICIES DISCRIMINATION Armstrong v. Davis 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). Disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action against a governor, corrections secretary, and board of prison terms, alleging that policies and practices for parole and parole revocation p......