Clark v. State

Decision Date16 September 2010
Docket NumberCase No. C 96-1486 CRB
Citation739 F.Supp.2d 1168
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesDerrick CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
739 F.Supp.2d 1168

Derrick CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
State of CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.


Case No. C 96-1486 CRB.

United States District Court,
N.D. California.


Sept. 16, 2010.

739 F.Supp.2d 1172

Shawn Hanson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Caroline Nason Mitchell, Jones Day, Douglas Edward Roberts, San Francisco, CA, Donald H. Specter, Heather Jane MacKay, Sara Linda Norman, Zoe Schonfeld, Berkeley, CA, Mark Andrew Chavez, Chavez & Gertler LLP, Mill Valley, CA, Penelope Marie Godbold, San Rafael, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, Department of Justice, William Newell Jenkins, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Michael James Quinn, CA State Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

Julianne Mossler, State Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

I. Introduction and Background

1. The State of California, the Governor and various state prison officials initiated the current proceedings by bringing a motion pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b), to terminate the prospective relief in this case. That relief is contained in a 2001 Settlement Agreement and Order that requires these defendants to comply with a set of policies and procedures, known collectively as the Clark Remedial Plan ("CRP" or "Remedial Plan"), which they drafted to ensure that California prisoners with developmental disabilities were protected from serious injury and discrimination on the basis of their disability. See Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); U.S. Constitution amends. VIII, XIV. Defendants maintain that prospective relief should be terminated because there are no current and ongoing violations of the plaintiff class members' rights under federal law.

2. Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class are prisoners with developmental disabilities incarcerated within California's prison system. They oppose defendants' motion and seek further injunctive relief. They argue that an order requiring compliance with the policies and procedures in the Clark Remedial Plan would be insufficient to cure those statutory and constitutional

739 F.Supp.2d 1173
violations, and that further relief is therefore necessary.

3. Much of the evidence before the Court is not in dispute. First, there is no dispute about the nature of the class. These prisoners represent an extremely small percentage of the overall prison population who, because of their disabilities, are vulnerable to physical, sexual and verbal abuse, exploitation, theft, and harassment. They also require accommodations from the normal routines of prison life if they are to be safe and able to participate meaningfully in prison activities and programs.

4. Second, there is no dispute about the utility of the Settlement Agreement and the Clark Remedial Plan. Prison officials testified that the Remedial Plan has been valuable to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). These witnesses also agreed that most of the Remedial Plan would continue regardless of the Court's ruling.

5. What is in dispute, therefore, is whether the Order requiring compliance with the Plan, including monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel and Court experts, is necessary. To help answer that question one of the Court's experts, Dr. Peter Leone, conducted a systemic review of the treatment of developmentally disabled prisoners in the CDCR. Based on over 150 prisoner interviews, a review of extensive prison documents and interviews with 29 prison staff at the seven prisons that house a majority of class members, he concluded that "[w]hile some dedicated CDCR staff were providing appropriate services and support to inmates with DD, the system as a whole appeared indifferent to the needs of these inmates" and that "[t]he breadth and severity of problems described in this report suggest that with some exceptions, inmates with DD do not receive the protections and supports as described in the Clark Remedial Plan." Report of Dr. Peter Leone, February 15, 2010, (Tr. Ex. 1) (Leone Report) at 4, 19.

6. The weight of the evidence supports and amplifies Dr. Leone's conclusions. In total the evidence demonstrates that mentally retarded prisoners and those with autism spectrum disorders are verbally, physically, and sexually assaulted, exploited, and discriminated against in California prisons. Illiterate prisoners are not given the help they need to understand or fill out important prison documents, leaving them with no way to use sick call slips or grievance forms, unless they can pay other prisoners or beg them for help. Developmentally disabled prisoners are punished for violating prison rules that they do not understand, and are punished at hearings which they do not comprehend. These conditions violate those prisoners' rights to be free of unlawful discrimination based on their disabilities.

7. In 2001, defendants admitted "that they [had] violated the federal rights of plaintiffs in a manner sufficient to warrant the relief contained herein." Settlement Agreement and Order, December 3, 2001 (Dkt.# 194) (Settlement Agreement & Order), ¶ 15. Today, defendants no longer admit that they are violating the federal rights of prisoners with developmental disabilities, nor that continued relief is necessary because of those violations. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, this Court disagrees. For the reasons explained below, this Court DENIES defendants' motion for relief. Moreover, this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' motion for further relief.

A. Procedural Background

8. California prisoners with developmental disabilities filed this action in 1996, claiming that defendants discriminated against them on the basis of their disabilities in violation of the Americans with

739 F.Supp.2d 1174
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; that defendants were depriving them of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and that plaintiffs were living under conditions that constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. First Amended Complaint, October 31, 1996 (Dkt.# 32), at 21-25. In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged that they were denied adequate accommodations, protection, and services because of their developmental disabilities. Id. at 2-4. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants did not protect the plaintiff class from physical violence and manipulation by other prisoners; denied them due process in disciplinary, grievance, parole, or other administrative proceedings; and denied them equal access to good time credits and medical and mental health care, among other prison services. Id. at 7-9, 12-13.

9. In 1998, at the parties' request, this Court ordered the appointment of two neutral experts to assist the parties and the Court by, among other things, evaluating defendants' proposed remedial plans and modifications to, and compliance with, the plans. Order Appointing Experts and Prescribing Duties, August 18, 1998 (Dkt.# 180). The parties together chose Dr. Peter Leone and Dr. Melissa Warren to fill the expert roles. Id. at 1.

10. Over the next several years, the parties, with assistance from Dr. Leone and Dr. Warren, negotiated and agreed on specific remedial measures necessary to protect class members' rights, formalized in the CRP. The CRP sets forth policies for identifying, classifying, housing, and accommodating each class member, based upon the individual prisoner's level of disability. In the Settlement Agreement and Order filed with this Court on December 3, 2001, defendants admitted "that they [had] violated the federal rights of plaintiffs in a manner sufficient to warrant the relief contained herein." Settlement Agreement & Order, ¶ 15. Defendants agreed to implement the CRP, subject to monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel, evaluation by the Court experts, negotiation between the parties, and, if necessary, enforcement by the Court. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8. Specifically, they agreed that "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this agreement. The Court shall have the power to enforce the agreement through specific performance and all other remedies permitted by law." Id. ¶ 5. As part of the settlement, all parties agreed that Dr. Leone and Dr. Warren would continue in their roles as Court experts, with the same duties set forth in the Court's Order from August 18, 1998. Id. ¶ 6.

11. On July 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to terminate the Settlement Agreement & Order, claiming that there are no current or ongoing violations of plaintiff class members' federal rights. Defendants' Motion to Terminate Settlement Agreement, July 24, 2009 (Motion to Terminate) (Dkt.# 205). In the same motion, defendants moved to dismiss relief in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 7, 2009, alleging that defendants had not met their burden of proof and that current and ongoing violations of the rights of the plaintiff class justified the continuation of relief in this case. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Settlement Agreement, August 7, 2009 (Opposition to Termination Motion) (Dkt.# 244). On March 9, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for further relief (Dkt.# 329), which defendants opposed on April 5, 2010 (Dkt.# 384).

12. This Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there exist current and ongoing violations of federal

739 F.Supp.2d 1175
law and, if so, whether further relief is necessary to cure those violations. The hearing began on May 10, 2010, and continued until May 18, 2010. Clerk's Notice, April 12, 2010 (Dkt.# 395); Civil Trial Minutes, May 18, 2010 (Dkt.# 465).

13. In preparation for the hearing, the Court's expert in this case, Dr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Lewis v. Cain
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...518. 311 F.R.D. 177, 219 (N.D. Ill. 2015). 519. Id. at 226 (emphasis added). 520. Emphasis added. 521. JX 7-a at 1. 522. 739 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1231 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 523. Id. at 1234. 524. No. 94-2307 CW,1999 WL 35799705 at *31 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 1999). 525. 275 F.3d 849, 859 (9th Cir. 2001)......
  • Acosta v. Servin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 24 Febrero 2021
    ...his claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (reaffirming liberal construction of pro se pleadings after Iqbal). 5. The Clark Remedial Plan is part of a class-action settlement agreement establishing a set of policies and procedures to ensure "California prisoners with......
  • Braggs v. Dunn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 2 Septiembre 2020
    ...to compel compliance with an original order entered pursuant to the PLRA that has been ignored."); Clark v. California , 739 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1233-35 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Breyer, J.) (stating that, in fashioning relief, courts "may take into account a history of noncompliance with prior order......
  • Hopkins v. California
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 28 Diciembre 2021
    ...under the statute. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1123-24 (5th Cir. 1986). An inmate seeking relief pursuant to the Armstrong or Clark plans[1] “must pursue his requests via the consent decree or through class counsel, ” Crayton v. Terhune, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17568, 2002 WL 31093590, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 2054 Exceptions to Videoconference Presumption For Proceedings
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections Division 2. Board of Parole Hearings Chapter 1. General Article 6. Proceedings Conducted In Person and By Videoconference
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...Sections 3052 and 5076.2, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 3041.6, 3042, 3043 and 3550, Penal Code; Clark v. California (N.D. Cal. 2010) 739 F.Supp.2d 1168; Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D. Cal. 2009) 922 F.Supp.2d 882; and Armstrong v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1997) 124 F.3d...
  • California Register, 2022, Number 24. June 17, 2022
    • United States
    • California Register
    • Invalid date
    ...3043, 3043.2, 3043.25, 3550, and 5076.1; Armstrong v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1997) 124 F.3d 1019; Clark v. California (N.D. Cal. 2010) 739 F.Supp.2d 1168; Coleman v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014, No. 2:90–cv–00520–LKK DAD (PC), 2014 WL 2889598, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17913); and Plata v. Newsom......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT