Valdivia v. Brown
| Decision Date | 23 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | NO. CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH,CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH |
| Parties | JERRY VALDIVIA, ALFRED YANCY, and HOSSIE WELCH, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of the State of California, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Pending before the court are two motions following the remand of this matter by the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs move to enforce the stipulated injunction issued by this court on March 9, 2004, and to prohibit enforcement of Prop. 9 § 5.3, passed by California voters in 2008. Defendants move to modify the injunction to conform with Prop. 9. The court resolves the instant motions on the papers and after oral argument. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The factual and procedural background of this case has been recited in detail in prior orders of this court. See e.g., Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.Supp.2d 1275, 1276. A summary of this background and subsequent developments follows.
Plaintiffs filed this class action in 1994, challenging California's parole revocation process on constitutional grounds. In 2002, this court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that the parole revocation process violated plaintiffs' due process rights. Valdivia v. Davis, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2002). Specifically, the 2002 order held that the system in place at the time "allowing delay of up to forty-five days or more before providing the parolee an opportunity to be heard regarding the reliability of the probable cause determination does not" meet constitutional muster. Id. at 1078. In October 2002, the court ordered defendants to file a proposed remedial plan to address the constitutional deficiencies identified in the June order. In July 2003, the court issued an order in response to defendants' request for guidance on "what precisely the Constitution requires with respect to the timing and content of revocation hearings." Reiterating that procedural due process requirements are flexible as to each factual situation, the court nevertheless concluded, after a comprehensive review of the case law, that "a period of ten days [to hold a probable cause hearing] strikes a reasonable balance between inevitable procedural delays and the state's interest in conducting its parole system, on the one hand, and theliberty interests of the parolees, on the other." July 23, 2003 Order at 13. The court additionally set forth some minimal standards for the probable cause hearings with respect to accuracy.
On March 9, 2004, this court approved a stipulated settlement and permanent injunction ("Injunction"), which incorporated a remedial plan submitted by the defendants. The Injunction contains the following provisions:
On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 9: "Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law." Prop. 9adds § 3044 to the California Penal Code. That section provides:
Prop. 9 § 5.3.
Following the passage of Prop. 9, plaintiffs moved to enforcethe injunction, asserting that portions of § 3044 conflicted with provisions of the injunction and must be held invalid. Defendants moved to modify the injunction, arguing that § 3044 does not conflict with the injunction, and that if there was a conflict, the injunction should be modified to conform to Prop. 9.
The court issued an order on those motions on March 29, 2009 ("March Order"). The March Order noted four provisions of § 3044 that were in plain conflict with the injunction. See Valdivia 603 F. Supp. 2d at 1282-83. Citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and cases interpreting it,1 the court held that where there was a conflict between Prop. 9 and the injunction, Prop. 9 could not be enforced. Thus, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and denied defendants'.
Defendants appealed the March Order to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit rendered a decision on March 25, 2010, vacating and remanding this court's March Order. The Ninth Circuit held "unless a state law is found to violate a federal law, or unless the Injunction is found necessary to remedy a constitutional violation, federalism principles require the reconciliation of state law andfederal injunctions." Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2010). This court received the mandate on September 22, 2010, and briefing by the parties was completed in October 2011.
A district court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce its own injunctions. Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 488 (9th Cir. 1994). "An injunction often requires continuing supervision by the issuing court and always a continuing willingness to apply its powers and processes on behalf of the party who obtained that equitable relief." System Federation No. 91 Railway Employees' Dep't v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647 (1961).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), a court may relieve a party from its obligations under an order of the court if prospective application of the order is no longer equitable. See Sys. Fed'n No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 646-47. Modification of an injunction, including a consent decree, is considered equitable when there has been a significant change in relevant law or factual circumstances. Id. at 647-48; see also Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). The party seeking the modification bears the burden to show that modification is warranted. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383. If it does, the court must then consider whether the modification is appropriately tailored to the changed circumstance. Id.
"A district court may refuse to modify a federal injunction in light of a given state law where such a law violates federal law. See Clark v. Coye, 60 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1995). However,merely finding that a state law conflicts with a federal injunction, is insufficient to deny modification of the injunction, and "clearly constitute[s] an abuse of discretion." Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2010).
The Ninth Circuit has directed the court to determine whether "any...
To continue reading
Request your trial