Case: Francis v. State of California

On September 23, 2003, a female prisoner sentenced to a restitution center in California filed this class action against the California Department of Corrections on behalf of herself and all past and current inmates in Los Angeles restitution centers. She brought the suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in the California Superior Court on September 22, 2003 for violations of Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Represented by private counsel, she also alleged a number of state law claims against the State of California, and the Volunteers of America, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization.

The named plaintiff was incarcerated for three years while working for a private institution, and as part of the restitution center policy, her paychecks were delivered directly to the center. The center was then instructed to use the funds to first reimburse the prisoner for all work-related expenses. The remaining funds were to be divided with one third going to the center for operational costs, one third to the victim of the inmate's restitution fund, and the final third to the inmate's savings account.

The plaintiff alleged that the center improperly handled her funds by not appropriately crediting her assigned restitution fund or reimbursing her for work-related expenses. In her complaint, the plaintiff included all past and current inmates affected by the center's mishandling of accounts.

On January 5, 2004, the defendant removed the case to federal court and litigation continued with a series of motions to dismiss and amended complaints. The plaintiff filed her fourth amended complaint in November of 2005, and on May 26, 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all federal law claims. Judge Pregerson remanded to state court on the grounds that the plaintiff did not adequately state her claim after four attempts.

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit; Judges Benitez and Silverman affirmed the ruling over a dissent by Judge Berzon on September 4, 2008. Judge Berzon pointed out in her dissent that the dismissal was not on the merits but was instead based on a clerical error and that the plaintiff should have been allowed to amend.

Back in state court, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 4, 2007. Judge Shook orally denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a notice of ruling due to the existence of the plaintiff's class action in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the time. The plaintiff appealed this ruling to the California Court of Appeals on February 27, 2007. Judge Rothschild reversed, asserting that class certification was appropriate on the grounds that the state court claims would likely be resolved much more expeditiously that the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Upon resolution of the class certification issue, discovery and settlement negotiations continued through 2012. Then, on August 23, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion for final approval of class settlement. The settlement, which Judge Steven J. Kleifield approved on September 27, 2012, stipulated that the defendants pay $325,000: $69,223.71 for the class members and $255,776.29 for attorney's fees. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 2, 2013.