Case: Armstrong v. Newsom

On June 29, 1994, eleven California state prisoners and parolees with disabilities filed this lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections—now the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)—in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. Represented by the Prison Law Office, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the CDCR had discriminated against them and all others similarly situated on account of their disabilities. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the CDCR had violated their civil rights by maintaining facilities that were inaccessible to prisoners or parolees with mobility impairments. The plaintiffs also alleged that they were unable to participate in programs and activities for which they were otherwise qualified because the CDCR did not have adequate policies or practices to enable them to identify, assess, or reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities and because the CDCR had failed to provide the plaintiffs with visual, hearing, and other impairments with auxiliary aids and services. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The case was assigned to District Judge Claudia Wilken.

Class Certification, First Amended Complaint, and BPH as Additional Defendant

The plaintiffs formally moved for class certification on August 8, 1994, and the district court certified the plaintiff class on January 13, 1995. The certified class consisted of “all present and future California state prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning and kidney disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities, except those prisoners with mobility impairments housed at the California Medical Facility.” The court later entered a stipulation and order on December 24, 1998, holding that all findings, recommendations, and orders in the case applied also to prisoners and conditions at the California Medical Facility and amended the 1995 certification order accordingly.

The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on November 8, 1995, to conform to the definition of the class certified in January 1995 and to add the California Board of Prison Terms—now the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”)—as a new defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the BPH violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to properly accommodate their needs in the parole revocation process and in parole suitability hearings.  By agreement of the parties, the claims against the CDCR (prison claims) and the BPH (parolee claims) were bifurcated and addressed separately. 

BPH Litigation and Settlement (1994-2002)

After the plaintiffs amended their complaint to bring the BPH into this lawsuit, the BPH filed a motion to dismiss on November 22, 1995, arguing that the district court lacked standing to consider the plaintiff’s claims against the BPH and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. On January 11, 1996, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. 1996 WL 35052662.

On January 5, 1999, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the class definition as it applied to the claims against the BPH to include developmentally disabled prisoners and parolees. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 1999, conforming to the revised class definition, formally naming the BPH as a defendant, and expanding the list of named plaintiffs to include those with claims against the BPH. The plaintiffs also added a new claim, alleging that the BPH violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “repeatedly and persistently failing to provide the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class with appropriate assistance before, during and after” parole hearings.

On February 8, 1999, the BPH filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety for failure to exhaust alternative judicial remedies or, in the alternative, to dismiss the § 1983 claim specifically on the ground that the BPH is not a "person" within the scope of § 1983. In a separate motion previously filed on January 29, the defendants moved to dismiss or strike the second amended complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not assert new or amended claims against defendants as to whom liability previously had been settled by the court's orders. Further, the defendants also sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment and for continuance of the trial date. In an order issued on March 25, 1999, the district court denied the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. However, the court did dismiss the § 1983 claim against the BPH and granted the motion to strike as to some of the named defendants associated only with CDCR. The court denied the motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and for continuance of the trial date.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 5, 1999, including additional named definitions with learning disabilities. The claims against the BPH proceeded to trial in April 1999. The plaintiffs offered evidence including stories of a wheelchair-bound prisoner being forced to crawl to a hearing, a deaf prisoner rendered unable to communicate with a sign language interpreter because he was shackled, and a blind inmate left without assistance to read complicated written materials. On December 22, 1999, the district court issued a permanent injunction requiring the BPH to come into compliance with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by self-evaluating facilities for ADA compliance and creating an ADA transition plan, implementing policies to ensure ongoing compliance, and identifying prisoners and parolees with disabilities at the outset of parole proceedings. The court also ordered the BPH to train personnel on ADA requirements, establish a system to track individuals with disabilities, provide necessary accommodations at the screening process and at all BPH hearings, hire a full-time ADA coordinator, revise forms for accessibility, ensure communication aids are available at parole proceedings, provide accommodations to ensure understanding of rights and charges, and assist individuals with disabilities in preparing appeals. Lastly, the court required the development of a grievance procedure specifically for addressing accommodation requests and complaints.

The BPH appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing for the dissolution of the injunction on five grounds: (1) the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge BPH policy; (2) the district court must defer to BPH decisions as long as they potentially further any penological interest; (3) the plaintiffs’ settlement agreement with the CDCR prohibits injunctive relief for any acts the BPH delegates to the CDCR; (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system-wide relief; and (5) the PLRA and federalism concerns preclude the type of injunctive relief the district court ordered. A three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon heard arguments in the appeal on April 12, 2001. On November 28, 2001, Judge Reinhardt issued an opinion finding that the class certified by the district court was overbroad in that it included "sexually violent predators, mentally disordered offenders, and prisoners or parolees with renal impairments"—groups not represented by any named plaintiff. 275 F.3d 849. The court also vacated portions of the injunction pertaining to matters implicating CDCR facilities or staff that had been addressed in the separate settlement process between the plaintiffs and the CDCR. The injunction was upheld in all other respects, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 7, 2002. 537 U.S. 812.

Thereafter, the parties met and conferred regarding a revision of the class certification and the permanent injunction to conform to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The district court issued a stipulation and order on February 11, 2002, revising the class certification order to include the following language: “The BPH’s polices, practices, and responsibilities in dealing with sexually violent predator (SVP) parole proceedings and mentally disordered offender (MDO) parole proceedings in the specific context of this case are sufficiently similar to the BPH’s policies, practices, and responsibilities in dealing with life prisoner and parole revocation parole proceedings to allow fair representation of the SVP and MDO class members by the present named plaintiffs.”

The district court simultaneously issued a revised permanent injunction clarifying specific aspects of the original injunction. It specified that, with respect to the requirement for the BPH to provide accessible parole proceedings, the CDCR needed to transport mobility-impaired prisoners to accessible locations only if their current facility was inadequate and could refuse to do so entirely for valid security or penological reasons. The court expanded the training requirements to include CDCR staff involved in parole and revocation processes and specified that if CDCR personnel declined training, BPH personnel must take over unless CDCR mandated its own staff for the services. Additionally, the court clarified that the BPH was not required to duplicate CDCR’s tracking of individuals with disabilities and could use CDCR’s systems to comply with the injunction.

The state subsequently failed to fully comply with the revised permanent injunction. Specifically, the BPH failed to create a sufficient system for tracking prisoners and parolees with disabilities and failed to provide appropriate accommodations during parole hearings. The plaintiffs filed an enforcement motion in April 2006, which the district court granted on May 30, 2006, after finding that “some of the worst abuses proven at trial in April and May 1999 are continuing, almost seven years after this Court issued the Permanent Injunction.” 2006 WL 6931581. The court ordered the defendants to implement a statewide tracking system for parole revocations and extensions on or before January 1, 2007, and on or after May 1, 2007, for life prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings, and SVP proceedings. In November 2006, the defendants filed a motion requesting the implementation deadlines be delayed, which the court denied on December 14, 2006.

In June 2007, the plaintiffs moved to enforce the court’s May 2006 enforcement order, arguing that the state had failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to implement the tracking system provided for in the revised injunction. On September 11, 2007, the district court issued another enforcement order in which the court ordered additional remedial measures. 2007 WL 2694243. Noting that the BPH had developed a computerized, network database system called the Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS) accessible through the intranet or the internet, the court required the BPH to provide DECS access for hearing officers, parole agents, Classification and Parole Representatives, mental health clinicians, and BPH Commissioners by January 1, 2008, and mandated that staff such as Correctional Counselors and parole agents check DECS before parole proceedings. The court also required the BPH to resolve gaps in disability data entry within 14 days, address issues with sign language interpretation services and delays from January to June 2007 within 30 days, and certify funding for all disability accommodations and DECS access. Finally, the court required the BPH to produce a report on wheelchair-accessible housing in county jails, provide ADA training for all BPH attorneys, and establish a system to hold staff accountable for compliance issues.

The enforcement order also included a prohibition on substituting live sign language interpreters with video conferencing unless BPH demonstrates adequate equipment and procedures are in place. The court also required the warden of Folsom State Prison to provide evidence of established policies ensuring mobility-impaired inmates can access parole proceeding locations and required that all prisons certify sufficient accessible locations for parole-related activities and ensure relevant policies and training are in place.

CDCR Settlement

The plaintiffs entered into settlement negotiations with the CDCR in January 1996. After months of negotiations, the court approved a stipulation and order on July 9, 1996, to resolve the issues in the case without trial. The stipulated procedures anticipated that the defendants would bring a motion for summary judgment asserting that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act applied to state prisoners and that the state was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. After the defendants formally filed their motion, the U.S. CDCR of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in opposition.

The district court denied the defendants’ motion on September 20, 1996, holding that both statutes applied to state correctional facilities and that, under Ex parte Young, the state was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 942 F.Supp. 1252. Simultaneously, the district court adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that the CDCR violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and entered a remedial order and injunction directing the CDCR to develop plans to remedy their violations by providing class members with accommodations, program access, and means of effective communication. The order established a timeline and procedure for the plaintiffs to raise objections to the CDCR’s plans, triggering a meet-and-confer process and potential court hearing.

The CDCR appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 26, 1996, where the appeal was assigned to a three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Alfred T. Goodwin, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Stephen S. Trott. On August 27, 1997, Judge Goodwin, writing for the panel, affirmed the district court’s determination that both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act applied to state correctional facilities, and that the Eleventh Amendment did not shield the state from liability. 124 F.3d 1019. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 22, 1998. 524 U.S. 937.

On April 9, 1997, while the appeal was pending, the plaintiffs filed their objections to the CDCR’s proposed remedial plan. The district court then issued a scheduling order for briefing and hearings on three sets of unresolved issues to be covered by the plan. While the parties were able to resolve most issues through the meet-and-confer process, the district court was left to resolve a number of these outstanding issues in a series of orders issued on October 8, 1997; March 20, 1998; and September 16, 1998. Pursuant to the September 16 order, CDCR developed a remedial plan inclusive of the negotiated changes and the court-ordered modifications, which the CDCR submitted on November 30, 1998. The district court issued an order on January 8, 1999, requiring CDCR to implement and comply with the remedial plan.

The CDCR appealed part of the district court’s January 8 order to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that that the district court erred in (1) ordering the CDCR to include additional southern prisons in institutions selected to house inmates with disabilities (Disability Placement Plan) and (2) imposing on the CDCR a burden of persuasion with regard to the verification of inmates’ disabilities. The CDCR also argued that the district court violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) by requiring it to implement the negotiated portions of the remedial plans without first making a finding that these were the least restrictive remedies necessary to achieve compliance. On April 11, 2000, a three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, Arthur Alarcón, and Barry Silverman issued an order vacating the district court’s injunction to the extent that it applied to the Disability Placement Plan and verification process, and to the extent that it required the CDCR to comply with the negotiated portions of its remedial plans. 215 F.3d 1332. All other portions of the district court’s order remained in effect.

On January 3, 2001, the CDCR submitted an amended remedial plan in response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling. On March 21, 2001, the district court issued a permanent injunction requiring the CDCR to maintain accessible beds at Deuel Vocational Institute, provide substance abuse programs for disabled female inmates at a designated institution, and ensure structural and equipment accessibility for prison services and programs. Additionally, the court required accessible placements for disabled civil addicts, the establishment of a Community Correctional Reentry Center in Parole Region IV, and the inclusion of ADA compliance clauses in contracts with third-party facility operators. The injunction also outlined grievance procedures for inmates and parolees with disabilities, as well as guidelines for extended stays (60+ days) by inmates with disabilities at reception centers.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs engaged in monitoring efforts to ensure the CDCR was adhering to its remedial plan and the permanent injunction, as well as making strides toward becoming compliant with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. After years of extensive monitoring, the CDCR still had failed to achieve compliance, and the plaintiffs brought a motion for enforcement and requested the district court issue further remedial orders. On January 18, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the defendants had been unable to meet their obligations and thereby caused substantial harm to the plaintiff class.

2007 Injunction for Further Remedy and Its Enforcement (2007-2015)

On January 18, 2007, the district court issued a separate injunction after finding that the CDCR was continuing to severely violate the rights of prisoners with disabilities despite extensive monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel. Judge Wilken found the CDCR was noncompliant with state law, the revised permanent injunction, or its own remedial plan. Judge Wilken specifically highlighted issues with inaccessible housing, denial of sign language interpreters to prisoners who need them, confiscation of medically prescribed assistive devices, late and inadequate disability grievance responses, and inadequate disability tracking. She ordered the state to increase the number of staff on its compliance and grievance response teams, develop and implement a statewide computerized tracking system, integrate that system with the tracking system previously ordered in February 2002, and generate an inventory of accessible housing. She also ordered the state to develop a system to hold wardens and prison medical administrators accountable for compliance, provide proper training to health care staff and correctional officers, and establish permanent salaried positions for sign language interpreters.

Following the 2007 injunction, Judge Wilken issued several orders to enforce compliance with the injunction and remedy the plaintiffs’ grievances: 

• a February 26, 2008, order for the CDCR to construct a medical center at San Quentin state Prison, add clinical and office space at existing adult prisons, and construct approximately 5,000 additional medical beds and 5,000 mental health beds;
• a March 10, 2008, order issued in coordination with the Coleman, Plata, and Perez cases approving an agreement under which CDCR was to establish an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for each inmate for use in facilitating a clinical data warehouse, patient and clinician portals and reports, integrated patient care at a regional level, case management outcome and reporting, chronic disease registries, enterprise-wide scheduling, supported clinical decisions, cost effective and timely patient-centered care, and telemedicine delivery;
• an October 7, 2008, order issued in coordination with the Coleman, Plata, and Perez cases requiring all office space planning be managed by a single unit rather than multiple in order to ensure that the planning, acquisition, and management of necessary space would better support the requirements of the mental health and dental programs in a cost-efficient manner;
• an October 20, 2009, enforcement order mandating CDCR provide appropriate wheelchair accessible beds for wheelchair users who required medium security and provide sign language interpreters to prisoners who needed them in education and substance abuse programs;
• and a March 28, 2011, stipulation order requiring the parties to file periodic joint statements describing the status of the litigation every other month, beginning on May 16, 2011.

A disagreement also arose between the parties following the 2007 injunction as to whether the CDCR was responsible for compliance with respect to class members housed in county facilities. On September 16, 2009, the district court summarily rejected the defendants’ argument that they were not responsible for ADA violations class members were subjected to in county facilities and ordered the state to remedy noncompliance within these facilities. 261 F.R.D. 173. Following an appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on September 7, 2010, affirming the lower court’s ruling, holding that “a state cannot avoid its obligations under federal law by contracting with a third party to perform its functions. The rights of individuals are not so ethereal or so easily avoided.” 622 F.3d 1058. However, the appellate court did remand to the district court for further hearings the question of whether system-wide relief was necessary on the grounds that the evidentiary record as presented was not sufficient. Once remanded, the plaintiffs submitted additional evidence as to the nature and extent of violations, and the district court issued an order granting the renewed system-wide enforcement motion on January 13, 2012. The court denied a motion to stay and made minor modifications and corrections in a separate order entered on April 11, 2012. 857 F.Supp.2d 919. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to enforce the April order, which the court granted on August 28, 2012. 857 F.Supp.2d 919.

On August 22, 2012, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the 2007 injunction. Instead, the court modified the 2007 injunction to clarify what was expected of the CDCR in terms of tracking and reporting noncompliance with the remedial plan, the ADA, or prior court orders. 2012 WL 3638675. Specifically, the order required the CDCR to track all noncompliance allegations in a searchable and sortable spreadsheet provided to plaintiffs monthly, investigate all allegations of noncompliance as promptly as possible, and initiate disciplinary proceedings or corrective action against non-compliant employees where appropriate. The modified injunction also provided that the court-appointed expert would solve disputes between the parties if necessary. 

The CDCR appealed the modification order to the Ninth Circuit where the matter was assigned to a three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Marsha S. Berzon. On September 26, 2014, Judge Tashima, writing for the panel, upheld the modification in all respects other than the provisions relating to the dispute resolution mechanism, which the panel held to be “impermissible.” 768 F.3d 975. Specifically, Judge Tashima held that the modified injunction did not provide any mechanism for review of the expert's decisions by the district court and thus risked “permitting the expert to displace the district court's judicial role.” On December 5, 2014, the district court issued an order revising the modified injunction to make administrative recommendations from the expert reviewable by the district court on motion by any dissatisfied party. On December 29, 2014, the district court entered its finalized order amending the 2007 injunction, including both the provisions from the August 2012 order on how the state was to manage noncompliance and the December 5 order revising the dispute resolution mechanism.

On February 3, 2015, the district court granted another motion for further enforcement of the 2007 injunction after Judge Wilken found that the state was still routinely housing class members in administrative segregation in violation of the ADA and the court's prior orders. She ordered the state to fully document their reason for housing any class members in administrative segregation and to submit the report to the plaintiffs’ counsel. 103 F.Supp.3d 1070.

Injunction re: Failure to Supply Sign Language Interpreters (2013)

In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the district court’s prior orders on the basis that the defendants have consistently failed to provide sign language interpreters (SLIs) during education and vocational programs at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) and have failed to provide SLIs during psychiatric technicians’ rounds for patients housed in administrative segregation housing units. The district court issued an order on June 4, 2013, in which Judge Wilken ordered CDCR to take the steps to remedy its failure to comply with its obligations with respect to the provision of interpretation services. 939 F.Supp.2d 1012. Specifically, she required CDCR to (1) provide a qualified SLI to for all deaf prisoners whose primary means of communication is sign language during all regularly scheduled mental health rounds and all other encounters within the definition of the ARP; (2) establish permanent civil service positions for qualified SLIs for SATF, for as long as it is designated to house deaf prisoners, and employ sufficient qualified interpreters to serve the needs of the deaf prisoners housed at SATF, including at all educational and vocational classes; and (3) continue to maintain and provide to the defendants logs documenting whether SLIs were provided to deaf prisoners during educational and vocational programs at SATF and, if applicable, the reason for any failure to provide an SLI.

Injunctions re: Retaliation Against Disabled Inmates (2020-2023)

On February 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction preventing the defendants from assaulting, abusing, or retaliating against inmates with disabilities at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD). In support of their motion, 54 incarcerated people submitted declarations. Some of the declarants alleged instances in which correctional officers retaliated against them or others for, among other things, submitting or threatening to submit complaints regarding staff misconduct or failures to provide disability accommodations. Some of the declarants also alleged instances in which correctional officers retaliated against individuals by charging them with false rules violations reports. On March 17, 2020, the district court entered a stipulated order in which the defendants agreed to prohibit RJD staff members from retaliating against declarants (or others involved in the February 28 motion) and to implement procedures to assess allegations of retaliation.

The plaintiffs filed a second, state-wide motion for an injunction preventing retaliation against class members on June 3, 2020. The plaintiffs sought remedial measures at the following seven prisons: California State Prison, Los Angeles County; California Correctional Institution; Kern Valley State Prison; California State Prison, Corcoran; Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF); California Institute for Women; and Salinas Valley State Prison.

On July 1, 2020, while the February and June injunction motions were pending, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting that the court move two of the class members from RJD who had been victims of retaliation. On July 2, 2020, the court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the state to transfer the two class members to an alternative facility with equivalent security level and access to programming opportunities within four days of the order. 

The district court heard arguments on the February and June injunction motions on July 16, 2020. The court issued a preliminary injunction on July 30, 2020, finding that the defendants had retaliated against the two class members who were the subjects of the temporary restraining order and again ordering the defendants to move them to a different facility. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that another class member had died at the hands of his cellmate after a corrections officer ignored his requests to be moved for his safety. 475 F.Supp.3d 1038.

On September 8, 2020, the district court issued a lengthy opinion granting much of the relief requested by the plaintiffs in the RJD-specific February 2020 motion. 484 F.Supp.3d 808. After describing numerous instances of unpunished staff violence against class members at RJD, the court found that the defendants violated the class members' rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. In one such instance, one of the class members who the court had ordered transferred to another facility on July 30 received a threatening note signed by a "correctional officer gang" the night before his transfer. Finding that the defendants' failure to investigate and discipline staff was the "root cause" of the violations, the court ordered the defendants to work with the plaintiffs to create a modified remedial plan for the RJD that included installing surveillance cameras; equipping corrections officers with body cameras; revamping the staff complaint, investigation and discipline process; establishing third-party expert monitoring; enforcing information sharing with the plaintiffs' counsel; increasing supervisory staff; establishing increased staff supervision and training; developing mechanisms to prevent retaliation against class members; and  modifying pepper-spray policies. 

The district court held a hearing on the June 2020 injunction motion on December 12, 2020. On March 11, 2021, the court granted the motion in part, ordering the plaintiffs to design, and then implement, a plan (the “Five Prisons Remedial Plan”) that requires additional remedial measures at five of the seven requested facilities: the Los Angeles and Corcoran facilities, the SATF, Kern Kalley, and the California Institute for Women. 2021 WL 933106. The court-ordered remedial measures were largely identical to those ordered for RJD. 2021 WL 930454.

The state appealed both remedial orders to the Ninth Circuit. With both orders on appeal, the parties submitted a remedial plan while continuing to negotiate over contentious portions between March 2021 and January 2022. In late December 2021 and early January 2022, the defendants promulgated emergency regulations to make changes to employee discipline, the handling of staff misconduct allegations, and budget changes in accordance with the remedial order.

On March 23, 2022, the district court stipulated that the defendants had finalized two remedial plans. The first remedial plan, the RJD Remedial Plan, focused on the reforms required by the RJD injunction, including policies for body-worn and surveillance cameras, training, processes for staff complaints, and third-party monitoring through the court-appointed expert. The RJD remedial plan also included a section on anti-retaliation mechanisms and a modified policy for use of pepper spray. The second plan, the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, addressed the five prisons specified by the court on March 11, 2021, and provided for reforms that were substantively the same as those in the RJD Remedial Plan.

On February 2, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion pertaining to the September 2020 and March 2021 injunctions for RJD and the five prisons, respectively. The court affirmed all parts of the RJD order, as well as all parts of the Five Prisons order except those requiring defendants to increase supervisory staff and to modify pepper-spray policies. 58 F.4th 1283.

Remedial Plan Amendment Addressing Transition to Parole (2021-2023)

In May 2021, counsel for the plaintiffs issued a demand letter identifying significant deficiencies in the processes for transitioning individuals with disabilities from prison to parole. The letter alleged systemic failures to provide adequate accommodations for class members, which prompted the state to agree to engage in negotiations to reform its policies and procedures. These negotiations culminated in a stipulation and order issued by the district court on June 12, 2023, amending the Parole Field Operations section of the remedial plan. The key provisions of the amendment include requirements for CDCR to release individuals with a 60-day supply of prescription medications, conduct clinical assessments to evaluate disability and medical related needs, and provide accessible transportation. The amendment also requires transitional housing programs to accept individuals regardless of disability and ensure ADA compliance, requires benefits applications to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to release to mitigate coverage gaps, and requires parole agents to evaluate whether a failure to accommodate disabilities contributed to alleged parole violations.

Further updates to the remedial plan address other issues such as effective communication, learning disabilities, and accommodations for individuals who require sign language interpretation. These provisions mandate policies to ensure all communications with individuals with disabilities are accessible and that learning disabilities are adequately identified and accommodated throughout the transition process. The revisions also strengthen requirements for the provision of qualified sign language interpreters to ensure access to critical information and services, including during transitional housing placements, parole meetings, and other mandatory programs.

Remedial Plan Addressing Failure to Accommodate Class Members with Vision and Hearing Disabilities (2023-2024)

On November 14, 2023, the plaintiffs requested an order of enforcement for the revised permanent injunction and the development of a plan to ensure the defendants' policies and procedures for accommodating class members with vision and hearing disabilities comply with the injunction and the ADA. On March 20, 2024, the district court partially granted the motion, ordering the defendants to develop policies to: (1) identify and provide accommodations for blind and low-vision class members to access and prepare parole-related documents, using individualized assessments to determine appropriate formats or devices; (2) ensure deaf class members who use ASL and have difficulty with written English receive accommodations, including video recordings, transcripts, and translations for parole preparation and grievances; and (3) ensure that panel attorneys intended to serve as accommodations for vision or hearing disabilities receive adequate training and time necessary to provide the accommodations. 724 F.Supp.3d 886; 2024 WL 3024570.

On June 3, 2024, the defendants filed a notice stating that they developed and implemented a plan containing the requisite remedial measures. The plaintiffs filed a list of objections to the plan on June 26, 2024. The court then issued an order on July 31, 2024, sustaining in part and rejecting in part the plaintiffs’ objections. The court ordered the defendants to amend the plan to provide that all deaf class members who used sign language as their primary method of communication should receive video recordings of sign language translations of their CRA; to include a provision that required the defendants to document and track a primary accommodation for blind and low-vision class members who refused individual vision assessments by a vision specialist; and to ensure more equitable panel attorney assistance by requiring panel attorney assistance for DNV class members. On August 14, 2024, the defendants adopted a policy laying out the revised measures.