Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Armstrong v. Newsom

4:94-cv-02307 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 29, 1994

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 29, 1994, disabled prisoners and parolees in California filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, charging that, on account of their disabilities, the two divisions of the California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and Board of Prison Terms ("BPT"), were generally depriving disabled prisoners of benefits and accommodations provided to other prisoners or required by due pro…

On June 29, 1994, disabled prisoners and parolees in California filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, charging that, on account of their disabilities, the two divisions of the California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and Board of Prison Terms ("BPT"), were generally depriving disabled prisoners of benefits and accommodations provided to other prisoners or required by due process. The plaintiffs were represented by the Prison Law Office, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and private attorneys. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-34, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

The district court (Judge Claudia Wilken) certified the plaintiff class in January 1995. In December 1998, the parties stipulated to amend the class definition to include "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." The class was further modified in January 1999 to include prisoners and parolees with developmental disabilities.

By agreement of the parties, the claims against CDCR (prison claims) and BPT (parolee claims) were bifurcated and proceeded on two different litigation tracks. The plaintiffs and CDCR entered into a settlement agreement that agreed to liability for CDCR, if the district court found the ADA and Rehab Act applied to prisons. The district court did find that both statutes applied to state prisons. Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F.Supp. 1252, 1258-59 (N.D. Cal. 1996). The court also found that the State was not entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for its violations of the ADA and Rehab Act. Id. at 1263. The district court entered a remedial order and injunction directing CDCR to develop a plan for compliance with the statutes by improving access to prison programs for prisoners with physical disabilities at all of California's prisons and parole facilities. The State appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Alfred Goodwin) affirmed. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

The claims against BPT were litigated by the parties; the district court held a bench trial in April 1999. The plaintiffs offered evidence including stories of a prisoner who used a wheelchair 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. The court issued a permanent injunction in March 2001 and ordered the State to come into compliance with the ADA and the Rehab Act by identifying disabled prisoners and providing them with accessible locations for parole hearings, assistance in communicating, and special aid in the screening, appeals, and grievance processes.

The State appealed, asserting that the injunction regarding parole hearings was overbroad and violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In November 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) found 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. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). The injunction was upheld in all other respects.

The court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on February 11, 2002, which required that the State create and maintain a system for tracking prisoners and parolees with disabilities, take reasonable steps to identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to parole proceedings, and provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners and parolees with disabilities at all parole proceedings, including parole revocations and revocation extensions, life prisoner hearings, mentally disordered offender proceedings, and sexually violent predator proceedings. The State failed to fully comply with the provisions of the Revised Permanent Injunction and the Plaintiffs filed an enforcement motion, which was granted in an order against the BPT defendants entered on May 30, 2006.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs sought imposition of a population cap in California state prisons. Many of the plaintiffs' complaints about disabled prisoners being denied their rights stemmed from the fact that prisons were dramatically overcrowded, resulting in disabled prisoners often being placed in administrative segregation due to lack of space. However, at this time there were several ongoing class action law suits having to do with prison conditions in California. In this case, the district court appointed an expert in 2007 to facilitate the coordination of remedial processes in this case with three other pending class actions: Coleman v. Brown (E.D. Cal.), Plata v. Brown (N.D. Cal.), and Perez v. Tilton (N.D. Cal.). The district court also decided that issues relating to the sought population cap would be addressed in the other lawsuits.

On January 18, 2007, Judge Wilken issued a separate Injunction. She found that despite extensive monitoring of CDCR institutions by plaintiffs' counsel, the State was continuing to severely violate the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the ADA and Rehab Act. She found the State was not compliant with the law, the Revised Permanent Injunction, or its own Remedial Plan (first put forth in 1998, and amended in 2001, 2002, and 2006). The violations were occurring with regard to 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. Judge Wilken ordered that the State increase the number of staff on its compliance and grievance response teams, develop and implement a statewide computerized tracking system and integrate it with the tracking system previously ordered in February 2002, generate an inventory of accessible housing, develop a system to hold wardens and prison medical administrators accountable for compliance with the Remedial Plan and other court orders, provide proper training to health care staff and correctional officers, and establish permanent salaried positions for sign language interpreters.

The remedial phase of the litigation has continued since 2007. The defendants argued unsuccessfully on numerous occasions that they have no duty to provide reasonable accommodations for prisoners and parolees under the ADA. The defendants also argued that when they sent class members sent to county facilities, they were not responsible for any ADA noncompliance that occurred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) issued an opinion in 2010 that summarily rejected these arguments. However, it did remand to the district court for further hearings on 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 March 28, 2011, the court entered a stipulation order requiring the parties to file

periodic joint statements describing the status of the litigation every other month,

beginning on May 16, 2011.

In 2012, the district court modified the 2007 injunction to clarify what was expected of the State. The modified injunction provided that the court-appointed expert would solve disputes between the parties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Tashima) vacated the provisions in the modified injunction relating to the dispute resolution mechanism, finding that it was an impermissible delegation of authority to an expert. The district court then amended the dispute resolution mechanism to make it reviewable by the district court on motion by any dissatisfied party.

On February 3, 2015, the district court granted a motion for further enforcement of the 2007 injunction. Judge Wilken found the State was still routinely housing class members in administrative segregation because of lack of housing in violation of the ADA and the court's prior orders. She ordered that if the State placed class members in administrative segregation, they needed to fully document their reason for doing so and submit such report to plaintiff's counsel. 2015 WL 496799.

On March 26, 2015, Judge Wilken filed a stipulated order confirming the undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the fourth quarter of 2014. The amount totaled $1,190,379.99.

On June 29, 2015, Judge Wilken filed a stipulated order confirming the undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the first quarter of 2015. The amount totaled $1,090,718.30.

On September 25, 2015, Judge Wilken filed a stipulated order confirming the undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the second quarter of 2015. The amount totaled $1,246,103.35. Attorney fees and costs remained undisputed.

Over the next four years, the parties filed several joint status reports. As of May 2020, the most recent status report was filed on January 15, 2020. The statement presented the status of issues such as allegations of abuse and violence by CDCR staff, accommodations for deaf prisoners, the problem of equal access to job and program assignments for people with disabilities, statewide durable medical equipment reconciliation and accuracy of disability tracking information, accommodations for blind and low vision class members, and more. For the most part, the parties continued to work collaboratively and in good faith. However, the plaintiffs expressed concern about ongoing reports of discrimination by CDCR staff against class members. In 2019, the plaintiffs had sent a letter cataloguing multiple incidents of staff misconduct against Armstrong and Coleman v. Brown (E.D. Cal.) class members at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") over the past two and a half years and demanding that CDCR implement remedial measures by January 1, 2020. Given the ongoing reports of abuse, plaintiffs had begun taking depositions of CDCR staff members in January 2020. Additionally, plaintiffs remained concerned about accommodations for D/deaf prisoners, in particular with respect to defendants' heavy reliance on video remote interpretation (VRI), which plaintiffs' counsel have observed to be inadequate in many group settings, in violation of the ADA and court orders.

On February 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a sealed motion for an injunction stopping defendants from assaulting, abusing and retaliating against people with disabilities at RJD. In support of their motion, 54 incarcerated people submitted declarations. Some of the declarants alleged instances in which correctional officers at RJD 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 at RJD retaliated against incarcerated people by charging incarcerated people with false rules violations reports. On March 17, 2020, the court entered a stipulation in which 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.

On March 6, 2020, Judge Wilken entered a stipulated order confirming the undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the fourth quarter of 2019. The amount totaled $2,215,330.36.

On June 3, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for an injunction, alleging similar abuse to the February 28, 2020 motion through CDCR's many facilities and requesting statewide relief.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on July 1, 2020, requesting that the court move some of the declarants who had been victims of retaliation. Judge Wilken granted the temporary restraining order the next day, though the defendants had not transferred the declarants in question on July 16, 2020.

The court heard arguments on the February and June injunction motions on July 16, 2020. On July 30, the court issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the defendants had retaliated against the two declarants who were the subject of the TRO and again ordering the defendants to move them to a different facility. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that another declarant had died at the hands of his cellmate, after a corrections officer ignored his requests to be moved for his safety.

After an August 11, 2020 oral argument, on September 8, 2020, the court issued a lengthy opinion granting much of the relief requested by the plaintiffs in the February 28, 2020 motion. After describing numerous instances of unpunished staff violence on class members at RJD, the court found that the defendants violated the class members' rights under the ADA and the Rehab Act. In one such instance, one of the declarants who Judge Wilkens 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 including: installing surveillance cameras in areas of RJD accused by class members, equipping RJD corrections officers with body cameras and creating policies for their use, revamping the staff complaint, investigation and discipline process, third party monitoring, information sharing with the plaintiffs' counsel, increased supervision and training of staff, and further anti-retaliation measures. 484 F.Supp.3d 808. The court also set a schedule for the development of the remedial plan, with a due date of October 20, 2020 for both the plaintiffs and defendants. It appears from the docket, however, that this deadline was extended.

On September 25, 2020, the defendants appealed the district court's September 8 injunction to the Ninth Circuit, where the case was docketed as number 20-16921. The defendant-appellants' brief is due on May 5, 2021.

During this time, the district court entered stipulated orders for attorneys' fees and costs. The order on September 17, 2020, confirmed $2,227,769.01 for the second quarter of 2020; the order on January 27, 2021, confirmed $3,000,035.18 for the third quarter.

The district court had left the June 3, 2020, motion for statewide injunctive relief pending in its decision on September 8, 2020, because the issue had not been fully briefed. A hearing on this motion was held on December 12, 2020. On March 11, 2021, the district court granted the motion in part, requiring new remedial procedures at five of the seven prisons named in the motion. The court set another schedule for a remedial plan for these five prisons and required measures including installing security cameras, wearing body cameras throughout the prisons, reforming staff complaint and disciplinary procedures, and increasing supervisory staffing. 2021 WL 933106. The defendants appealed this to the Ninth Circuit on April 2, 2021. (21-15614).

On March 31, 2021, the district court confirmed the undisputed attorneys' fees and costs for the fourth quarter of 2020: $2,432,256.82. (This brought the running total to $13,402,593.01.)

By this point, the remedial plan for the September 8, 2020, injunction had been submitted, and the parties disagreed over one of its sections. On April 7, 2021, the district court set a briefing schedule, with objections due by May 4, 2021.

Between March 31, 2021 and January of 2022, the parties continued to negotiate the contentious portions of the remedial plan. The defendants promulgated emergency regulations to make changes to employee discipline, handling of staff misconduct allegations, and budget changes in accordance with the remedial order in December 2021. On January 21, 2022, the court granted a revised schedule for a second remedial plan for the six of the seven prisons named in the June 3, 2020 motion. The order gave the prisons until September 30, 2022 to implement processes ensuring that any claims made by class members or disabled people are properly screened by a new Centralized Screening Team (CST) at the Office of Internal Affairs. 

On March 15, 2022, the district court confirmed the undisputed attorneys’ fees and costs for the fourth quarter of 2021: $2,051,119.33.

On March 23, 2022, the court stipulated that the defendants had finalized two remedial plans in accordance with all prior orders for six of the seven prisons. The first remedial plan (“RJD Remedial Plan”) focused on the reforms required by the RJD injunction at the RJD prison, 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 Five Prisons Court Ordered Remedial Plan (“Five Prisons Remedial Plan”) addressed the five prisons specified by the court on March 11, 2021 and specified substantively the same reforms as the RJD Remedial Plan. Attachments to the remedial plans included copies of the updated policies at the prisons.   

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,960,118.13 in undisputed attorneys’ fees and costs for the first quarter of 2022 on June 15, 2022, bringing the running total to $17,413,830.50.  

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (11/13/2008)

Anna Dimon (3/19/2015)

Jessica Kincaid (11/4/2015)

Jennifer Huseby (10/26/2018)

Elena Malik (5/18/2020)

Jonah Hudson-Erdman (10/22/2020)

Hannah Juge (6/20/2022)

Related Cases

Perez v. Tilton, Northern District of California (2005)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165405/parties/armstrong-v-newsom/


Judge(s)

Alarcón, Arthur Lawrence (California)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Berzon [DUPLICATE], Marsha Siegel (California)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hamilton, Phyllis Jean (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Nelson, Dorothy Wright (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Alarcón, Arthur Lawrence (California)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Berzon [DUPLICATE], Marsha Siegel (California)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hamilton, Phyllis Jean (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Karlton, Lawrence K. (California)

Nelson, Dorothy Wright (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

Trott, Stephen S. (Idaho)

Van Graafeiland, Ellsworth Alfred (New York)

White, Jeffrey Steven (California)

Wilken, Claudia Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Asaro, Andrea G. (California)

Baldwin, Holly MacLeish (California)

Bien, Michael W. (California)

Bien-Kahn, Benjamin Joseph (California)

Booth, Patrick (California)

Cervantez, Eve Hedy (California)

Ells, Lisa Adrienne (California)

Evenson, Rebekah B. (California)

Feeser, Mark Raymond (California)

Feingold, Lainey [Elaine] (California)

Fernholz, William (California)

Freedman, Michael Louis (California)

Galvan, Ernest (California)

George, Warren E. Jr. (California)

Godbold, Penny (California)

Grunfeld, Gay Crosthwait (California)

Hagler, Megan (California)

Hanson, Shawn A. (California)

Hardy, Alison (California)

Holtz, Geoffrey Thomas (California)

Huey, Shirley (California)

Jonak, Jennifer Lee (California)

Kahn, Jane E. (California)

Kendrick, Corene Thaedra (California)

Kilb, Linda D. (California)

Knapp, Kelly Jean (California)

Lomio, Rita Katherine (District of Columbia)

Loren, Stewart Grey (California)

Mania, Anne (California)

Mayerson, Arlene Brynne (California)

Mendelson, Margot Knight (California)

Mitchell, Caroline N. (California)

Morris, Maria V. (Alabama)

Nolan, Thomas Bengt (California)

Shapiro, Eve H. (California)

Specter, Donald H. (California)

Stewart, Loren Grey (California)

Stone-Manista, Krista Michelle (California)

Thompson, Blake (California)

Walczak, Kenneth M. (California)

Whelan, Amy E. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anderson, Monica (California)

Becerra, Xavier (California)

Blonien, Jessica N. (California)

Bower, Alicia Anne (California)

Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)

Chen, Janet Nah (California)

De La Torre−Fennell, Annakarina (California)

Druliner, David P. (California)

Duggan, Jeremy Michael (California)

East, Rochelle C. (California)

Feudale, Scott John (California)

Fluet, Edward Rheem (California)

Fritz, Cynthia Clarke (California)

Garske, Sharon Anne (California)

German, G. Michael (California)

Goldman, Jay M. (California)

Grunder, Frances T. (California)

Harris, Kamala D. (California)

Henkels, Robert W. (California)

Hood, Joanna Breiden (California)

Hrvatin, Adriano (California)

Humes, James M. (California)

Kamberian, Van (California)

Kao, Bryan An-Chieh (California)

Kotwani, Namrata (California)

Lenk, Morris (California)

Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)

Lodholz, Sean Walter (California)

Mackie, Jane Beasley (California)

Maiorino, Trace O. (California)

McClain, Damon Grant (California)

McKinney, Patrick R. (California)

Mello, Paul Brian (California)

Moon, Andrea Sogand (California)

Nguyen, Giam Minh (California)

Norman, Sara Linda (California)

Nygaard, Jennifer J (California)

O'Bannon, Danielle Felice (California)

Perkell, Jennifer G. (California)

Perkins, Robert Mitchell III (California)

Prince, George D. (California)

Quinn, Michael James (California)

Rhoan, Erick Joseph (California)

Rice, Benjamin Terrence (California)

Russell, Jay C. (California)

Siggins, Peter J. (California)

Smith, Janelle M. (California)

Spurling, James Casey (California)

Tartaglio, Anthony (California)

Valdez, Danette E. (California)

Wolff, Jonathan L. (California)

Zelidon-Zapeda, Jose Alfonso (California)

Zelidon-Zepeda, Jose Alfonso (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)

Albertine, Christine (California)

Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)

Colasurdo, Brent Scott (California)

Dodd, Martin H. (California)

Dugan, Conor Brendan (District of Columbia)

Dupree, Jamie L (California)

Galanter, Seth Michael (District of Columbia)

Gross, Mark L. (District of Columbia)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Perley, Sharon N. (District of Columbia)

Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)

Swanson, Edward W. (California)

Sybesma, Benjamin C. (California)

Uitti, Mary Beth (California)

Umberg, Thomas John (California)

Utti, Mary Beth (California)

Yank, Ronald (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Cate, Matthew (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:94-cv-02307

12-17198

09-17144

08-17664

09-16716

09-17632

12-16018

12-17103

Docket [PACER]

Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger

May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

Docket

4:94-cv-02307

12-17198

09-17144

08-17664

09-16716

09-17632

12-16018

12-17103

0:20-16921

Docket [PACER]

April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

Docket
1

4:94-cv-02307

Complaint

June 29, 1994

June 29, 1994

Complaint

4:94-cv-02307

Statement of Stipulated Facts (for Settlement Purposes Only)

Armstrong v. Davis

May 1, 1996

May 1, 1996

Pleading / Motion / Brief
158

4:94-cv-02307

Remedial Order, Injunction, and Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)

Armstrong v. Wilson

Sept. 20, 1996

Sept. 20, 1996

Order/Opinion
157

4:94-cv-02307

Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Armstrong v. Wilson

Sept. 20, 1996

Sept. 20, 1996

Order/Opinion

96-16870

Appellate Opinion

Armstrong v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Aug. 27, 1997

Aug. 27, 1997

Order/Opinion

4:94-cv-02307

99-15152

Memorandum

Armstrong v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 11, 2000

April 11, 2000

Order/Opinion

00-15132

Opinion

Armstrong v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nov. 28, 2001

Nov. 28, 2001

Order/Opinion

4:94-cv-02307

CA DOC Armstrong v. Davis Board of Prison Terms Parole Proceedings Remedial Plan

Armstrong v. Davis

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Resources

Title Description External URL Date / External URL

Armstrong v. Newsom

Prison Law Office

A federal District Court judge issued an injunction, ordering the Board of Prison Terms to remedy its shocking and appalling failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act during parole h… Jan. 3, 2001

Jan. 3, 2001

https://prisonlaw.com/...

Litigation

Prison Law Office

In addition to federal impact cases, the office has won numerous state court actions concerning prisoners’ rights. These cases include petitions that have vindicated the right to marry, protected pri… Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

https://prisonlaw.com/...

Surveillance and Body Cameras Ordered at Five Additional Prisons to Stop Guards from Assaulting and Terrorizing Inmates – Latest Court Docs

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP

On March 11, 2021, Judge Claudia Wilken granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stop Defendants from Assaulting, Abusing and Retaliating Against People with Disabilities (“Statewide Motion”). The Cour… March 12, 2021

March 12, 2021

https://rbgg.com/...

Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics

Margo Schlanger

This Article explores pertinent features of the relevant legal and political ecosystem in which California shrank its prison population. Informed by court documents, state reports and policy papers,… Dec. 1, 2013

Dec. 1, 2013

https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/...

White Paper: Effective Communication with Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, and Low Vision Incarcerated People

Tessa Bialek and Margo Schlanger

This version of the white paper is screen readable. A large print (but not screen readable) version of the white paper is available here July 7, 2022

July 7, 2022

None

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165405/armstrong-v-newsom/

Last updated Oct. 20, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
2690

RECEIVED stipo re extension of time for filing of dfts opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification submitted by Defendant [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1994)

Aug. 18, 1994

Aug. 18, 1994

PACER

WRIT of EXECUTION issued re dollar amount of $6,596.47 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF)

Aug. 22, 1994

Aug. 22, 1994

PACER

Writ Issued

Aug. 22, 1994

Aug. 22, 1994

PACER

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Feb. 27, 1995

Feb. 27, 1995

PACER

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 27, 1995

Feb. 27, 1995

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [130-2] denying motion to intervene as plaintiff [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

June 7, 1996

June 7, 1996

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

June 7, 1996

June 7, 1996

PACER
2731

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( ) re: motion to file amicus brief [135-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/1996)

June 21, 1996

June 21, 1996

PACER
2729

RECEIVED proposed order submitted by defendants re: [138-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

June 28, 1996

June 28, 1996

PACER
2735

RECEIVED stipulated modification to protective order submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/1996)

Aug. 23, 1996

Aug. 23, 1996

PACER
2737

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [160-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/1996)

Sept. 27, 1996

Sept. 27, 1996

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

Sept. 27, 1996

Sept. 27, 1996

PACER

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF)

Sept. 27, 1996

Sept. 27, 1996

PACER
2738

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 96-16870 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/1996)

Oct. 9, 1996

Oct. 9, 1996

PACER
2740

RECEIVED by Jesse Holliday of exhibits re: [176-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

Jan. 23, 1997

Jan. 23, 1997

PACER
2739

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/1997)

Jan. 31, 1997

Jan. 31, 1997

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

March 24, 1997

March 24, 1997

PACER

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [160-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

March 24, 1997

March 24, 1997

PACER
2741

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiff, defendant) re to extend time for defendants to file submission in response to the 10/8/97 Order [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1998)

Jan. 15, 1998

Jan. 15, 1998

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

Jan. 28, 1998

Jan. 28, 1998

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for order directing defendants to modify their plans to comply with the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [220-1], referring to Judge Claudia Wilken the motion for injunctive relief [234-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 28, 1998

Jan. 28, 1998

PACER
2748

RECEIVED proposed order granting request for one day extension of time to file opposition submitted by defendants [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/1998)

May 22, 1998

May 22, 1998

PACER
2754

RECEIVED stipulation and order extending time for defendants to file submissions in response to order of 5/4/98 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1998)

July 13, 1998

July 13, 1998

PACER
2753

RECEIVED stipulated order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/1998)

July 29, 1998

July 29, 1998

PACER
2752

RECEIVED stipulated order confirming undisputed attorneys' fees on the 1st quarter of 1998 submitted by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/1998)

Aug. 10, 1998

Aug. 10, 1998

PACER
2757

RECEIVED stipulation to continue trial against James Nielsen and order submitted by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/26/1998)

Oct. 23, 1998

Oct. 23, 1998

PACER
2756

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Pete Wilson, et al ) re: motion for partial stay of remedial order [329-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/02/1998)

Oct. 30, 1998

Oct. 30, 1998

PACER
2759

RECEIVED stipulated order delaying submission of fees and expenses devoted to litigation concerning the board of prion terms submitted by Plaintiff, defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/21/1999)

Jan. 19, 1999

Jan. 19, 1999

PACER

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Jan. 21, 1999

Jan. 21, 1999

PACER

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 21, 1999

Jan. 21, 1999

PACER

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Jan. 26, 1999

Jan. 26, 1999

PACER

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton [4:94-cv-02307] (wh, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 26, 1999

Jan. 26, 1999

PACER
2758

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and memorandum of points and authorities in support. [364-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (rl, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1999)

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

PACER
2760

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [360-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1999)

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

PACER

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

PACER
2769

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: dismissing in part second amended complaint [355-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/09/1999)

Feb. 5, 1999

Feb. 5, 1999

PACER
2768

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re motion to dismiss second amended complaint [371-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

Feb. 8, 1999

Feb. 8, 1999

PACER
2771

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 99-15152 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

Feb. 8, 1999

Feb. 8, 1999

PACER
2767

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for reconsideration of the court's order directing defendants to comply with the remedial plan filed 1/8/99 [375-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1999)

Feb. 10, 1999

Feb. 10, 1999

PACER
2770

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/10/1999)

Feb. 10, 1999

Feb. 10, 1999

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [386-1] granting motion to compel defendants re: deposition testimony of the ten BPT Commissioners [352-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 25, 1999

Feb. 25, 1999

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

Feb. 25, 1999

Feb. 25, 1999

PACER
2762

RECEIVED proposed order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

March 5, 1999

March 5, 1999

PACER
2763

RECEIVED declaration of James Nielsen in support of motions for summary judgment submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/10/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

March 5, 1999

March 5, 1999

PACER
2764

RECEIVED motion for summary judgment submitted by defendants BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

March 5, 1999

March 5, 1999

PACER
2765

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( BPT, James Nielsen ) re: motion for leave to file motion for summary and for continuance of the trial date [389-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1999)

March 5, 1999

March 5, 1999

PACER

Exhibit Location

May 26, 1999

May 26, 1999

PACER

EXHIBIT LOCATION for dft: (Exhibt D-6) stored at UNDER SEAL ROOM [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

May 26, 1999

May 26, 1999

PACER

EXHIBIT LOCATION for plf: stored at Shelf No. B-3 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

May 26, 1999

May 26, 1999

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to order [462-2] finding the motion for permissive intervention [402-1] moot., finding the motion for modification of protective order [402-2] moot. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

June 16, 1999

June 16, 1999

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

June 16, 1999

June 16, 1999

PACER

Received Document

July 8, 1999

July 8, 1999

PACER

RECEIVED stipulated Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) confirming settlement of certain disputed attorney's fees and costs of second quarterly statement of 1998 [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF)

July 8, 1999

July 8, 1999

PACER
2781

RECEIVED letter from George Arlow re: lack of adequate medical, dental and mental health services [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/1999)

July 29, 1999

July 29, 1999

PACER

RECEIVED letter from George Arlow re: lack of adequate medical, dental and mental health services [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

July 29, 1999

July 29, 1999

PACER
2782

RECEIVED proposed permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/1999)

July 30, 1999

July 30, 1999

PACER

RECEIVED proposed permanent injunction submitted by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

July 30, 1999

July 30, 1999

PACER
2780

RECEIVED order requiring the submissions of remedial plans submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/1999)

Aug. 6, 1999

Aug. 6, 1999

PACER

RECEIVED order requiring the submissions of remedial plans submitted by BPT, James Nielsen [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Aug. 6, 1999

Aug. 6, 1999

PACER
2783

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) re: motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/1999)

Aug. 23, 1999

Aug. 23, 1999

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order (Plaintiffs) re: motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kc, COURT STAFF)

Aug. 23, 1999

Aug. 23, 1999

PACER

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [360-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Dec. 16, 1999

Dec. 16, 1999

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

Dec. 16, 1999

Dec. 16, 1999

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to report and recommendation motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [522-1] denying motion to compel payment of disputed attorney's fees and costs incurred during 1998 [505-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Dec. 17, 1999

Dec. 17, 1999

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

Dec. 17, 1999

Dec. 17, 1999

PACER

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

PACER

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

PACER

Miscellaneous Document

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

PACER
2787

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 00-15132 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2018: # 1 Time Schedule) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2000)

1 Time Schedule

View on PACER

Jan. 31, 2000

Jan. 31, 2000

PACER

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 00-15132 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 31, 2000

Jan. 31, 2000

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

Feb. 1, 2000

Feb. 1, 2000

PACER

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 1, 2000

Feb. 1, 2000

PACER

Docket Modification (Administrative) to notice [555-1] withdrawing attorney attorney Eve H. Shapiro [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

March 6, 2000

March 6, 2000

PACER

Utility - Miscellaneous

March 6, 2000

March 6, 2000

PACER
2788

RECEIVED "stipulation and proposed order scheduling plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses arising from proceedings against board of prison terms" submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2000)

June 16, 2000

June 16, 2000

PACER

RECEIVED "stipulation and proposed order scheduling plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses arising from proceedings against board of prison terms" submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

June 16, 2000

June 16, 2000

PACER
2789

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2000)

July 10, 2000

July 10, 2000

PACER

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

July 10, 2000

July 10, 2000

PACER
2790

RECEIVED stipulation and order for extension of time regarding submissions of policies and procedures submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/24/2000)

July 21, 2000

July 21, 2000

PACER

RECEIVED stipulation and order for extension of time regarding submissions of policies and procedures submitted by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

July 21, 2000

July 21, 2000

PACER
2791

RECEIVED "stipulation and order extending time to file motions to compel submitted by Plaintiffs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Aug. 8, 2000

Aug. 8, 2000

PACER

RECEIVED "stipulation and order extending time to file motions to compel submitted by Plaintiffs [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Aug. 8, 2000

Aug. 8, 2000

PACER

Exhibit Location

Sept. 7, 2000

Sept. 7, 2000

PACER

EXHIBIT LOCATION for plaintiffs: stored at Shelf No. A-5; [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Sept. 7, 2000

Sept. 7, 2000

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

Feb. 23, 2001

Feb. 23, 2001

PACER

RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 23, 2001

Feb. 23, 2001

PACER

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [697-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER

Miscellaneous Document

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

PACER
2793

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [699-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2001)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

PACER

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

PACER

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [699-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

PACER

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01-15779 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

April 25, 2001

April 25, 2001

PACER
2792

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 01-15779 [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) Modified on 12/13/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2001)

April 26, 2001

April 26, 2001

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

May 1, 2001

May 1, 2001

PACER

Additional RECORD on Appeal to USCA, cnsl notified. re appeal [531-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF)

May 1, 2001

May 1, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Disability Rights

Special Collection(s):

California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article

Deaf or Blind in Jail/Prison

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 29, 1994

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, mental, kidney, or developmental disabilities.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Prison Law Office

Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Governor of the State of California, State

California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Secretary, State

California Department of Corrections Director, State

Deputy Director for Health Care Services, State

Deputy Director of the Planning and Construction Division, State

Deputy Director of the Institutions Division, State

Deputy Director of the Parole and Community Services Division, State

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 17,413,830.50

Order Duration: 1999 - None

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Preliminary relief granted

Reasonable Accommodation

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Training

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Administrative segregation

Bathing and hygiene

Bathrooms

Buildings

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Disparate Treatment

Housing

Pattern or Practice

Reasonable Accommodations

Reasonable Modifications

Recreation / Exercise

Retaliation

Totality of conditions

TTY/Close Captioning/Videophone/etc.

Discrimination-area:

Accommodation / Leave

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Disability:

Hearing impairment

Mental impairment

Mobility impairment

Visual impairment

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Type of Facility:

Government-run