Filed Date: June 29, 1994
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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.
The 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)
Perez v. Tilton, Northern District of California (2005)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165405/parties/armstrong-v-newsom/
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Cate, Matthew (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165405/armstrong-v-newsom/
Last updated June 18, 2022, 5:09 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
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):
Attorney Organizations:
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State
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
Defendant Type(s):
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):
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 17,413,830.50
Order Duration: 1999 - None
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
TTY/Close Captioning/Videophone/etc.
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Affected Gender:
Disability:
Mental Disability:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Medical/Mental Health:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Type of Facility: