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.

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)

Related Cases

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

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, 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
157

4:94-cv-02307

Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Armstrong v. Wilson

942 F.Supp. 1252

Sept. 20, 1996

Sept. 20, 1996

Order/Opinion
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

96-16870

Appellate Opinion

Armstrong v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

124 F.3d 1019

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

215 F.3d 1332, 2000 WL 369622

April 11, 2000

April 11, 2000

Order/Opinion

00-15132

Opinion

Armstrong v. Davis

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

275 F.3d 849

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

http://harvardcrcl.org/...

Placeholder for Executive Summary, Large Print

Tessa Bialek & Margo Schlanger

Abstract here June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

None

Placeholder for Executive Summary, small print

Tessa Bialek and Margo Schlanger

Abstract here June 12, 2022

June 12, 2022

None

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

Tessa Bialek & Margo Schlanger

This white paper draws lessons from cases brought by persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or low vision in jails and prisons across the country seeking to enforce federal disability antidisc… June 27, 2022

June 27, 2022

None

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

Tessa Bialek and Margo Schlanger

A large print version of the white paper is available <a href="https://clearinghouse.net/resource/3566/">here</a>. <p><p> This white paper draws lessons from cases brought by persons who are deaf, ha… June 27, 2022

June 27, 2022

None

Executive Summary: Effective Communication with Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, and Low Vision Incarcerated People [Large Print]

Tessa Bialek and Margo Schlanger

This is a large print version of the executive summary of our White Paper: Effective Communication with Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, and Low Vision Incarcerated People. The white paper draws l… June 15, 2022

June 15, 2022

None

Docket

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

Last updated June 18, 2022, 5:09 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 6/29/94 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 34078) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 receipt

View on PACER

June 29, 1994

June 29, 1994

Clearinghouse
2

NOTICE by plaintiff of related case(s) C-80-012 MHP [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/1994)

June 29, 1994

June 29, 1994

PACER
3

ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2-1] ( Date Entered: 7/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/1994)

July 13, 1994

July 13, 1994

PACER
4

ORDER by Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying related case notice [2-1] ( Date Entered: 7/18/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/1994)

July 13, 1994

July 13, 1994

PACER
5

ANSWER by Defendants to complaint [1-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/1994)

July 21, 1994

July 21, 1994

PACER
6

COUNTERSTATEMENT by Defendant opposing plaintiff's notice of related case [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/1994)

July 29, 1994

July 29, 1994

PACER
7

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff to certify class action with Notice set for 9/16/94 10:30 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994

Aug. 8, 1994

PACER
8

MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994

Aug. 8, 1994

PACER
9

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of motion for class certification and documents thereof [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/10/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994

Aug. 8, 1994

PACER
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
10

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for filing of dft's opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification to and including 10/2/94 (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/1994)

Sept. 6, 1994

Sept. 6, 1994

PACER
11

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of stip for extension of time for filing of dfts' opposition to plaintiff's motion for clas certification [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/1994)

Sept. 15, 1994

Sept. 15, 1994

PACER
12

EXPARTE NOTICE by defendant to court re: filing of opposition and reply to motion for class cerification [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Oct. 3, 1994

Oct. 3, 1994

PACER
13

CROSS-MOTION by defendant James Gomez to dismiss action with Notice set for 10/28/94 10:30 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

Oct. 7, 1994

Oct. 7, 1994

PACER
14

BRIEF FILED by defendant in opposition motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

Oct. 7, 1994

Oct. 7, 1994

PACER
15

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Plas to motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

PACER
16

DECLARATION by Warren E. George on behalf of Plaintiff re motion to certify class action [7-1] [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

PACER
17

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of #15 & #16 [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

PACER
18

MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff for temporary restraining order [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/1994)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 18, 1994

Oct. 18, 1994

PACER
19

MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Kathy Wyatt) denying motion to dismiss action [13-1], granting motion to certify class action [7-1] Status conference set for 1:30 1/13/95 ; [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994

Oct. 28, 1994

PACER
20

LETTER to the Honorable dated 10/27/94 from Evelio Torres program for the deaf [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/1/2017: # 1 Envelope) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/1994)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Nov. 7, 1994

Nov. 7, 1994

PACER
21

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/28/94 ( C/R: Katherine Pope Wyatt) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1994)

Nov. 14, 1994

Nov. 14, 1994

PACER
22

REQUEST by defendant for leave of court to depose a person confined in prison [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1994)

Nov. 30, 1994

Nov. 30, 1994

PACER
23

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting request [22-1] for leave of court to depose persons confined in prison ( Date Entered: 12/13/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/1994)

Nov. 30, 1994

Nov. 30, 1994

PACER
24

REPORT OF PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING by defendant [3:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1994)

Dec. 14, 1994

Dec. 14, 1994

PACER
25

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)

Jan. 6, 1995

Jan. 6, 1995

PACER
26

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/1995)

Jan. 6, 1995

Jan. 6, 1995

PACER
27

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting motion to certify class action [7-1] ( Date Entered: 1/19/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 13, 1995

Jan. 13, 1995

PACER
28

MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Candace Yount) Status conference held; furher conf. set for 1:30 4/21/95 ; parties to start mediation between now and next status conf. with Steve Toben; Class notification notice to be posted on bulletin board at each prison and read to anyone who can't read/ parties to agree on content of notice or, if cant' agree, submit brief statement re what's wrong with each others. [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/1995)

Jan. 13, 1995

Jan. 13, 1995

PACER
29

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for referral to ADR Process (mediation) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/02/1995)

Jan. 26, 1995

Jan. 26, 1995

PACER
30

CLERK'S NOTICE of appointment of mediator, B. Stephen Toben [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/1995)

Feb. 8, 1995

Feb. 8, 1995

PACER
31

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by Plaintiff John Armstrong to compel production of documents with Notice set for 3/17/95 at 10:30am [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995

Feb. 10, 1995

PACER
32

MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff John Armstrong in support of motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995

Feb. 10, 1995

PACER
33

DECLARATION by Jane Kahn on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995

Feb. 10, 1995

PACER
34

DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 10, 1995

Feb. 10, 1995

PACER
35

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge to be assaigned as to the motion to compel production of documents [31-1] ( Date Entered: 2/24/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/1995)

Feb. 22, 1995

Feb. 22, 1995

PACER
36

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/13/95 ( C/R: Candace Yount) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/1995)

Feb. 24, 1995

Feb. 24, 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
38

CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford; setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents [31-1] 9:30 3/30/95 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/08/1995)

Feb. 28, 1995

Feb. 28, 1995

PACER
37

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion for temporary restraining order [18-1] ( Date Entered: 3/2/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/1995)

March 2, 1995

March 2, 1995

PACER
39

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken requiring notice to the class (see document for specifics) ( Date Entered: 3/9/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/1995)

March 9, 1995

March 9, 1995

PACER
40

OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)

March 14, 1995

March 14, 1995

PACER
41

DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes re opposition [40-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/1995)

March 14, 1995

March 14, 1995

PACER
42

REPLY by Plaintiff John Armstrong re motion to compel production of documents [31-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)

March 23, 1995

March 23, 1995

PACER
43

DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff John Armstrong re reply [42-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/1995)

March 23, 1995

March 23, 1995

PACER
45

LETTER dated 3/21/95 from Donald Specter request for production of documents [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)

March 23, 1995

March 23, 1995

PACER
46

LETTER dated 3/15/95 from George D. Prince submitted 2 protective orders [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)

March 23, 1995

March 23, 1995

PACER
47

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/1995)

March 23, 1995

March 23, 1995

PACER
44

MINUTES: ( C/R Tape 95-7) granting motion to compel production of documents [31-1] Request for fees denied. F. Steele Langford. [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/03/1995)

March 30, 1995

March 30, 1995

PACER
48

NOTICE by defendant's of change of address [4:94-cv-02307] (ga, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/1995)

April 6, 1995

April 6, 1995

PACER
49

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 14, 1995

April 14, 1995

PACER
50

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff John Armstrong, Plaintiff James Amauric, Plaintiff Richard Ponciano, Plaintiff Jack Swensen, Plaintiff Billy Beck, Plaintiff Judy Fendt, Plaintiff Walter Fratus, Plaintiff Gregory Sandoval, Plaintiff Darlene Madison, Plaintiff Peter Richardson, Plaintiff Steven Hill [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 14, 1995

April 14, 1995

PACER
53

MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) Discovery cutoff set for 1/26/96 ; All motions will be heard by 10:30 2/23/96 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 3/15/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/1/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/1995)

April 21, 1995

April 21, 1995

PACER
51

CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION MEDIATION PROCESS COMPLETED., Mediation hearing held on 4/6/95, terminating Mediator B. Stephen Toben filed by B. Stephen Toben (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 25, 1995

April 25, 1995

PACER
52

CLERK'S NOTICE removed from Mediation. [4:94-cv-02307] (jm, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 25, 1995

April 25, 1995

PACER
54

MOTION by Zattiero and Fallon in pro per before Judge Claudia Wilken to join action [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)

July 7, 1995

July 7, 1995

PACER
55

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Zattiero in pro per [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/1995)

July 7, 1995

July 7, 1995

PACER
56

MOTION submitted by Dr. Brian Douglas Carey, DPM before Judge Claudia Wilken to intervene as plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/1995)

Aug. 18, 1995

Aug. 18, 1995

PACER
57

OPPOSITION by defendant Pete Wilson, defendant Joseph C. Sandoval, defendant James Gomez, defendant Kyle McKinsey, defendant Kevin Carruth, defendant David Tristan, defendant Marisela Montes to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (oh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/1995)

Aug. 30, 1995

Aug. 30, 1995

PACER
58

***DUPLICATE ENTRY OF DKT. # 57 *** OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) Modified on 4/18/2018 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/1995)

Aug. 30, 1995

Aug. 30, 1995

PACER
59

REPLY by Intervenor Brian Douglas Carey to opposition to motion to intervene as plaintiff [56-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/1995)

Sept. 7, 1995

Sept. 7, 1995

PACER
60

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : for leave to file First amended complaint (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)

Nov. 8, 1995

Nov. 8, 1995

PACER
61

AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)

Nov. 8, 1995

Nov. 8, 1995

PACER
62

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : amending expert witness disclosures (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)

Nov. 9, 1995

Nov. 9, 1995

PACER
63

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken further CMP conference set for 1:30 12/22/95 ; ( Date Entered: 11/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/1995)

Nov. 13, 1995

Nov. 13, 1995

PACER
64

AMENDED ANSWER [5-1] by defendant; jury demand [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1995)

Nov. 13, 1995

Nov. 13, 1995

PACER
65

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken : extending time for expert disclosures and extending time for dft James Nielsen to file a response to plas' amended complaint to 11/21/95 (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/1995)

Nov. 15, 1995

Nov. 15, 1995

PACER
66

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/21/95 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/1995)

Nov. 20, 1995

Nov. 20, 1995

PACER
68

MINUTES: of Judge James; ( C/R n/a) continuing discovery hearing, hearing continued to 2:00 11/21/95 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1995)

Nov. 20, 1995

Nov. 20, 1995

PACER
67

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 12/29/95 10:30 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/1995)

Nov. 22, 1995

Nov. 22, 1995

PACER
69

AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendant to dismiss action with Notice set for 1/5/96 10:30 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/1995)

Dec. 1, 1995

Dec. 1, 1995

PACER
70

SUPPLEMENTAL case management statement and proposed order by Plaintiff [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/14/1995)

Dec. 12, 1995

Dec. 12, 1995

PACER
71

MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [4:94-cv-02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)

Dec. 14, 1995

Dec. 14, 1995

PACER
72

DECLARATION by James M. Humees on behalf of defendants in support of motion to compel; certificate of complaince. [4:94-cv-02307] (cg, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/19/2018 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)

Dec. 14, 1995

Dec. 14, 1995

PACER
73

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Case Management conference set for 10:30 1/5/96 ; ( Date Entered: 12/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (mh, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/1995)

Dec. 14, 1995

Dec. 14, 1995

PACER
74

REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff in oppostion to dft Nielsen's motion to dismiss [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/1995)

Dec. 15, 1995

Dec. 15, 1995

PACER
75

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge F. S. Langford referring the motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] ( Date Entered: 12/21/95) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/1995)

Dec. 15, 1995

Dec. 15, 1995

PACER
76

CLERK'S NOTICE of Judge Langford setting hearing on motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] 9:30 1/18/96 [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/1995)

Dec. 19, 1995

Dec. 19, 1995

PACER
77

OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/04/1996)

Dec. 27, 1995

Dec. 27, 1995

PACER
78

MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R R. Flores) CMP Conf. held; denying motion to dismiss action [69-1] referring case for settlement to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)

Jan. 5, 1996

Jan. 5, 1996

PACER
79

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying motion to dismiss action [69-1] ( Date Entered: 1/17/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/1996)

Jan. 11, 1996

Jan. 11, 1996

PACER
81

ORDER by Mag. Judge F. S. Langford GRANTING expedited motion for an order shortening time for hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel deposition testimony; hearing shall be held on 2/1/96; opposition be filed on 1/24/96; reply be filed on 1/29/96 ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)

Jan. 17, 1996

Jan. 17, 1996

PACER
80

LETTER dated 1/17/96 from George D. Prince to Judge Langford re: motion to compel [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/1996)

Jan. 18, 1996

Jan. 18, 1996

PACER
82

NOTICE by Plaintiffs of entry of order [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)

Jan. 18, 1996

Jan. 18, 1996

PACER
83

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James Settlement conference will be held 2:00pm on 3/12/96 ; ( Date Entered: 1/24/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)

Jan. 18, 1996

Jan. 18, 1996

PACER
84

MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Claudia Wilken by defendants to continue trial date with Notice set for 2/23/96 at 1:30pm [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/1996)

Jan. 19, 1996

Jan. 19, 1996

PACER
85

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken setting hearing on motion to continue trial date for 2/23/96 will be unavailable; therefore it will be heard on 2/16/96 at 10:30am [84-1] ( Date Entered: 1/26/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (cp, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/26/1996)

Jan. 23, 1996

Jan. 23, 1996

PACER
87

OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel deposition testimony [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)

Jan. 24, 1996

Jan. 24, 1996

PACER
88

DECLARATION by James M. Humes on behalf of defendant re opposition [87-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)

Jan. 24, 1996

Jan. 24, 1996

PACER
86

REPLY by Plaintiff to dfts' opp to motion to compel depo tesitmony [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/1996)

Jan. 29, 1996

Jan. 29, 1996

PACER
89

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 1/5/96 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/1996)

Feb. 1, 1996

Feb. 1, 1996

PACER
90

MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to continue trial date [84-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

Feb. 2, 1996

Feb. 2, 1996

PACER
91

DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Plaintiff re opposition memorandum [90-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (kk, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

Feb. 2, 1996

Feb. 2, 1996

PACER
92

ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford ; plaintiff's motion to compel deposition testimony is Denied( Date Entered: 2/7/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/1996)

Feb. 5, 1996

Feb. 5, 1996

PACER
93

ORDER by Chief Mag. Judge F. S. Langford denying motion to compel response to discovery and for additional or alternative relief [71-1]; plas may propound narrowly-drafted contention interrogatories seeking the factual basis for the dfts' affimative defenses ( Date Entered: 5/8/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/1996)

Feb. 5, 1996

Feb. 5, 1996

PACER
94

REPLY by defendant James Gomez re motion to continue trial date [84-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

Feb. 9, 1996

Feb. 9, 1996

PACER
95

DECLARATION by A. Solis on behalf of defendant re reply [94-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

Feb. 9, 1996

Feb. 9, 1996

PACER
96

DECLARATION by James Humes on behalf of defendant re reply [94-1] [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/1996)

Feb. 9, 1996

Feb. 9, 1996

PACER
97

MINUTES: of Judge C. Wilken; ( C/R Rosita Flores) granting motion to continue trial date [84-1] continuing trial dates, Pretrial conference set for 1:30 4/19/96 ; Trial will be held 8:30 4/29/96 ; [4:94-cv-02307] (scottd, COURT STAFF) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/1996)

Feb. 16, 1996

Feb. 16, 1996

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

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:

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)

Prison Law Office

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):

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:

Preliminary relief granted

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Training

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