On June 29, 1994, disabled prisoners and parolees in California filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, charging that the two divisions of the California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] and Board of Prison Terms [BPT], generally discriminated against prisoners with various impairments, including mental retardation, in its programs. Plaintiffs were presented by the Prison Law Office, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. and private attorneys. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-34, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794.

The District Court (Judge Claudia Wilken) certified a class of all present and future California state prison inmates and parolees with mobility, sight, hearing, learning, mental or kidney disabilities.

By agreement of the parties, the claims against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] (prison claims) and the Board of Prison Terms (parolee claims) were bifurcated and proceeded on two different litigation tracks.

The plaintiffs and the CDCR reached a settlement agreement' with regard to the CDCR part of the case, which provided that if the district court held that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act applied to prisons, the CDCR would be found liable. The stipulation explicitly stated, however, that it did "not resolve any issues between plaintiffs and the Board of Prison Terms or defendant Neilsen.'' In accordance with the agreement, the CDCR moved for summary judgment, contending that the ADA and RA did not apply to state prisons and that the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit in federal court. The U. S. Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion.

The District Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the Eleventh Amendment, found that the defendants had violated both statutes, and entered a remedial order and injunction directing defendants 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. Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D. Cal. 1996). The defendants appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

The parties litigated the claims against the Board of Prison Terms. Following several procedural motions, the District Court held a ten-day bench trial in April 1999. Plaintiffs’ evidence included stories of a prisoner who used a wheelchair being forced to crawl upstairs to attend his hearing, a deaf prisoner unable to communicate with his sign language interpreter because he was shackled, and a blind inmate given no help to read complicated written materials. The District Court found that the BPT was not in substantial compliance with the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act and issued an injunction which ordered compliance by identifying disabled prisoners and their needs and providing them with accessible locations for parole hearings, assistance in communicating, and special aid in the screening, appeals, and grievance processes. The injunction also prohibited the shackling inmates who needed to communicate through sign-language interpreters and ordered the BPT to hire a fulltime ADA coordinator to oversee ADA compliance in the parole process.

The BPT appealed, asserting, among other things, that the injunction regarding parole hearings was overbroad and violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act [PLRA]. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Stephen Reinhardt) affirmed in part, vacated in part and reversed and remanded in part so that the injunction could be modified. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) Judge Reinhardt found that the class certified by the district judge 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. On remand, either individual named plaintiffs were to be added to represent those groups, or the District Court would have to modify the certification order and the injunction accordingly. The injunction was also to be modified to the extent that it required the BPT to exercise control over CDCR personnel. The injunction was upheld in all other respects.

The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on February 11, 2002 which required, among other things, that Defendants create and maintain a system for tracking prisoners and parolee with disabilities; that Defendants take reasonable steps to identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to parole proceedings, including checking the tracking system and reviewing all relevant and reasonably available information in the central or medical file; and that Defendants 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 (MDO) proceedings, and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) proceedings.

Defendants failed to fully comply with the provisions of the Revised Permanent Injunction and the Plaintiffs filed an enforcement motion, which was heard by the District Court on May 26, 2006. On May 30, 2006, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction (“May 2006 Order”).

According to the district court docket sheet, on January 18, 2007, the District Court issued a separate Injunction. A copy of that Injunction was not available.

On April 20, 2007, the District Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding appointment of a Court Expert to facilitate coordination of the remedial processes in this case with three other prison class actions pending before different federal district judges: Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 90-0520 (E.D. Cal.) [PC-CA-2], Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 01-1351 (N.D. Cal.) [PC-CA-18], and Perez v. Tilton, 05-5241 (N.D. Cal.) [PC-CA-33]. Thereafter, on June 11, 2007, the District Court appointed Edward Swanson to act as the Court Expert. His duties were limited to assisting the Court and parties in facilitating coordination of enforcement of the May 30, 2006 and January 18, 2007 Injunctions with the remedial processes in the other class actions (Plata, Coleman and Perez), particularly with regard to four areas of coordination: tracking, accountability, training and grievances.

On June 15, 2007, plaintiffs filed another enforcement motion, alleging continued noncompliance by the Board of Parole Hearings (formerly “Board of Prison Terms”). That motion was pending as of the date of this summary. Plaintiffs have sought imposition of a population cap, which, under the PLRA would require a three-judge district court to be convened. The district court has not yet ruled on that motion.

On August 24, 2007, the court issued an order approving the coordination statements that had been filed by the parties. On September 11, 2007, the district court partially granted the plaintiffs’ enforcement motion, finding that the defendants had failed to comply with the court’s May 2006 orders regarding the disability tracking database and the accommodation plan for inmates with disabilities. On October 11, 2007, the defendants asked the court to stay its order from September 11, 2007, and to reconsider the granting of that enforcement motion. On December 14, 2007, the defendants appealed the September 11 order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On February 26, 2008, the district court approved a joint construction agreement among the parties, which was to apply to all of the cases connected with this action. The agreement provided for the construction of additional facilities at San Quentin Prison, as well as additional office space for the CDCR, 5000 additional medical care beds and 5000 additional mental health beds throughout the CDCR.

On March 10, 2008, the district court issued an order approving the parties’ joint information technology coordination agreement. The agreement provided for the creation of a state-wide inmate medical records system, which would be accessible to all healthcare workers in the CDCR in order to allow them to provide timely and appropriate medical care to inmates.

On April 1, 2008, the court approved the chief executive officer pilot program coordination agreement among the parties. This agreement provided for a civil service employment position that would function as a chief health care officer for the CDCR.

On October 7, 2008, the district court approved a space coordination agreement among the parties. This agreement addressed the office space and infrastructure needs of the CDCR.

In the meantime, in this case along with two others (Plata and Coleman, about medical care and mental health care, respectively)—the plaintiffs asked for imposition of a population cap on the California system, as a constitutionally necessary remedy. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, such a cap may be entered only by a specially constituted three-judge district court. In this case, the district court stayed its decision on the request, while the matter proceeded in Plata and Coleman. (On August 4, 2009, the three-judge district court, following two years of proceedings including fourteen days of trial, issued an opinion that imposes a population cap on California's prisons.)

[updated 8/4/2009]

Kristen Sagar - 11/13/2008

compress summary