Parsons et al v. Ryan et al

Filing 2179

ORDER denying 2135 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's $1000 Sanction Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 7/13/17.(DXD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Victor Antonio Parsons, et al., No. CV-12-0601-PHX-DKD Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 ORDER Defendants. 14 15 16 Defendants have moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Order setting an order 17 to show cause hearing where the Court will consider the imposition of a $1,000 fine for 18 each instance of non-compliance with an enumerated list of healthcare performance 19 measures at specified locations (“Chronically Non-Compliant Location/PMs”). (Doc. 20 2135) A response is not necessary. LRCiv. 7.2(g). 21 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 22 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). 23 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 24 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 25 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 26 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions 27 should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had 28 already thought through — rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 2 (E.D.Va. 1983)). Defendants are not entitled to reconsideration. 3 As the Court has repeatedly explained on the record, the Stipulation was not a 4 promise to meet a sampling benchmark. It was a promise to provide the contracted 5 service to every inmate. The Stipulation’s benchmarks (now 85%) are for the purpose of 6 determining whether a PM/Location is meeting the Stipulation’s underlying requirement 7 of care. The benchmark is the canary in the coal mine: if the benchmark is met, then the 8 Stipulation deems the Defendants to be in compliance. If the benchmark is not met, then 9 Defendants are not in compliance with the Stipulation and the Court’s remedial power is 10 in no way limited by the Stipulation’s compliance percentage benchmark or sample size 11 specification. Instead, the Court must take measures to ensure Defendants provide the 12 bargained for benefit to each and every inmate. 13 The Court has provided Defendants over two years to try all of their proposed 14 solutions for the Chronically Non-Compliant Location/PMs. Nothing has worked. Now, 15 the Court must find a way to compel the necessary remedial action. 16 Finally, in response to Defendants’ argument regarding a lack of resources to 17 tabulate the failures to satisfy the Performance Measures, the Court notes that it is not 18 ordering Defendants to hire anyone. How they accomplish compliance with this Court’s 19 Order is for Defendants to determine, not the Court. If Defendants determine that the 20 only way to comply with this Order is to hire more staff, nothing in the Stipulation 21 prevents them from doing so. (It is hard for the Court to accept this conclusion given that 22 it appears from the Court’s tour of the Lewis facility this day that there are current 23 employees who are willing and able to work overtime but are precluded by management 24 from doing so.) 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 28 -2- 1 2 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendants’ Reconsideration of the Court’s $1000 Sanction Order (Doc. 2135). Dated this 13th day of July, 2017. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- Motion for

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?