Hall et al v. Mims et al

Filing 129

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to thes e findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations, each counsel shall file of a statement of non-opposition, as this will shorten the objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/1/2015. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)
KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522)
MONIQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Telephone: [phone]

10
11

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,
ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and
BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

COUNTY OF FRESNO
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)
SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: [phone]
MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)
MONISHA COELHO (SBN 219233)
AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN 143532)
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON
CAPTION PAGE]

1
2

Plaintiffs in this action, Quentin Hall, et al., and a class consisting of all prisoners

3

who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno County Jail allege that

4

conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

5

Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are

6

entitled to injunctive relief to address their claims.

7

The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with their Joint

8

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which would settle all

9

claims in this case. The parties have submitted a proposed Notice to the Class, as well as

10
11

a proposed an acceptable distribution of the notice to the plaintiff class.
This Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has

12

reviewed all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed the

13

Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Supplemental

14

Brief, along with the Consent Decree and supporting documents, and has considered the

15

parties’ arguments concerning the proposed settlement of this class action. The Court has

16

determined that inquiry should be made regarding the fairness and adequacy of this

17

proposed settlement.

18

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

19

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears to be

20

the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies,

21

does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of

22

the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust

23

Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court finds that this standard is

24

met in this case, as the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are the product of arms-length,

25

serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and

26

knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.

27

Throughout extended negotiations, as various jail issues were discussed, the Court has

28

been involved, informed, and monitored these settlement negotiations. It appears to the
Court that the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are fair, adequate and reasonable as to
1

1
2

all potential class members, when balanced against the probable outcome of further

3

litigation and the complexity of the issues involved.

4

2. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class, as defined above, meets the

5

numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The numerosity requirement is fulfilled because

7

there are approximately 2,700 class members. The commonality requirement is fulfilled

8

because the Class presents common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s

9

system-wide practices that present a risk of harm and discriminatory treatment to all

10

prisoners in the Fresno jails. The typicality requirement is fulfilled because Plaintiffs’

11

claims arise from the same policies and procedures similarly impacting all class members.

12

The adequacy requirement is met because Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent

13

the interests of the Class and counsel is experied class counsel knowledgeable in the

14

applicable areas of the law.

15

3. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met because this

16

action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that risk harm

17

and discriminatory treatment to the Class.

18

4. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

19

3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval and

20

incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the

21

fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

22

5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the

23

substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the

24

“Notice”) filed by the parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the

25

Class Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice

26

practicable under the circumstances. Within three days of the adoption of these Findings

27

and Recommendations, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the Notice,

28

incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

1
2

6. No later than August 7, 2015, the County is directed to post the Notice in

3

English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to

4

all prisoners. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each prisoner in

5

restricted housing, which shall include 2D, FF cells, A pods and any other housing unit on

6

lockdown. The Notice shall be posted and delivered until the date of the fairness hearing.
7. Until the date of the fairness hearing the County is also directed to provide a

7
8

copy of this Order, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs’ motion for

9

attorney fees to prisoners who complete an inmate request form and request the

10

documents from the Inmate Programs Manager. Defendant must file and serve on

11

Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as required in this

12

order.

13

8. The Court appoints the Prison Law Office as class counsel.

14

9. A Fairness Hearing shall take place at 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015 at the

15

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States

16

Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Courtroom 8, Fresno, CA 93721, to determine whether

17

the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the

18

Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the

19

Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice to the

20

class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later

21

than September 21, 2015.

22

10. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in

23

this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need not

24

do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be

25

represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the

26

federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider written

27

communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding

28

the fairness of the settlement must include at the top of the first page the case name (Hall
v. Fresno.) and the case number 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM. A written comment must

1
2

contain the author’s full name and must include all objections and the reasons for them,

3

must include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs,

4

written evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by the Class Member. A Class

5

Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply with the above objection

6

procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be

7

heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by September 8, 2015,

8

and must be sent to the following address:

9
10
11
12
13

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501
Fresno, CA 93721

14
15

The Notice to Class members shall highlight the date, September 8, 2015, by which

16

comments must be postmarked.

17
18

11. Consistent with the Consent Decree, the Plaintiff shall file a status report semiannually with the Court regarding implementation of the Remedial Plan.

19
20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

21

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within

22

fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written

23

objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all

24

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

25

and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and

26

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

27

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

28

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

1
2

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3

The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations,

4
5
6

each counsel shall file of a statement of non-opposition, as this will shorten the
objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated:

July 1, 2015

/s/ Barbara

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE