Hall et al v. Mims et al

Filing 132

ORDER ADOPTING 129 Findings and Recommendations In Full, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/21/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

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

16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

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
3
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

Plaintiffs in this action, Quentin Hall, et al., and a class consisting of all prisoners
who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno County Jail allege that
conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are
entitled to injunctive relief to address their claims.
On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement stating that the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which
would settle all claims in this case. (Doc. 112). The parties have submitted a proposed
Notice to the Class, as well as a proposed an acceptable distribution of the notice to the
plaintiff class. On June 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and ordered
supplemental briefing and modifications to the preliminary settlement agreement. (Doc.
121). The parties filed the supplemental materials and amendments on June 17, 2015.
Having reviewed the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Supplemental Brief, along with the Consent Decree and supporting
documents, on July 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
recommending that the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement
be granted. (Doc. 129). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all of the
parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days.
Both parties have filed statements of non-opposition to the Findings and
Recommendations. (Doc. 130).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has
conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and
proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and
Recommendations dated July 1, 2015. (Doc. 129), are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED, subject to the following
findings and orders:
1

1
2
3
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

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears to be
the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies,
does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of
the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust
Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court finds that this standard is
met in this case, as the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are the product of arms-length,
serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and
knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.
Throughout extended negotiations, as various jail issues were discussed, the Court has
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
all potential class members, when balanced against the probable outcome of further
litigation and the complexity of the issues involved.
2. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class, as defined above, meets the
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The numerosity requirement is fulfilled because
there are approximately 2,700 class members. The commonality requirement is fulfilled
because the Class presents common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s
system-wide practices that present a risk of harm and discriminatory treatment to all
prisoners in the Fresno jails. The typicality requirement is fulfilled because Plaintiffs’
claims arise from the same policies and procedures similarly impacting all class members.
The adequacy requirement is met because Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent
the interests of the Class and counsel is experied class counsel knowledgeable in the
applicable areas of the law.
3. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met because this
action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that risk harm
and discriminatory treatment to the Class.

1
2
3
4
5

4. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §
3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval and
incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the
substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the
“Notice”) filed by the parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the
Class Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice
practicable under the circumstances. Within three days of the adoption of these Findings
and Recommendations, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the Notice,
incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

13
14
15
16
17

6. No later than August 7, 2015, the County is directed to post the Notice in
English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to
all prisoners. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each prisoner in
restricted housing, which shall include 2D, FF cells, A pods and any other housing unit on
lockdown. The Notice shall be posted and delivered until the date of the fairness hearing.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7. Until the date of the fairness hearing the County is also directed to provide a
copy of this Order, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs’ motion for
attorney fees to prisoners who complete an inmate request form and request the
documents from the Inmate Programs Manager. Defendant must file and serve on
Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as required in this
order.
8. The Court appoints the Prison Law Office as class counsel.
9. A Fairness Hearing shall take place at 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015 at the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States
Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Courtroom 8, Fresno, CA 93721, to determine whether
the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the
Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice to the
class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later
than September 21, 2015.
10. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in
this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need not
do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be
represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the
federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider written
communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding
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
contain the author’s full name and must include all objections and the reasons for them,
must include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs,
written evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by the Class Member. A Class
Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply with the above objection
procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be
heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by September 8, 2015,
and must be sent to the following address:

21
22
23
24
25

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

26
27
28

The Notice to Class members shall highlight the date, September 8, 2015, by which
comments must be postmarked.

1
2
3

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 21, 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE