Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 130

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/26/2014 ORDERING that the parties are provided an opportunity to brief whether the consent decree, or any portion thereof, should be modified and/or terminated under Rule 60(b) by no later than 3/31/2014. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11

DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE
ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY,
MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY
TYRONE PARKER, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

14
15
16
17
18
19

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No.

v.
JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of
Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED
J. ASBY, as Yuba County
Jailer; and JAMES PHARRIS,
ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ,
HAROLD J. “SAM” SPERBECK,
JAMES MARTIN, as members of
the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,
Defendants.

20
21
22

In connection with Defendant County of Yuba’s Motion to

23

Terminate Consent Decree under 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(b), the Court has

24

reviewed the consent decree signed by the parties on November 2,

25

1978, and questions, sua sponte, whether it should be modified or

26

terminated, in whole or in part, under Federal Rule of Civil

27

Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). See Gilmore v. People of the State of

28

Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 1007 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he [PLRA] standard
1

1

does

2

[under Rule 60(b)].”); Jones’El v. Schneiter, No. 00-C-421-C,

3

2006 WL 2168682, at *1 (W.D. Wisc. July 31, 2006) (stating “the

4

Prison Litigation Reform Act . . . . does not bar this court from

5

examining

6

under . . . Rule 60”); see also Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v.

7

Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 351-52 (9th Cir. 1999) (indicating

8

a district judge may sua sponte modify or vacate a judgment under

9

Rule 60(b) after providing notice to the parties).

not

eviscerate

the

a

district

continuing

court’s

validity

of

equitable

the

discretion

consent

decree

10

Accordingly, the parties are provided the opportunity

11

to brief whether the consent decree, or any portion thereof,

12

should

13

generally, United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 979 (9th

14

Cir. 2005) (discussing standard “for modifying a consent decree

15

under Rule 60(b)”); Youngblood v. Dalzell, 925 F.2d 954, 961 (6th

16

Cir. 1991) (stating that in determining whether to terminate a

17

consent decree under Rule 60(b), “the district court may properly

18

consider the length of time over which this particular decree has

19

been in effect and the continuing efficacy of its enforcement”).

20

Any brief shall be filed no later than March 31, 2014. Responses

21

to any brief filed shall be filed no later than April 4, 2014.

22

The hearing scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 8, 2014,

23

remains on calendar for oral argument as the parties have jointly

24

requested. (See Joint Statement Regarding Def. Yuba County’s Mot.

25

to Terminate Consent Decree 2:20-21, ECF No. 129.)

be

26

modified

and/or

terminated

under

Rule

60(b).

See

Further, since it appears from reviewing Plaintiffs’

27

Proposed

Findings

of

Fact

and

28

Defendant Yuba County’s Motion to Terminate Consent Decree, (ECF
2

Conclusions

of

Law

Regarding

1

No. 129-1), that Plaintiffs do not seek continued enforcement of

2

each of the remedies granted in the consent decree, Plaintiffs

3

are requested to identify, with citation to page and line number,

4

the specific portions of the consent decree, which they contend

5

remain

6

information in their brief concerning whether the consent decree

7

should be modified and/or terminated under Rule 60(b), if one is

8

filed, or in a separate document filed no later than March 31,

9

2014.

10

Dated:

enforceable.1

Plaintiffs

may

provide

the

requested

March 26, 2014

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

1

For example, the consent decree contains a section titled “Female Trusty
Program.” (Consent Decree 43:1-46:10.) Plaintiffs’ proposed findings do not
address the “Female Trusty Program.”

3