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
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?