Hedrick et al v. Grant
Filing
135
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/2/14 DENYING 95 Motion to Terminate Consent Decree. 134 Request to file under seal is DENIED. Status Conference set for 4/8/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. If feasible, parties shall file a Joint Status Report. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
10
11
v.
13
15
16
17
18
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
TERMINATE; AND SCHEDULING STATUS
CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs,
12
14
2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB
DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE
ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY,
MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY
TYRONE PARKER, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
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.
19
20
On May 13, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to terminate
21
22
the
Consent
23
Defendants make the conclusory argument in the motion that “Yuba
24
County . . . is entitled to termination of the Consent Decree . .
25
. under both 18 USC §3626(b)(1) and 18 USC §3626(b)(2).” (Motion
26
to
27
considering the motion, the Court issued an Order filed March 26,
28
2014, in which it “question[ed], sua sponte, whether [the Consent
Terminate
Decree
entered
Consent
in
Decree,
this
case
5:20-22,
1
on
ECF
May
No.
2,
96.)
1979.
When
1
Decree] should be modified or terminated, in whole or in part,
2
under
3
provided each party an opportunity to brief the issue. (Order,
4
1:25-27, ECF No. 130.) That Order concerned, inter alia, whether
5
“contractual surplusage” existed in the Consent Decree. Gilmore
6
v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th
7
Cir. 2000).
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
(“Rule”)
60(b),”
and
8
Plaintiffs responded to that Order stating that the
9
majority of the consent decree should “be maintained at least in
10
the
areas
of
outdoor
11
procedures,
12
Whether the Consent Decree Should Be Modified under Rule 60(b)
13
(“Pls.’ Br.”), 1:22-24, ECF No. 133.)
hygiene,
and
exercise,
housing
medical
and
care,
safety.”
grievance
(Pls.’
Br.
on
14
Defendants responded to that Order arguing that since
15
there has been no judicial enforcement of any aspect of the
16
Consent
17
purposes have been achieved. Plaintiffs rejoined indicating that
18
their prior counsel, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.,
19
“believed itself to be incapable of taking any action on behalf
20
of Plaintiffs since at least 1996.” (Pls.’ Br. 2:2-4.) Plaintiffs
21
also submitted evidence that they opine demonstrates that the
22
majority of the Consent Decree should not be terminated.
Decree
since
its
issuance,
it
is
evident
that
its
23
In light of each party’s response the Order, the Rule
24
60(b) sua sponte inquiry is disregarded, and decision issues on
25
Defendants’ motion to terminate the Consent Decree. It is evident
26
that Defendants have failed to carry their “burden . . . to
27
demonstrate that there are no ongoing constitutional violations,
28
that the relief ordered exceeds what is necessary to correct an
2
1
ongoing constitutional violation, or both.” Graves v. Arpaio, 623
2
F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, Defendants’ May 13,
3
2013
motion
to
4
Accordingly,
the
5
converted to a Status Conference. If feasible, the parties shall
6
file a joint status report prior to the Status Conference, in
7
which the parties need only address the pertinent subjects in
8
Local Rule 240(a).
9
terminate
hearing
the
consent
scheduled
for
decree
April
is
8,
denied.
2014,
is
Further, Plaintiffs’ request, (ECF No. 134), to file
10
under
seal
11
“evidence . . . demonstrat[ing] that the consent decree should
12
not
13
concerns a motion that is no longer pending. (Pls.’ Br. 2:6-7.)
14
Dated:
be
certain
terminated,”
documents
is
which
denied
April 2, 2014
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
since
Plaintiffs
the
describe
referenced
as
filing
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?