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