Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 157

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/8/15 DENYING 154 Request to Authorize the Expenditure to Hire an Expert. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

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

11

14
15
16
17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR PRE-APPROVAL OF
EXPERT EXPENDITURES

v.

12
13

No. 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

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.

18
19
20

Plaintiffs request the Court “authorize the expenditure

21

in an amount not to exceed [$5,000.00]” to hire an expert(s) “to

22

determine if the Yuba County Jail’s medical and mental health

23

care,

24

required by the Constitution and the Consent Decree.” (Pls.’ Req.

25

for Authority to Incur Costs 1, ECF No. 154.) Plaintiffs contend

26

the

27

prosecution of this action.” (Id.)

facilities,

requested

and

procedures

expenditure

“is

28
1

meet

the

reasonably

minimum

necessary

standards

to

the

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

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Carter White, filed a Declaration
in support of this request, in which he avers:
As counsel for the Plaintiff Class, I have a
duty to investigate current and ongoing
violations of Federal law and the Consent
Decree at Yuba County Jail (“the Jail”). See
18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); ECF 120-1, at 48-49.
Based
on
the
Clinic’s
preliminary
investigation into conditions at the Jail,
review of reports produced by the County, and
declarations made by inmates, it is my belief
that there likely exist current and ongoing
violations of inmates’ federal rights at the
Jail. In order to determine if the conditions
of the Jail are in compliance with the
Consent Decree and constitutional minima,
Plaintiffs reasonably and necessarily need to
hire neutral and unbiased experts familiar
with
jail
conditions
and
constitutional
standards. Some of the issues the experts
will
need
to
look
into
include
the
accessibility of adequate medical and mental
health care, the habitability of the Jail
facilities, and the adequacy of exercise and
recreation
for
inmates.
I
have
made
reasonable inquiry and believe that the
initial cost of this course of action will
not exceed the amount of $5,000. I will do
all that I can to ensure that the expert
costs are minimal and reasonable.

18

(Decl. of Carter White in Supp. of Req. to Incur Costs (“White

19

Decl.”) & 2 (emphasis added).)

20

United States District Court for the Eastern District

21

of California (“Eastern District”) General Order No. 510 governs

22

the “reimbursement of pro bono counsel appointed in indigent pro

23

se civil cases.” It provides, in relevant part, that “appointed

24

pro bono counsel . . . may petition the Court for reimbursement

25

from the Court’s Non Appropriated Fund . . . of certain expenses

26

incurred.” See General Order No. 510, 1. Such expenses include:

27
28

Request[ed]
reimbursement
for
costs
of
retaining expert and non-expert witnesses
whose services are necessary in preparing
2

1

their client’s case. Except for good cause
shown, all such services require prior
approval of the judge before whom a case is
pending
before
they
may
be
purchased,
regardless of their cost.

2
3
4

General Order No. 510 ' 4(A)(3) (emphasis added).

5

The scope of Plaintiffs’ requested expert expenditure

6

is unclear and appears beyond what is governed by the Consent

7

Decree.

8

what

9

justification

for

10

authorization

to

11

Plaintiffs vaguely reference as “constitutional minima,” which

12

Plaintiffs indicate is outside the scope of the Consent Decree.

Specifically,

aspects

of

Plaintiffs

the
the

portion

conduct

an

shown

Decree

Consent

have

would

of

expert

the

neither
be

precisely

involved

expenditure

investigation

nor

seeking

into

what

13

Further, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that expert

14

investigation is necessary “to determine if the conditions of the

15

Jail are in compliance with the Consent Decree and constitutional

16

minima.” (White Decl. & 2.)
For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs have not shown the

17
18

requested

expenditure

is

“necessary”

19

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request is denied.

20

Dated:

January 8, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

to

prepare

their

case.