Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 289

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/13/2023 GRANTING the parties' 285 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Second Amended Consent Decree and APPROVING the Notice of the Second Amended Consent Decree provided with the part ies' 6/13/2023 motion (attached as Exhibit A). No later than 15 days after the entry of this order, defendants shall post the Notice of the Second Amended Consent Decree, attached as Exhibit B, in the booking area of the Jail and in a place whe re all incarcerated people being booked into the Jail can see it, in all housing units, in the Jail's library, in the area of the Jail where defendants provide mental health care to incarcerated people, and in the Jail Handbook. Defendants shal l ensure that one or more copies of the SACD are available to class members in the Jail's library and shall make additional copies available to class members upon request. This order shall apply to defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Yin, K)

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DERRIL HEDRICK, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

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

v.

ORDER

JAMES GRANT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Currently pending before the court is the joint motion by the parties for approval of the

17
18

Second Amended Consent Decree (“SACD”). ECF No. 285. The parties have consented to

19

proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 242; 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)(5) & (c). For the reasons

20

that follow, the court will grant the motion.
I.

21

Background
This case was originally filed by a group of prisoners at the Yuba County Jail against

22
23

various county officials in 1976. ECF No. 94 (copy of original docket). Plaintiffs alleged that

24

conditions at the Jail violated the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and California

25

state law. ECF No. 163-1 at 24-55 (original complaint). The court certified the plaintiff class on

26

July 23, 1976, which consisted of “all prisoners of the Yuba County Jail on March 24, 1976, or at

27

any time during the pendency of this lawsuit.” ECF No. 163-1 at 57-58 (Order of July 23, 1976).

28

////
1

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 9
1

Several months later, the court concluded that county officials were violating prisoners’

2

constitutional rights with regard to inmate opportunities for exercise and recreation, the adequacy

3

of the law library, and the lack of a trusty program for female inmates. ECF No. 163-2 at 403-12

4

(Order of Nov. 12, 1976). The court granted preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiffs on the

5

exercise and library claims and summarily adjudicated the female trusty program claim in

6

plaintiffs’ favors. Id.

7

In 1979, the court entered a comprehensive Consent Decree binding on the county

8

officials and their successors. ECF No. 163-1 at 60-109 (Nov. 2, 1979 Consent Decree). In 1987,

9

the court ordered the clerk to administratively terminate this case “without prejudice to the right

10

of the parties to reopen the proceedings for the entry of any stip[ulation], mot[ion], ord[er] or any

11

other purpose required to obtain a final or interim determination of the litigation.” ECF No. 94 at

12

5 (docket entry No. 93).

13

Defendants later moved to terminate the decree; the motion was denied, and the Decree

14

remains in force. ECF No. 135 (Order of April 2, 2013 denying defendants’ motion to terminate

15

the Decree), aff’d by Hedrick v. Grant, 648 Fed. App’x. 715 (9th Cir. 2016).

16

In October 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the Decree, alleging that defendants

17

(successors-in-office to the original defendants) were violating various provisions of that

18

agreement. Plaintiffs further alleged that these violations of the Decree also violated inmates’

19

constitutional rights. Lastly, plaintiffs alleged additional constitutional violations (denial of

20

necessary outside medical and mental health care, unduly risky medication practices, denial of

21

necessary psychosocial treatment, denial of confidentiality and language interpretation for

22

medical and mental health services, denial of out-of-cell time to segregated prisoners). ECF No.

23

163. In addition to seeking enforcement of the Decree, plaintiffs asked the court to issue further

24

remedial orders in the form of six “plans” to remedy these alleged constitutional violations: an

25

Intake Screening Plan, a Health Care Implementation Plan, a Suicide Prevention Plan, a Staffing

26

Plan, an Inpatient Care Plan, and an Exercise and Recreation Plan. Id. at 60.

27

At the hearing on the motion to enforce, the court directed the parties to settlement

28

conference. ECF No. 201. Thereafter, the parties engaged in many settlement conferences with
2

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 3 of 9
1

Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman from May 5, 2017 through May 18, 2018. Judge Newman

2

also toured the Jail with counsel for the parties. ECF No. 206. Through these negotiations, the

3

parties agreed on an Amended Consent Decree (ACD). The court granted final approval of the

4

ACD on January 30, 2019. ECF No. 258.

5

Class counsel represents that, since that time, they have monitored conditions at the Jail

6

and defendants’ compliance with the ACD. That monitoring has consisted of (1) reviewing

7

defendants’ quarterly document productions, (2) conducting seven monitoring tours of the Jail,

8

(3) corresponding with and interviewing hundreds of class members, (4) reviewing the medical

9

and mental health records of dozens of class members, and (5) retaining an expert mental health

10

consultant to assess the Jail’s mental health and suicide prevention systems. ECF No. 269-1,

11

Grunfeld Dec., ¶ 10. Counsel documented their findings from the monitoring in seven reports

12

and additional letters to defendants. Id. In these communications, class counsel asserted that

13

defendants were not complying with the ACD’s staffing requirements, especially with regard to

14

mental health positions. Counsel reported that defendants had a practice of cycling certain

15

severely mentally ill class members in and out of the Jail’s safety and step-down cells for weeks

16

or months at a time. Counsel also asserted that class members who needed more intensive mental

17

health treatment than the Jail could provide were being placed in restrictive housing instead of

18

being transferred to a facility capable of treating them. The County contests that the Jail was or is

19

not in substantial compliance with the ACD.

20

According to class counsel, they began to focus their efforts on the Jail’s mental health

21

and suicide prevention systems after two inmates died from suicide and one from a fentanyl

22

overdose during one year.

23

With the ACD set to terminate on January 30, 2023 (unless counsel successfully moved

24

for its extension), class counsel approached defendants in July 2022 to discuss a negotiated

25

extension. In a letter to defendants, class counsel wrote that, while defendants had made

26

significant progress toward compliance with many provisions of the ACD, the Jail’s mental

27

health program remained out of compliance. ECF No. 269-2, Freedman Dec., Ex. B.

28

////
3

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 4 of 9
1

The court entered a stipulated order on September 26, 2022, extending the ACD’s

2

duration until May 31, 2023 in order to allow the parties time to negotiate. ECF No. 267. After

3

five months of discussions, the parties have agreed on the proposed SACD. ECF No. 269-2, ¶¶ 4-

4

5. In ordering preliminary approval of the SACD on March 9, 2023, the court directed defendants

5

to publish notice of the SACD to class members on the county’s website, placing it in all Jail

6

facilities (including particular locations), making copies of the SACD available in the Jail law

7

library, and making it available to class members upon request. ECF No. 274. The notice

8

informed class members of their right to file objections to the SACD by April 14, 2023.

9

Defendants submitted an affidavit attesting to their compliance with the court’s order regarding

10

the notice. ECF No. 276.

11

However, that compliance came into question when class member Mary Abbott filed

12

objections to the SACD. ECF No. 278 at 8-9. In her objections, she represented that: (1) the Jail

13

did not make the SACD available in the law library for inmate review, (2) some of the notices

14

that were posted in the Jail pertained to the ACD, not the SACD, and noted a comment due date

15

of December 30, 2018, and (3) the notice is misleading because it gives short shrift to the changes

16

from the ACD to the SACD, notably the omission of many of the ACD’s provisions, including

17

requirements that the Jail take steps to enhance inmate recreation opportunities, increase medical

18

staff, and accommodate disabled inmates.

19

Based on Ms. Abbot’s submission, the court ordered defendants to re-do the notice and

20

extended the comment period through June 31, 2023. ECF No. 281. On May 23, 2023,

21

defendants submitted an affidavit confirming the posting of notice of the SACD in compliance

22

with the court’s order. ECF No. 283. Two class members submitted objections to the SACD:

23

Mary Abbot and Brittany Keeton. ECF No. 285-1 at 9-22 (Abbot materials) & 24-35 (Keeton

24

materials). Ms. Abbot objects on the following grounds:

25

1. The SACD is difficult to read, repetitive, long, and confusing; and

26

2. The SACD drops nearly all of the ACD’s provisions regarding physical healthcare,

27
28

women’s health, exercise and recreation, ADA facility access, and education.
////
4

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 5 of 9
1

Id. at 9-10. Ms. Keeton argues that she was denied necessary psychiatric medication in the Jail

2

for 8 days, was denied accommodation for breastfeeding, faced rudeness from staff after she cut

3

her own hair, and was denied treatment for post-partum depression. Id. at 26-30. She would like

4

the SACD revised to include provisions requiring mandatory round-the-clock medical staffing.

5

Id. at 26.

6

The Jail’s Captain, Allan Garza, has submitted a declaration contradicting some of the

7

claims made by Ms. Keeton. ECF No. 286. According to Captain Garza, his investigation of her

8

claims showed that, rather than being denied her medication, Ms. Keeton refused it. Id. Nor was

9

she lactating at the time of her incarceration. Id.

10
11

II.

Analysis
In the Ninth Circuit, there is a “strong judicial policy” favoring settlement of complex

12

class action litigation. Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Such

13

settlements should be approved if “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” Id.; see also

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (providing that the court may approve a settlement binding on class

15

members if, after hearing, it determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate). The

16

decision to approve or reject a settlement proposal is committed to the trial judge’s discretion and

17

will only be reversed if discretion was clearly abused. Id.

18

Review of a proposed class settlement proceeds in two phases. True v. Am. Honda Motor

19

Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2010). At the preliminary stage, the court determines

20

whether the proposed agreement is within the range of possible approval and whether notice

21

should be sent to class members. Id. at 1063. The court has issued preliminary approval of the

22

SACD and now is presented with the second and final stage of approval.

23

At this stage, the Ninth Circuit has directed courts to consider various factors:

24

[T]he strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration
of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;
the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage
of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a
governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed
settlement.

25
26
27
28

Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d at 1291. These factors are not exclusive. Torrisi v. Tucson
5

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 6 of 9
1

Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 23(e)(2) provides a list of similar

2

factors the court should consider in making the ultimate determination of whether a settlement is

3

“fair, adequate, and reasonable”:

4

9

(A) whether the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
represented the class;
(B) whether the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;
(C) whether the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:
(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the
class, including the method of processing class-member claims;
(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of
payment; and
(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and
(D) whether the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

10

The court finds that, considering all of these factors, the SACD is fundamentally adequate,

11

reasonable, and fair.

5
6
7
8

12

The SACD represents a compromise to stave off further litigation. With the ACD set to

13

expire, the parties disagreed as to whether defendants were in substantial compliance with it. To

14

extend it would have required further litigation, which plaintiffs could have lost. Instead,

15

plaintiffs’ counsel reached agreement with defendants to reduce the scope of the consent decree

16

and focus it on mental health issues for a period of two additional years past the ACD’s expiration

17

(the new expiration date is January 31, 2025). According to class counsel, the SACD “addresses

18

the most significant areas of non-compliance” that class counsel had found in the course of its

19

monitoring efforts, providing for “two additional years of Defendants being bound by substantial

20

obligations relating to mental health and suicide prevention.” ECF No. 285 at 11.

21

The SACD includes all of the critical mental health provisions that were already in the

22

ACD. Additionally, the SACD provides for the appointment of a third-party monitor and

23

provides enhanced protections to some aspects of mental health care in the Jail. ECF No. 285-2

24

at 3-5, 7-8, 19-20, 22-23, 29-34. The parties have selected Jackie Clark to act as monitor and

25

have submitted Ms. Clark’s CV; she has significant experience in correctional healthcare. Id. at

26

11-12. Under the SACD, defendants will provide Ms. Clark with access to all documents relating

27

to their compliance with the SACD and allow her periodic Jail tours. Ms. Clark will also

28

investigate inmate complaints about defendants’ compliance and provide periodic reports on
6

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 7 of 9
1
2

compliance.
The parties have agreed to cap fees for class counsel at $75,000/year, which is $40,000

3

less than the cap provided for in the ACD. This reduction reflects class counsel’s decreased

4

duties from the smaller scope of the SACD and the delegation of some duties to Ms. Clark, who

5

is also entitled to payment under the SACD. The parties did not discuss fees until they had

6

reached agreement “on all of the substantive provisions” of the SACD. ECF No. 285 at 14.

7

Class counsel conducted substantial work investigating conditions at the Jail prior to

8

entering into settlement talks with defendants. They note that they disagree with defendants as to

9

whether defendants have substantially complied with the ACD. If class counsel opted to ask the

10

court to find that defendants had not substantially complied, the court could have sided with

11

defendants and declined to extend the ACD past its January 30, 2023 expiration date. In the

12

meantime, inmates would continue to suffer due to what plaintiffs’ counsel characterizes as

13

mental health treatment inadequacies and suicide prevention failures at the Jail; plaintiffs’ counsel

14

notes that two inmates killed themselves within a three-month period at the end of 2021.

15

Despite their substantial work on the matter, plaintiffs’ counsel had less-fully-developed

16

evidence of defendants’ noncompliance in other areas covered by the ACD, such as those

17

concerning exercise, medical and dental care, disability accommodations, and inmate grievances.

18

This lack of evidence increased the risk that plaintiffs would lose a motion to extend the duration

19

of the ACD. Thus, the SACD presents a reasonable bargain to include and enhance the

20

provisions on which plaintiff’s believed they had good evidence that defendants needed to do

21

better at the expense of issues on which plaintiffs’ case for compelling action by defendants was

22

weaker.

23

There is no indication that the parties have colluded; rather, they have engaged in serious

24

negotiations for several months to reach agreement on the SACD. Plaintiffs’ counsel is highly

25

experienced in prisoner civil rights litigation, including complex class actions, and their efforts in

26

litigating the case over the last several years reflect that. Their experience and evident

27

competence are further indications that the compromise they have reached with defendants is a

28

fair one.
7

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 8 of 9
1

In light of the foregoing considerations, the court finds that the settlement is fair,

2

adequate, and reasonable, despite the objections raised by Ms. Abbott and Ms. Keeton. These

3

objections are focused on the central compromise reached by the parties – reducing the scope of

4

the consent decree in exchange for additional years of the County being bound by its provisions

5

(some enhanced) concerning mental health care at the Jail. While it may have been optimally

6

beneficial to class members to continue with the ACD as it was, that agreement was set to expire.

7

The compromise plaintiffs’ counsel made with defendants by dropping some of the ACD’s

8

provisions was not made for nothing; in exchange the class receives additional years of

9

protections from the SACD without having to litigate to obtain them.

10

III.

Order

11

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

12

1. The parties’ June 13, 2023 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Second Amended

13
14
15
16

Consent Decree (ECF No. 285) is GRANTED.
2. The court approves the Notice of the Second Amended Consent Decree provided with
the parties’ June 13, 2023 motion (attached as Exhibit A).
3. No later than 15 days after the entry of this order, defendants shall post the Notice of

17

the Second Amended Consent Decree, attached as Exhibit B, in the booking area of

18

the Jail and in a place where all incarcerated people being booked into the Jail can see

19

it, in all housing units, in the Jail’s library, in the area of the Jail where defendants

20

provide mental health care to incarcerated people, and in the Jail Handbook.

21

Defendants shall ensure that one or more copies of the SACD are available to class

22

members in the Jail’s library and shall make additional copies available to class

23

members upon request.

24

4. This case shall remain open and the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms

25

of the Second Amended Consent Decree for the term and under the conditions set

26

forth in sections XI and XII of the Second Amended Consent Decree. Once the matter

27

is terminated under those provisions, this case shall be ordered dismissed with

28

prejudice.
8

Case 2:76-cv-00162-EFB Document 289 Filed 09/13/23 Page 9 of 9
1

5. This order shall apply to defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office.

2
3
4

Dated: September 13, 2023

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9