Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 6487

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/27/2020 GRANTING 6389 Motion to Intervene. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

No. S-90-0520-KJM-DB P

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
On November 14, 2019, Christopher Lipsey, an inmate at California State Prison,

18
19

Corcoran (CSP Corcoran), filed a motion to intervene in this class action, which is in its remedial

20

phase. Mot., ECF No. 6389. Lipsey’s motion concerns the use of Guard One, an electronic

21

monitoring system installed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

22

(CDCR) defendants in all administrative segregation units (ASUs), including short term and long

23

term restrictive housing units (STRHs and LTRHs), psychiatric services units (PSUs), Security

24

Housing Units (SHUs), and Condemned Housing Units to track correctional officer compliance

25

with inmate welfare checks required in these units. As relevant here, Lipsey claims that the use

26

of Guard One violates his Eighth Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution because it creates

27

noise during the night that prevents Lipsey from sleeping. Compl. in Intervention, ECF No.

28

/////
1

1

6389-4, at 6.1 Lipsey, a member of the plaintiff class in this case, alleges he is subject to Guard

2

One because he is currently housed in the SHU at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-

3

Corcoran).2 After filing the motion to intervene, Lipsey filed a motion for a temporary restraining

4

order in this case. Mot. TRO, ECF No. 6462. After ordering a defense response on a shortened

5

schedule, see ECF No. 6475, the court held a status conference on the temporary restraining order

6

on February 26, 2020, during which the parties and the court also discussed the motion to

7

intervene.

8
9
10

As signaled at the status conference, and for the reasons below, the court hereby
GRANTS Lipsey’s motion to intervene for a limited purpose.
I.

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(b)(1)(B)

11

An applicant for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) must show

12

“(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim

13

or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common.” Perry

14

v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

15

Plaintiffs do not oppose permissive intervention here and agree that Lipsey shares

16

an interest with the class representative and other class members in avoiding sleep deprivation

17

caused by Guard One checks. Pls.’ Resp., ECF No. 6408, at 10. Defendants oppose both

18

mandatory and permissive intervention, arguing that “the class representatives and class counsel

19

adequately represented Lipsey’s interests in connection with adopting the Guard One protocol,

20

and the use of Guard One has been litigated in this Court.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 6407, at 2.

21
22

The court finds permissive intervention is warranted here under Rule 24(b)(1)(B).
Lipsey’s § 1983 claim raises a federal question, and therefore independent grounds for

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Lipsey also claims the use of Guard One violates his rights under Article I, Section 17 of
the California State Constitution. The permissive intervention granted by this order is limited to
Lipsey’s Eighth Amendment claim.
2

Both plaintiffs and defendants in this action represent that Lipsey is housed in an LTRH
at CSP- Corcoran, a matter that the court and counsel clarified for Lipsey’s counsel at the status
conference on the temporary restraining order. This distinction is significant, because remedies in
this action preclude placement of class members in a SHU.
2

1

jurisdiction exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The motion is as timely as can be expected, considering the

2

time it has taken Lipsey to purportedly exhaust administrative remedies, obtain representation,

3

file an independent lawsuit in the Northern District, which was transferred to the undersigned,

4

and oppose a motion to dismiss in his independent case. See generally Lipsey v. Norum, Case No.

5

2:18-cv-00362 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal.).3 Finally, it is undisputed that Lipsey’s claim, that the

6

implementation of Guard One causes sleep deprivation in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

7

presents a question of law and fact directly relevant to the implementation of the remedial plan in

8

this case. Accordingly Lipsey’s motion to intervene is GRANTED, and Lipsey may intervene for

9

the limited purpose of addressing his claim that Guard One causes sleep deprivation in violation

10

of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

11

II.

MOOTNESS

12

At hearing, the parties raised the issue of whether Lipsey’s claims for injunctive

13

relief will become moot once he is released back into the general population, which Lipsey

14

represents may be sometime this year, Mot. at 15 (noting Lipsey returned to Corcoran SHU,

15

which the court assumes is Lipsey’s name for what is actually LTRH, with an 18-month sentence

16

in late summer 2019). See Rico v. Beard, No. 2:17-CV-1402-KJM-DB-P, 2019 WL 1036075, at

17

*5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) (finding similar injunctive relief claims moot). At the status

18

conference, plaintiff represented Lipsey has other outstanding rules violations for which he has

19

yet to receive a sentence, so his stint in LTRH may be extended. In the interest of efficiently

20

resolving this issue, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to submit further information regarding the

21

pending rules violations for which Lipsey may face more time in restrictive housing, within seven

22

(7) days of this order.

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

All of Lipsey’s claims in Lipsey v. Norum, including his claims for damages, remain live
in that case while the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations are still pending before
this court. See Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 197 (recommending, inter alia, dismissal
of plaintiff’s claims for damages based on conduct after Guard One was ordered in Coleman, on
the basis of qualified immunity, and recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s prospective injunctive
relief because “plaintiff should not be permitted in this case to collaterally attack the Coleman
order requiring use of Guard One”).
3

1

III.

DISCOVERY & APPOINTMENT

2

Having granted permissive intervention for Lipsey, and having considered defense

3

counsel’s representation that it would take significant time for the defendants to compile relevant

4

information given their other pressing obligations in this case, the court hereby GRANTS Lipsey

5

and his counsel the right to conduct limited discovery to obtain information from which to

6

identify the administrative complaints filed by both Coleman class members and non-class

7

member inmates related to the use of Guard One at all CDCR institutions where it is currently in

8

use. This limited discovery shall proceed on an expedited schedule: plaintiff-intervenor may

9

propound written discovery requests, and responses shall be due within fourteen days. See Fed.

10

R. Civ. P. 33 (responses to interrogatories generally required within 30 days after being served,

11

but a shorter time may be ordered by the court); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (responses to requests for

12

admission generally required within 30 days, but a shorter time for responding may be ordered by

13

the court). Discovery obtained by plaintiff-intervenor shall only be used for the purposes of this

14

case, unless the court orders otherwise. In lieu of formal discovery, the parties may meet and

15

confer to reach agreement on an efficient way to provide plaintiff with the raw information from

16

which to glean information on the administrative complaints covered by the court’s grant of

17

limited discovery.

18

Additionally, the court requests that, within thirty days from the date of this order,

19

Ms. Falkenstein take all steps necessary to determine whether she may seek appointment as

20

counsel in the following Guard One-related cases pending before this court: Matthews v. Holland,

21

Case No. 1:14-cv-1959 KJM DB; Murillo v. Holland, Case No. 1:15-cv-00266 KJM DB; and

22

Harris v. Sexton, Case No. 1:18-cv-0080 KJM DB, and file all such motions for appointment as

23

may be appropriate.

24

IV.

25

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
At hearing, defendants represented that they are investigating whether first watch

26

welfare checks using Guard One are being conducted at CSP-Corcoran in accordance with the

27

remedial plan in this action, namely using a device during first watch that “does not omit an

28

audible beep during use only a flashing red Light Omitting Diode (LED).” App’x to Special
4

1

Master’s Report (Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide, 2018 Revision), ECF

2

No. 5864-1, at 488. Defendants agreed to file, within seven days, a report to the court including a

3

declaration setting forth the results of this investigation, in particular whether Guard One checks

4

at CSP-Corcoran are being properly conducted. Good cause appearing, within the same period,

5

the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether Lipsey’s concerns regarding sleep

6

deprivation can be addressed immediately. Defendants shall include the results of that meet and

7

confer in their report to the court as well. Lipsey’s counsel may also file her own report on the

8

meet and confer within the same time frame.

9

V.

10

CONCLUSION
This order resolves ECF No. 6389, by GRANTING it. The Clerk shall edit the

11

docket to reflect plaintiff-intervenor Lipsey’s joining the case. Plaintiff-intervenor’s motion for

12

temporary restraining order remains pending while the court awaits submission of the report

13

required by this order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 27, 2020.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5