Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 1731

JOINT STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by Special Master Chase Riveland on 12/19/2011 RECOMMENDING that all remaining deadlines and hearings scheduled for this matter be vacated. (Michel, G)

1 GEOFFREY THOMAS HOLTZ – 191370
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
2 Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111-4067
3 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
4
DONALD SPECTER – 83925
5 PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
6 Berkeley, California 94710-1916
Telephone: [phone]
7 Facsimile: [phone]
8 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 96891
ERNEST GALVAN – 196065
9 SHIRLEY HUEY – 224114
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
10 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823
11 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

17

BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER CHASE RIVELAND

18
19 JERRY VALDIVIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21

v.

Case No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK-GGH
JOINT STATEMENT AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
RESOLUTION OF HEARING
LOCATIONS DISPUTE

22 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
23

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
[577863-3]

JOINT STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF HEARING LOCATIONS
DISPUTE

1

The parties, through their counsel, jointly submit this status report regarding the

2 dispute on hearing locations under Paragraphs 11(c), 11(d), 21, 22 of the Valdivia
3 Permanent Injunction.
4

1.

On May 13, 2011, the parties jointly requested that the Special Master

5 preside over a fact-finding hearing regarding certain locations used by the Defendants for
6 parole proceedings, pursuant to the Stipulation and Amended Order Re: Special Master
7 Order of Reference, Docket No. 1234, ¶ IV. E. These locations, at Sacramento County
8 Main Jail, Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, Butte County Jail, and Placer County Jail,
9 were “non-contact” rooms, and imposed a visual and audial barrier between the parolee
10 and all other hearing participants. The parties also agreed to submit a dispute regarding
11 Orange County Jail, which used a slightly different arrangement, in which the parolee was
12 held in a holding cell during probable cause hearings. Plaintiffs contend that non-contact
13 hearings are inconsistent with due process and effective communication, and are not
14 justified by any legitimate security interest or administrative necessity. Defendants
15 contend that non-contact hearing locations do not impair due process and are not precluded
16 under the Valdivia Injunction.
17

2.

On or about September 1, 2011 through November 14, 2011 the parties

18 engaged in discovery that included expert inspections of the hearing locations at Butte
19 County Jail, Placer County Jail, and Sacramento County Main Jail. The parties have since
20 agreed to resolve this dispute on the following terms.
21

3.

Butte County Jail. All Valdivia probable cause and revocation hearings at

22 Butte County Jail are now conducted and will continue to be conducted in the Visitors’
23 Center Conference Room, a room that enables contact between the parolee and the other
24 participants in the proceeding and provides telephone and internet access. The agreement
25 to stop using barrier locations for probable cause hearings applies to both male and female
26 parolees.
27
[577863-3]

4.

Placer County Jail. All Valdivia probable cause and revocation hearings at

28 Placer County Jail are now conducted and will continue to be conducted in Room 78 at the
1

JOINT STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF HEARING LOCATIONS
DISPUTE

1 jail, a room that enables contact between the parolee and the other participants in the
2 proceeding and provides telephone and internet access. The agreement to stop using
3 barrier locations for probable cause hearings applies to both male and female parolees
4

5.

Sacramento Main Jail. All Valdivia probable cause and revocation hearings

5 at Sacramento Main Jail are now conducted and will continue to be conducted in a room
6 on the Jail’s 8th floor that enables contact between the parolee and the other participants in
7 the proceeding and provides access to internet and a speakerphone. The agreement to stop
8 using barrier locations for probable cause hearings applies to both male and female
9 parolees.
10

6.

Orange County Jail. All Valdivia probable cause and revocation hearings at

11 Orange County Jail will be conducted without a barrier between the parolee and the other
12 participants in the proceeding. The agreement to stop using barrier locations for probable
13 cause hearings applies to both male and female parolees.
14

7.

Rio Cosumnes Correctional Facility. All Valdivia probable cause and

15 revocation hearings at Rio Cosumnes Correctional Facility are now conducted and will
16 continue to be conducted in a room that enables contact between the parolee and the other
17 participants in the proceeding. The agreement to stop using barrier locations for probable
18 cause hearings applies to both male and female parolees.
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
[577863-3]

2

JOINT STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF HEARING LOCATIONS
DISPUTE

1

8.

In light of the foregoing, the parties jointly request that the Special Master

2 find that the fact-finding hearing process now underway for this dispute be vacated.
3 DATED: December 16, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

4

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

5
6
7

By: /s/ Shirley Huey
Shirley Huey

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10

DATED: December 16, 2011

11

HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP

12

By: /s/ Samantha Wolff
Samantha Wolff

13

Attorneys for Defendants

14
15

In light of the parties’ resolution of the disputed issues, the Special Master finds that

16 the fact-finding hearing process initiated by the parties on May 13, 2011 is no longer
17 necessary, and that the remaining deadlines and hearing schedule for the matter be vacated.
18
19 DATED: December _19__, 2011
20

/s/ Chase Riveland
Chase Riveland, Special Master

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[577863-3]

3

JOINT STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESOLUTION OF HEARING LOCATIONS
DISPUTE