L.H. et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
Filing
701
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/29/13 GRANTING 695 Motion to Terminate Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief. The 438 Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief shall apply in full force until the last scheduled hearing (including hearings requested as a result of the activation of optional waivers) has taken place. During this time, the parties shall continue to track and monitor defendants' compliance with the Injunction. Defendants shall notify pla intiffs' counsel, the Special Master, and the Court once the last scheduled hearing has been completed. Ten (10) days after defendants file such notification, defendants shall be relieved of any duty to comply with the requirements emanating fro m the Injunction, until the last parolee serving a revocation term has been released from custody, except for the following provisions: tracking parolee discharge dates to ensure that parolees are not over-detained; notifying plaintiffs' counsel , the Special Master, and the Court once the last parolee serving a revocation term has been released from custody; upon defendants' notification that the final class member has been released, the parties and the Special Counsel shall, within 20 days, file their motions, if any, for attorneys' fees, and fees for the Special Master Court; upon resolution of the fee motions, the court will terminate this case. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
L.H., A.Z., D.K., and D.R.,
on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly
situated juvenile parolees
in California,
NO. CIV. S-06-2042 LKK/GGH
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
O R D E R
16
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
Governor, State of
California, et al,
17
Defendants.
15
/
18
19
The parties' Joint Motion to Terminate Stipulated Order for
20
Permanent Injunctive Relief ("Joint Motion"), came on for hearing
21
on March 25, 2013.
22
present.
23
papers on file and accordingly makes the following determinations:
24
Whereas, the parties have entered into a Stipulated Order
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants were
This Court has reviewed the pleadings, records, and
25
Setting
Forth
Process
for
Terminating
26
Permanent Injunctive Relief, which became an order of the Court on
1
Stipulated
Order
for
1
January 18, 2013;
2
Whereas, the parties filed a Joint Motion on February 19,
3
2013, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and
4
23(e)(3);
5
Whereas, the Court has determined that adequate notice has
6
been provided to the class members regarding the Joint Motion and
7
the process of termination, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
8
Procedure 23(e)(1);
9
Whereas, the Court has determined that the L.H. class members
10
were provided with a reasonable opportunity to submit objections
11
or other comments regarding the Joint Motion and the proposed
12
process
13
Procedure 23(e)(5) but that no such comments and objections were
14
received from class members;
for
termination,
pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
15
Whereas, on March 18, 2013, the Office of the Special Master
16
issued a recommendation to this Court addressing Defendants'
17
compliance with the Injunction to date, and recommending that the
18
court grant the Joint Motion (ECF No. 698);
19
Whereas, on March 25, 2013, the Court conducted a noticed
20
public hearing regarding the Joint Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule
21
of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2); and good cause appearing therefore,
22
the Court now finds and orders as follows:
23
24
FINDINGS
a.
In orders dated September 19, 2007 and January 29, 2008,
25
this Court found that California's juvenile parole revocation
26
system
violated
juvenile
parolees'
2
due
process
rights,
the
1
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 ("ADA"),
2
and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
3
Nos. 201 and 266).
4
Permanent Injunctive Relief ("Injunction") on October 7, 2008,
5
which set forth detailed requirements to remedy these federal
6
violations, including attorney representation, revocation system
7
procedures, effective communication and reasonable accommodations,
8
and consideration of alternatives to incarceration. (ECF No. 438).
9
b.
(ECF
The Court approved a Stipulation and Order for
Since the Court approved the Injunction, the parties and
10
the Office of the Special Master have worked diligently together
11
to overhaul the juvenile parole revocation system.
12
years, Defendants (with the aid of Plaintiffs and the Office of the
13
Special Master) made impressive progress, rapidly transforming the
14
juvenile
15
unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair to one that respects and
16
protects juvenile parolees' constitutional rights to due process,
17
equal protection, and assistance of counsel, and statutory rights
18
under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
19
c.
parole
revocation
Defendants
have
system
eliminated
from
coercive
In just four
one
that
procedures
was
and
20
actions, such as incarcerating youth for alleged parole violations
21
without representation of counsel.
22
counsel during the revocation process to further ensure protection
23
of their due process rights.
24
could keep revoked youth incarcerated indefinitely.
25
systematized decision-making so that the steps are predictable,
26
proceedings are based on evidence, and staff work to inform and
All parolees are appointed
They have abolished practices that
3
They have
1
involve the juveniles.
2
exceptional timeliness, and a substantial proportion of juveniles
3
are diverted from revocation into alternatives to incarceration.
4
d.
All proceedings are now provided with
Defendants have demonstrated compliance with virtually
5
all of the Injunction's requirements, as evidenced by Special
6
Master's
7
Stipulated Order, the parties' Joint Motion to Terminate, and the
8
Special Master's Recommendation Regarding the parties' Joint Motion
9
to Terminate.
Eighth
Report
on
the
Status
of
Conditions
of
the
The Special Master has found Defendants to be in
10
sustained substantial compliance with the vast majority of the
11
Injunction's requirements; for the remaining few areas where
12
sustained substantial compliance has not been shown, Defendants
13
have
14
compliance.
15
e.
made
significant
advances
towards
achieving
substantial
On August 24, 2007, Senate Bill ("SB") 81 was approved
16
by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State.
17
result of SB 81, the type of youth who could be committed to the
18
Division of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ") was limited: only youth whose
19
most
20
Institutions Code 707(b) (violent offenses), or an offense listed
21
in Penal Code 290.008 (sex offenses) are eligible for commitment
22
to DJJ.
23
returned to the county of commitment upon release for community
24
supervision, rather than DJJ parole.
25
26
recent
f.
sustained
offense
was
listed
under
Welfare
As a
and
In addition, SB 81 required that non-707(b) offenders be
On October 19, 2010, Assembly Bill ("AB") 1628 was
approved by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State.
4
1
As a result of AB 1628, first commitment youth ("first-commits")
2
to DJJ were released from the Division of Juvenile Facilities
3
(“DJF”) upon the completion of their sentence, discharged from DJJ
4
parole, and sent to their county of commitment for supervision.
5
These persons are no longer subject to DJJ parole supervision or
6
revocation procedures and may not be returned to a DJJ facility to
7
serve a parole revocation sentence.
8
class members have been subject to revocation, the Court is
9
informed that juvenile probation revocation procedures under the
10
supervision of the Superior Courts, including representation by
11
counsel, are required by state law.
12
g.
To the extent these former
On June 27, 2012, Senate Bill ("SB") 1021 was approved
13
by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State.
14
passage of SB 1021, most juvenile parole operations terminated as
15
of January 1, 2013.
16
to have violated the terms of their parole prior to January 1, 2013
17
were still subject to revocation proceedings after January 1, 2013.
18
All such revocation proceedings completed on January 17, 2013
19
(although there are currently one or more juveniles on
20
waiver who could activate their waiver and request an optional
21
waiver review hearing on or before June 20, 2013).
22
h.
After
However, juvenile parolees who were alleged
optional
As a result of Assembly Bill 1628 and Senate Bill 1021,
23
the
number
of
juvenile
parolees
in
California
has
dropped
24
dramatically.
25
added since juvenile parole supervision terminated. As of February
26
16, 2013, only 21 class members remained, all of whom are in
As of January 1, 2013, no new class members will be
5
1
custody on revocation terms, and by June 28, 2013, there will no
2
longer be any L.H. class members.
3
2013, Defendants ended the practice of revocation extension whereby
4
juveniles' revocation terms could be extended for misbehavior while
5
in custody.
6
revocation terms cannot be extended.
7
i.
Additionally, on January 1,
Accordingly, the terms of the juveniles serving
This Court has adopted all of the findings in the eight
8
previously-filed Reports of the Special Master on the Status and
9
Conditions of the Stipulated Order.
In the Recommendation filed
10
with this Court on March 18, 2013, the Office of the Special Master
11
issued her findings with respect to the Joint Motion.
12
j.
Plaintiffs
have
requested
that
this
court
"reserve
13
jurisdiction" over this case for five (5) years for the "limited"
14
purpose of "ensuring that the State does not re-institute a system
15
of state-run juvenile parole."
16
reservation of jurisdiction is beyond this court's power. Because
17
plaintiffs have identified no constitutional, statutory, Supreme
18
Court or Ninth Circuit authority for the proposition that this
19
court could engage in such conduct - exercising authority over the
20
State in the absence of any claim of current or even threatened
21
constitutional or statutory violation -- the court declines the
22
invitation to do so.1
Defendants assert that such a
23
1
24
25
26
See Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 511 U.S. 1127 (1994) (in the context of a prison consent
decree, affirming the district court's decision not to continue the
exercise of jurisdiction beyond the time the constitutional
violations were fully remedied); accord, Board of Education v.
Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) (in the context of a school
6
1
k.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the jointly requested
2
relief is fair, reasonable and adequate within the meaning of Fed.
3
R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
4
Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief has been satisfied pursuant
5
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), inasmuch as defendants’ full, good-
6
faith and long-term compliance with the injunction and their
7
cooperation with the Special Master have permanently eliminated the
8
constitutional and statutory violations. Further, defendants have
9
now eliminated the juvenile parole system, which was the focus of
The court further finds that the Stipulated
10
the injunction, effective June 28, 2013.
11
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
12
l.
The Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief
13
shall
14
(including hearings requested as a result of the activation of
15
optional waivers) has taken place.
16
shall continue to track and monitor Defendants' compliance with the
17
Injunction.
18
m.
19
apply
in
full
force
until
the
last
scheduled
hearing
During this time, the parties
Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel, the Special
Master, and the Court once the last scheduled hearing (including
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
desegregation decree, "necessary concern for the important values
of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal
court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the
time required to remedy the effects of past intentional
discrimination") (internal quotation marks omitted);
Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transp. Authority, 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (in the
context of a consent decree regarding a public transportation
system, "federal court intervention in state institutions is a
temporary measure and may extend no longer than necessary to cure
constitutional violations").
7
1
hearings requested as a result of the activation of optional
2
waivers) has been completed.
3
such notification, Defendants shall be relieved of any duty to
4
comply with the requirements emanating from the Injunction, until
5
the last parolee serving a revocation term has been released from
6
custody, except for the following provisions:
7
8
a.
Ten (10) days after Defendants file
Tracking parolee discharge dates to ensure that
parolees are not over-detained;
9
b.
Notifying Plaintiffs' counsel, the Special Master,
10
and the Court once the last parolee serving a revocation term has
11
been released from custody.
12
n.
Upon Defendants' notification that the final class member
13
has been released, the parties and the Special Counsel shall,
14
within twenty (20) days, file their motions, if any, for attorneys'
15
fees, and fees for the Special Master Court.
16
17
o.
Upon resolution of the fee motions, the court will
terminate this case.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED: March 29, 2013.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?