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