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)

Download PDF
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?