Sassman v. Brown et al

Filing 100

MEMORANDUM, and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/15/15 ORDERING that Defendants' Motion to Modify Deadlines ECF No. 83 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Judgment ECF No. 88 is DENIED. The deadlines set forth in the conclusion of the Court's 9/9/15, Memorandum and Order ECF No. 77 , are hereby EXTENDED to 4/9/2016.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SASSMAN,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
of California, and JEFFREY A. BEARD,
Secretary of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in
their official capacities, and DOES 110,
Defendants.

19
20

Plaintiff William Sassman (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants

21

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, and Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of the

22

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), in their official

23

capacities (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff claimed Defendants’ exclusion of men

24

from California’s Alternative Custody Program (“ACP”), as authorized by California Penal

25

Code section 1170.05, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

26

Amendment to the United States Constitution. On September 9, 2015, this Court

27

granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and directed Defendants to permit male

28

inmates to apply to the ACP. ECF No. 77. Presently before the Court are Defendants’
1

1

Motion to Modify Deadlines (ECF No. 83) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judgment

2

(ECF No. 88). For the following reasons, the Motion to Modify Deadlines is GRANTED,

3

and the Motion to Enforce Judgment is DENIED as moot.1

4
ANALYSIS2

5
6
7

Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b),3 for

8

additional time in which to comply with the Court’s September 9, 2015, order requiring

9

that they allow male inmates to participate in the ACP. In that order, the Court directed

10

as follows:

11

Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from applying
and/or enforcing the female-only provisions of California
Penal Code § 1170.05(a) and (c) in the implementation and
administration of the ACP. CDCR shall immediately cease
denying admission to the ACP on the basis that an applicant
is male. Male prisoners shall be accepted into the ACP if
they are otherwise eligible under Penal Code section 1170.05
and the implementing regulations. Within thirty (30) calendar
days of the electronic filing of this Order, CDCR shall modify
its website and any application forms, regulations, and
materials provided to prisoners and the public about the ACP
to remove any reference to the requirement that a prisoner
must be female to apply or participate.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ECF No. 77. According to Defendants, they have begun accepting applications from

19

male inmates, but CDCR’s current infrastructure is not yet equipped to deal with the

20

influx of applicants from its male prisons and camps. Plaintiff, of course, disagrees and

21

seeks immediate enforcement of the judgment. Although the Court is sympathetic to

22

Plaintiff’s position, it finds Defendants’ arguments more persuasive.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).
2

The facts pertaining to the ACP and the State’s exclusion of men from that program are set forth
in detail in the Court’s memorandum and order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See
ECF No. 77.
3

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.

2

1

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment or any order where

2

one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

3

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have

4

been discovered within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud,

5

misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment;

6

(5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

60(b). The final provision of Rule 60(b) permits courts to grant relief “whenever such

8

action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247, 1251

9

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party must

10

show that “extraordinary circumstances” warrant relief. Liljeberg v. Health Servs.

11

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988).

12

In this case, extraordinary circumstances exist to permit Defendants additional

13

time in which to comply with the Court’s decision. One very concrete impediment to an

14

immediate implementation of the Court’s order is the dramatic increase in both

15

applications and potential participants, now that the ACP is open to all prisoners. More

16

specifically, when the Court issued its order in September, there were 64 female

17

participants (out of a female inmate population of 5,200) in the ACP, and CDCR received

18

from all four female institutions a total of approximately 100 new applications per month.

19

Defs.’ Mot. at 2. Over the next two months, Defendants received more than 1,500

20

applications from its 35 male institutions and camps, and CDCR anticipates that, going

21

forward, it will receive approximately 800 additional applications per month from male

22

prisoners. Defs.’ Mot. at 4; Defs.’ Reply at 1. Existing program resources are simply

23

insufficient to accommodate this demand. Defendants, however, have concluded that

24

with some additional time, they will be able to allocate resources and train staff to ensure

25

the effective roll-out of what was a small program on a large-scale basis.

26

Indeed, the Court is satisfied that Defendants are taking the necessary steps to

27

comply with this Court’s decisions and notes that they have already implemented those

28

changes that were immediately feasible. For example, CDCR has directed its male
3

1

institutions to begin accepting applications, it has modified its website to remove

2

references limiting the ACP to females only, and it has begun modifying its forms and

3

other materials. There are nonetheless changes that Defendants contend require an

4

additional six months, such as: modification and promulgation of appropriate

5

regulations, development of evaluation criteria directed at male applicants, location of

6

community providers, allocation of financial resources, and identification and training of

7

CDCR staff. The Court finds that Defendants’ representations are credible and that six

8

months is a reasonable period of time to roll out this modified program. Accordingly, the

9

Court hereby extends the deadlines included in its September 9, 2015, order by six

10

months to April 9, 2016.4

11

The Court understands Plaintiff’s desire to expedite review of his application. But,

12

as the Court has indicated previously, it is not in a position to direct the CDCR to give

13

Plaintiff’s request for release any favored treatment. See ECF No. 38 at 14 (“Given the

14

discretionary nature of admittance into the ACP, Plaintiff has not shown that injunctive

15

relief will result in him being accepted into the program.”). In any event, the Court finds

16

that Defendants have demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that warrant additional

17

time for compliance. Indeed, the potential release of prisoners to serve the remainder of

18

their sentences in the community is a sensitive undertaking that should not be

19

improperly rushed. Given that Defendants seek only a relatively short extension of time

20

in which to implement the Court-ordered changes to their Program, time in which they

21

can reallocate resources and ensure proper staffing and training is available across its

22

male institutions and in the community, relief is proper here.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
4

27
28

The Court determined this date is proper because it originally allowed Defendants a thirty-day
compliance period. Extending that compliance period by six months would essentially set a new deadline
seven months after the Court’s original order was issued. The Court declines Defendants’ request to set
the modified deadlines based on the issuance of the current order.

4

1

CONCLUSION

2
3

For the reasons just stated, Defendants’ Motion to Modify Deadlines (ECF No. 83)

4

is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 88) is DENIED. The

5

deadlines set forth in the conclusion of the Court’s September 9, 2015, Memorandum

6

and Order (ECF No. 77), are hereby EXTENDED to April 9, 2016.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: December 15, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5