Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 2496

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2436 MOTION FOR FURTHER ENFORCEMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

5
6
7

Plaintiffs,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

8
9

No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR FURTHER
ENFORCEMENT
(Docket No. 2436)

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiffs Armstrong, et al., move for an order for further

12

enforcement of the 2007 injunction, applicable to all California

13

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) prisons.

14

allege that Defendants Brown, et al., continue to place Class

15

Members in administrative segregation due to a lack of accessible

16

housing.

17

arguments at the January 29, 2015 hearing, the Court finds that

18

Defendants are regularly housing Armstrong class members in

19

administrative segregation due to lack of accessible housing, in

20

violation of this Court’s previous orders and the Americans with

21

Disabilities Act (ADA).

22

motion.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and their

23
24

They

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

BACKGROUND
In a series of orders between 1996 and 2002, the Court found

25

that Defendants’ treatment of prisoners with disabilities violated

26

the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the

27

Rehabilitation Act.

28

On January 3, 2001, Defendants issued the

1

amended Armstrong Remedial Plan (ARP) setting forth their own

2

policies and plans to come into compliance with their obligations

3

under these federal laws.

4

the housing of class members in administrative segregation.

5

Among other things, the ARP addressed

In 2012, the parties developed jointly a system by which

6

Armstrong class members are moved out of administrative

7

segregation as CDCR looks for an accessible bed.

8

2209 at 6-7.

9

In relevant part, the parties’ agreement stated:

(b) Defendants agreed to provide internal documents showing
all Armstrong class members housed in administrative
segregation and housed two levels above their designated
security level due to lack of bed space, (c) Defendants
agreed to make their best effort to classify and transfer
prisoners housed two levels out of their security level
within 30 days, (d) Defendants agreed to draft model Local
Operating Procedures (LOPs) that state that it is
departmental policy not to house prisoners in administrative
segregation due to lack of bed space and requiring
institutions to take immediate action to transfer such
prisoners, including contacting CDCR headquarters to expedite
the transfer if not resolved within 72 hours.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

See Docket No.

11
12
13
14
15
16

Id.

17

2013 through July 2014, 211 Class Members were held in

18

administrative segregation for some period of time, thirty-five of

19

them in July 2014 alone.

20

twenty-four hours to a month or more.

21
22

Despite this agreement, according to CDCR’s logs from July

These time periods ranged from less than
See Docket No. 2436 at 11.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that housing disabled class members in

23

administrative segregation solely because of their disabilities

24

violates this Court’s prior orders, including the 2001 Injunction,

25

which declares that the “CDCR has a duty to maintain in operable

26

working condition structural features and equipment necessary to

27

make the prison system’s services, programs, and activities

28

accessible to disabled inmates.”

Mar. 21, 2001 Permanent
2

1

Injunction, Docket No. 694, at ¶ 4.

2

the 2007 Injunction, which prohibits CDCR from “hous[ing] [class

3

members] at any placements without adequate accessible housing

4

. . .” and orders adherence to the Armstrong Remedial Plan

5

requirement that no prisoner with a disability “shall, because of

6

that disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the

7

benefits of services, programs, or activities of the Department or

8

be subjected to discrimination.”

9

Armstrong Remedial Plan, Sec. I, p. 1.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The practice also violates

2007 Injunction at 6, 9,

Defendants’ practice also violates the ADA and its

11

implementing regulations, which prohibit prison officials from

12

placing prisoners “with disabilities in inappropriate security

13

classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available”

14

and from placing prisoners with disabilities “in facilities that

15

do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would

16

otherwise be housed.”

17

28 CFR § 35.152(b)(2).

Accordingly, the Court finds that in order to ensure

18

compliance with this Court’s orders and with the ADA and its

19

implementing regulations, it is necessary to prohibit Defendants

20

from housing Armstrong class members in administrative segregation

21

due to a lack of accessible bed space.

22

Order set forth below complies with the PLRA; it is narrowly

23

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

24

of the federal rights of Armstrong class members, and is the least

25

intrusive means necessary to correct that violation.

26

true that the majority of instances of this practice took place at

27

one institution, the practice occurred at other institutions as

28

well.

The Court finds that the

While it is

Further, transfers into non-complying institutions come
3

1

from other institutions, with the involvement of CDCR officials

2

with state-wide jurisdiction.

3

to limit the within order only to the least compliant receiving

4

institution.

5

Thus, it would not be efficacious

The Court’s prior orders have applied state-wide.

Accordingly, Defendants are prohibited from housing Armstrong

6

class members in administrative segregation because no accessible

7

cells or beds are available.

8

place an Armstrong class member in administrative segregation due

9

to the lack of an accessible bed, they must fully document their

The Court orders that if Defendants

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

reasons for doing so.

11

prisoner was sent to a prison that could not accommodate his or

12

her disability, the status of all the accessible beds in the

13

facility, such that compaction is not an option, and all of the

14

steps taken to find an accessible bed before placing the class

15

member in administrative segregation.

16

to document how many class members were placed in administrative

17

segregation due to their disabilities and for how long, expressed

18

in actual hours, not “business” hours.

19

provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

20

The documentation shall explain why the

The reports shall continue

This report must be

While the Court does not, at this time, impose any particular

21

method by which Defendants must comply with this Order, it notes

22

that Defendants already have at their disposal several means by

23

which to comply.

24

current bed management system to ensure that a class member is not

25

transferred to a facility without first confirming that an

26

accessible bed is available.

27

RJD corrective action plan, with enhanced monitoring procedures

28

and specialized training, and expand it to other facilities.

For example, Defendants may make use of their

They may also continue to use their

4

1

Defendants may use beds designated for other purposes, such as

2

medical beds, to house an Armstrong class member while an

3

accessible bed is found.

4

overflow housing that does not house Armstrong class members in a

5

manner prohibited by this Order.

6

implement some of Plaintiffs’ suggestions, including having the

7

ADA coordinators at both the receiving and sending institutions

8

communicate to ensure that, prior to a class member’s transfer, an

9

accessible bed is available and that the receiving institution can

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Defendants may also use another form of

Finally, Defendants could

hold that bed until the class member arrives.
Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendants

12

shall submit a report to this Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel

13

describing the steps they have taken to comply with the Order, and

14

attesting to their compliance with the Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated:

February 3, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5