Turney et al v. Atencio et al

Filing 129

ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - The parties shall submit clarifying responses, and amended documents, if needed,within 14 days after entry of this Order. Plaintiffs Counsels Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Joseph Williams (Dkt. 125 ) is GRANTED. The parties Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement(Dkt. 127 )is conditionally GRANTED. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm).

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

PHILIP A. TURNEY, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00001-BLW
1:18-cv-00097-BLW
1:18-cv-00099-BLW
1:18-cv-00100-BLW

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER REQUIRING
CLARIFICATION

HENRY ATENCIO, et al.,
Defendants.

The parties have filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, a proposed “Notice of Class
Certification,” and their Settlement Agreement. (Dkt. 127.) They request that the Court
preliminarily approve their joint settlement proposal and certify a class action for
purposes of settlement only. The trial court has broad discretion whether to certify a case
as a class action. Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir.
1975). Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court enters the following Order
requiring clarification from the parties prior to limited certification of the class.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are a group of Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) inmates who
presently suffer from or in the past suffered from Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and complain
that they did not receive adequate treatment for that condition from the private contracted
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 1

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 10

medical provider to IDOC, Corizon, Inc. (“Corizon,” now Corizon, LLC) and Corizon
officials, in violation of the inmates’ federal constitutional right to adequate medical care.
IDOC, Corizon, and their officials continue to deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and contend
their provision of medical care is, and has been, adequate and appropriate.
Plaintiffs sought class action status at the beginning of this lawsuit, but, instead of
certifying a class at that time, the Court directed that this case proceed on an alternative
dispute resolution pathway. With the aid of private mediator Newel K. Squyres, Esq., and
without admission of liability, the parties have reached an amicable resolution of their
dispute in this action, after engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings
between July 18, 2019, and September 1, 2020. Plaintiff’s operative pleading, the Second
Amended Complaint with Supplement, seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
(Dkt. 111.)
The class representatives now seek the Court’s preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement and request class action status for the purpose of this settlement
agreement only. They request that the Court put in motion adequate procedural
mechanisms to give the potential class members notice and an opportunity to respond,
and set a hearing to review adequacy of the settlement agreement and the proposed
stipulated dismissal of this action.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court has determined that it is in
need of additional information. It appears that the parties’ Settlement Agreement is
intended to address declaratory and injunctive relief claims, but it is unclear what is to
happen to the outstanding claims for monetary damages. The Stipulation for Dismissal
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 2

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 10

provided by the parties states: “The Parties agree that any and all of Plaintiffs’ claims for
damages relief in this case, including but not limited to general, special and punitive
damages, against any and all Corizon Defendants and IDOC Defendants are dismissed
with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and fees related to these claims.” (Dkt.
126, p. 3.) Settlement Agreement § 3.11 harmonizes with the Stipulation for Dismissal:
“Plaintiffs acknowledge that this Agreement shall resolve each and every issue and claim
raised by them in this Action against any and all of the IDOC Defendants.” (Dkt. 237-2,
p. 15.) But, another statement in § 3.11 seems inconsistent: “This agreement does not
apply to Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages against Corizon Defendants stated in the
Operative Complaint[,] and any dismissal of those claims must be set forth in a separate
agreement.” (Id.)
Elsewhere in the agreement, Defendants state that they have stipulated to class
action status only for purposes of settlement and dismissal of the declaratory and
injunctive relief claims, and that Defendants do not stipulate to class certification for
purposes of Plaintiffs’ damages claims. Settlement Agreement § 2.4. Counsel for the
parties shall be required to submit a clarification regarding whether some or all of
Plaintiffs’ damages claims against some or all of the Defendants are to remain open and
viable after the injunctive and declaratory relief claims have been settled, and to submit
amended supporting documents to correct the inconsistencies, if necessary.
As to the subject matter of the Settlement Agreement, the Court agrees that
settlement of the disputed issue of a clear protocol for delivering HCV diagnostic care
and treatment for all IDOC inmates, present and future, is an important, singular, and
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 3

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 10

severable issue from individual inmate claims for damages. If three years of negotiations
has produced only a fair, reasonable, and adequate proposal for declaratory and injunctive
relief, then that work product is worthy of preservation and implementation on behalf of
all inmates.
If any of Plaintiffs’ damages claims are intended by the parties to remain viable
after the Settlement Agreement, it is the Court’s inclination to permit individual inmates
in individual severed actions to pursue individual claims that relate back to the earliest
date of their asserted claims in this action to the extent that the inmate has allegations
showing they sought and were denied appropriate HCV treatment in the past, and they
were injured by the denial. In general, individual actions, not a class action, are a more
suitable avenue for inmates to pursue their claims that lack of HCV treatment caused
individual measurable and compensable harm. Compare Allison v. Citgo Petroleum
Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 419 (5th Cir. 1998)(“The plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory and
punitive damages … focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals
rather than the class as a whole: what kind of discrimination was each plaintiff subjected
to; how did it affect each plaintiff emotionally and physically, at work and at home; what
medical treatment did each plaintiff receive and at what expense; and so on and so on.
Under such circumstances, an action conducted nominally as a class action would
‘degenerate in practice into multiple lawsuits separately tried.’” (internal citations
omitted)). However, before making a final decision on the issue, the Court will invite
further input from counsel.

ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 4

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 5 of 10

The parties must clarify their intent regarding whether the individual damages
claims are to be dismissed or remain for the individuals to pursue. The parties should
clarify whether the individual Plaintiffs should be entitled to seek and use any disclosure
and discovery from this case—but not the fact of settlement or the terms of the
settlement—in their ongoing individual damages cases. If Plaintiffs’ counsel knows the
approximate number of plaintiffs who intend to pursue monetary damages, that would be
helpful for the Court to know.
This Court does not see the potential for a Seventh Amendment issue here that
sometimes arises when a prior injunctive relief settlement forecloses a plaintiff’s ability
to have a jury decide an issue of fact in a later damages case—because the parties here
have not stipulated to liability or even to standards of law in their Settlement Agreement.
See Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510–11 (1959)( holding that, once
the right to a jury trial attaches to a claim, it extends to all factual issues necessary to
resolving that claim.); Roscello v. Southwest Airlines Co., 726 F.2d 217, 221 (5th
Cir.1984)(citing Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 479(1962)(recognizing that,
when claims involving both legal and equitable rights are properly joined in a single case,
the Seventh Amendment requires that all factual issues common to these claims be
submitted to a jury for decision on the legal claims before final court determination of the
equitable claims)).
Concerns for inconsistent verdicts or for res judicata and collateral estoppel effects
on ongoing damages suits also seem attenuated because of the no-admission-of-liability
terms of the Settlement Agreement, but the parties should comment on their views of
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 5

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 6 of 10

application of these principles. See, e.g., Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc., 275
F.R.D. 346, 365–366 (D.D.C. 2011)(“Because this Court has already held that Plaintiffs’
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief have been rendered moot by virtue of the
2008 Amendment to the Act, the claims that remain in this action are fundamentally
retrospective, directed towards compensating class members for harms they allegedly
suffered in the past. In other words, in light of superseding amendments to the Act, this
action no longer involves delineating Defendants’ responsibilities to class members—or
non-parties similarly situated to class members—in the future. No truly shared or
collective right remains at issue. As it now stands, this is a case about securing monetary
relief for class members based on individualized past harms. Separate actions and
determinations will not create the danger of conflicting and incompatible court orders
governing Defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, certification under subdivision (b)(1)(A) is
inappropriate.”)(citations altered).
The Court is inclined to certify the class for purposes of settlement of the
declaratory and injunctive relief claims only, and to permit those claims to be dismissed
with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to the extent that the
hearing does not produce evidence showing that the terms are not fair, reasonable, and
adequate, taking into consideration whether: (A) the class representatives and class
counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s
length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs,
risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of
distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims;
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 6

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 7 of 10

(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; and
(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D) the proposal
treats class members equitably relative to each other. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2).
The Court finds no precedent or Rule constraining its authority to permit the
declaratory and injunctive relief claims proceed via a class action settlement route, and
any remaining damages claims to proceed individually in new lawsuits to be severed
from this suit, with each named Plaintiff able to take advantage of the first date his claim
was asserted in this action. If the parties read the law to limit the Court’s options
differently, they should provide authority to support their opinions. The Court not only
has broad discretion in class action matters it also has the duty to uphold negotiated
settlement agreements of the parties, where the terms are appropriate:
The court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private
consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a
lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a
reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of
fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the
negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole,
is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned. Therefore,
the settlement or fairness hearing is not to be turned into a
trial or rehearsal for trial on the merits. Neither the trial court
nor this court is to reach any ultimate conclusions on the
contested issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of
the dispute, for it is the very uncertainty of outcome in
litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation
that induce consensual settlements. The proposed settlement
is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative
measure of what might have been achieved by the
negotiators.
Ultimately, the district court’s determination is nothing
more than “an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross
approximations and rough justice.” Finally, it must not be
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 7

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 8 of 10

overlooked that voluntary conciliation and settlement are the
preferred means of dispute resolution. This is especially true
in complex class action litigation….
Officers for Justice v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615,
625 (9th Cir. 1982)(internal citations omitted).
The parties are also invited to comment on the Court’s intent to include in the
“Notice of Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing in Class Action Lawsuit”
clarifications that named members of the lawsuit who have claims for monetary damages
will be permitted to preserve their filing dates for statute of limitation purposes and
pursue those claims individually, and that unnamed members of the lawsuit who have
past, current, or future claims for monetary damages will not be foreclosed from filing
their own individual lawsuits for monetary damages for failure to provide treatment for
HCV. The language that “This lawsuit does not seek monetary damages, and Class
members are not entitled to monetary damages in this case,” will need to be amended
appropriately. (See Dkt. 127-3, p. 3 (emphasis in original).) Again, to the extent that the
Court’s intentions are not in line with the parties’ intentions and settlement terms, they
are invited to clarify them in amended supporting documents. The Court also intends to
supplement the “Notice” with a statement that the hearing and objections are limited to
consideration of those factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) and that any written
objections should address those factors in particular.

ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 8

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 9 of 10

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The parties shall submit clarifying responses, and amended documents, if needed,
within 14 days after entry of this Order.
2. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Joseph
Williams (Dkt. 125) is GRANTED, provided that Plaintiff’s Counsel sends a copy
of this Order to Joseph Williams at his last known address and files proof of such
mailing to the Clerk of Court.
3. Mr. Williams, if still incarcerated, will be entitled to file an objection to the notice
of class settlement. Whether incarcerated or not, should Mr. Williams desire to
represent himself as to damages claims in this action, he must file a notice of
appearance, pro se or through a new attorney, within 14 days after the date counsel
sends notice to him.
4. The parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
(Dkt. 127) is conditionally GRANTED, subject to receipt of the parties’
clarifications and a subsequent Order. The Court intends to set the Fairness
Hearing in this action in May 2022. Counsel for the parties shall inform the Court
as to their availability during that month and submit an estimate of the total time
that will be needed for the hearing, from one-half day to multiple days.

ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION - 9

Case 1:18-cv-00001-BLW Document 129 Filed 01/06/22 Page 10 of 10