Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_94-cv-02307/USCOURTS-cand-4_94-cv-02307-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The current government officials and entities serving as

Defendants are Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Secretary of

the CDCR James Tilton and Executive Director of the Board of Parole

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 94-2307 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO ENFORCE

THE MAY 30, 2006

ORDER

On August 16, 2007 at 3:00 p.m., this matter came on regularly

for hearing. Having considered the parties' pleadings, the

arguments of counsel, and the record in this case, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows:

The Court entered a Permanent Injunction in this action on

December 22, 1999 as to Defendants, government officials and

entities responsible for conducting parole proceedings by the Board

of Parole Hearings (BPH, formerly Board of Prison Terms)1,

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Hearings (BPH) John Monday.

2

following trial and findings that Defendants were in violation of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et

seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §

794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

Permanent Injunction was supported by Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, filed on December 22, 1999, stating that the

order for relief was narrowly drawn, extended no further than

necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and was the

least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of federal

rights. The Court entered a Revised Permanent Injunction on

February 11, 2002. 

The Revised Permanent Injunction requires, among other things,

that Defendants create and maintain a system for tracking prisoners

and parolees with disabilities; that Defendants take reasonable

steps to identify prisoners and parolees with disabilities prior to

parole proceedings, including checking the tracking system and

reviewing all relevant and reasonably available information in the

central or medical file; and that Defendants provide reasonable

accommodations to prisoners and parolees with disabilities at all

parole proceedings, including parole revocations and revocation

extensions, life prisoner hearings, Mentally Disordered Offender

(MDO) proceedings, and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) proceedings. 

See Revised Permanent Injunction ¶¶ 15-17. 

Based on Defendants' ongoing failure to comply with the above

provisions of the Revised Permanent Injunction and the resulting

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

harm to members of the plaintiff class, Plaintiffs filed an

enforcement motion, which was heard by this Court on May 26, 2006. 

On May 30, 2006, this Court entered an Order Granting Motion

to Enforce Revised Permanent Injunction (May, 2006 Order). The

Court found that Defendants were violating paragraphs fifteen,

sixteen and seventeen of the Revised Permanent Injunction, the ADA,

the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause, and were

violating the rights of plaintiff class members by failing to

provide necessary accommodations during parole proceedings. May,

2006 Order at 3-8. Plaintiffs' evidence of these violations and

the harm caused to class members was uncontested. Id. at 4:15-18,

5:1-6:14, 6:23-25, 8:11-14. Plaintiffs' counsel demonstrated

numerous and ongoing failures of Defendants' existing systems for

tracking prisoner and parolee disabilities and necessary

accommodations, and failures to provide reasonable accommodations

during parole proceedings.

To remedy Defendants' violations, the Court ordered that: 

Defendants must implement a State-wide, computerized,

networked, real-time database system, preferably the

Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS), to

ensure compliance with paragraphs fifteen, sixteen and

seventeen of the Revised Permanent Injunction in this

action. For parole revocations and extensions, this

system must be implemented on or before January 1, 2007. 

For life prisoner hearings, MDO proceedings, and SVP

proceedings, this system must be implemented on or

before May 1, 2007. It may be included in the RSTS, the

LSTS or an equivalent system. In addition, Defendants

must develop and implement a plan to assure that

accommodations, including but not limited to sign

language interpreters, are actually provided at each

parole proceeding without delay. 

May, 2006 Order, ¶ 1 at 8:15-9:3. The order outlined further

requirements for the capabilities and use of the tracking system,

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

and required that Defendants take a series of specific steps in

connection with the tracking system and the accommodations plan. 

Id. ¶¶ 1-6 at 8:15-11:2. 

Defendants have failed to comply with the remedial provisions

of the May, 2006 Order. On November 27, 2006, Defendants filed a

Request for Extension of Time, seeking to extend the January 1,

2007 deadline to March 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking

system in parole revocations and for implementation of the

accommodations plan, to extend the January 1, 2007 deadline to

November 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking system in

revocation extensions, and to extend the May 1, 2007 deadline to

November 30, 2007 for implementation of the tracking system in life

prisoner, MDO, and SVP proceedings. The Court denied Defendants'

request for an extension of time by order entered on December 14,

2006, finding, "The declarations in support of the request

demonstrate that Defendants have made some progress toward

complying with the Court's order, but offer no evidence that

Defendants have made any special effort to meet a deadline they

anticipated would be difficult to achieve. Rather, it appears that

Defendants have resigned themselves to being unable to meet the

Court's deadlines." December 14, 2007 Order Denying Defendants'

Motion for Extension of Time at 3. Despite the Court's order,

Defendants have failed to meet the Court's deadlines, as detailed

below.

I. Disability and Tracking Database

The May, 2006 Order required that the disability tracking

database be a "State-wide, computerized, networked, real-time

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

database system, preferably the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking

System (RSTS)." May, 2006 Order ¶ 1 at 8:16-19. Defendants have

developed a computerized, networked database system called the

Disability and Effective Communication System (DECS), accessible

through either the CDCR intranet or the internet via the world wide

web. 

The disability tracking database "must include access to

information previously gathered by the BPH regarding an inmate or

parolee's disabilities and needs for accommodation." May, 2006

Order ¶ 2 at 9:5-7. DECS allows access to information previously

gathered by the BPH in the BPH form 1073 file review and

inmate/parolee interview process, for current and prior parole

proceedings. Defendants failed, however, to maintain such

information from parole revocations in any electronic form

whatsoever for a seven-week period from March 13, 2007 to April 27,

2007. This information gap has not been rectified. In addition,

at least some disability and accommodation information gathered for

parolees subject to the MDO certification process has not been

entered into DECS. 

The tracking system "must be updated with new information

about disabilities identified during the parole proceedings, and

accommodations requested and provided." May, 2006 Order ¶ 2 at

9:12-14. Defendants' procedures provide no clear deadlines for

when disability information is entered into DECS during the life

prisoner, MDO or SVP processes, such that information on a

prisoner's need for accommodation due to a disability may not be

available when needed for the next step in the applicable parole

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 5 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

proceeding. 

The tracking system "must be able to transmit information back

to CDCR Institutions and [BPH] for future use." May, 2006 Order 

¶ 2 at 9:14-15. Defendants admit that they failed to comply with

this requirement. 

II. Tracking System for Parole Revocations and Revocation 

Extensions

Defendants also failed to meet the January 1, 2007 deadline

for implementation of the disability tracking system in parole

revocations and revocation extensions. See May, 2006 Order ¶¶ 1, 6

at 8:15-22, 10:19-24. After the Court denied their Request for an

Extension of Time, Defendants filed an untimely "Certification of

Implementation Of Interim Plan and Tracking System" on January 3,

2007, containing their interim plan for tracking disability

information in revocation and revocation extension proceedings

(Interim Database), and for providing accommodations in all parole

proceedings (Interim Plan). The Interim Database tracking system

was an inadequate stop-gap measure in that it failed to comply with

critical requirements of the May, 2006 Order. 

The new DECS tracking system was finally available for use for

parole revocations and revocation extension hearings as of March

26, 2007. 

III. Tracking System for Life Prisoner, MDO and SVP Proceedings

Defendants failed to meet the May 1, 2007 deadline for

implementation of the disability tracking system in life prisoner,

MDO and SVP proceedings. See May, 2006 Order ¶¶ 1, 6 at 8:22-24,

10:24-11:2. Defendants have yet to implement fully the use of the

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

Tracking System in life prisoner, MDO and SVP proceedings.

IV. Identification of Parole Proceedings

Defendants agreed that the DEC System would be checked at many

specific steps in parole proceedings, and the parties enumerated

these steps in their Joint Certification of Meet and Confer Results

filed on August 25, 2006. See Joint Certification ¶ 7(a)-7(dd). 

Defendants have failed to comply with several of these agreements. 

Their policies and procedures implemented to date make no adequate

provision for checking DECS prior to some parole proceeding steps

(Joint Certification ¶ 7(e), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (u), (v),

(w), (y) and (z)), and Defendants have been unwilling to check

DECS at other steps (Id. ¶ 7(o)-(t)). 

The parties' Joint Certification noted four remaining points

of disagreement as to whether certain proceedings are "parole

proceedings" subject to the requirements of the Revised Permanent

Injunction and the May, 2006 Order:

(a) Notice of conditions of parole by Correctional Counselor I

in CDCR Institutions and Parole Agent in parole field offices;

(b) Inclusion in the Life Prisoner Board Report by the 

Correctional Counselor I in CDCR Institutions of information 

regarding the life prisoner's ability to access programs 

previously recommended by the BPH under Paragraphs 36 and 37 

of the Revised Permanent Injunction;

(c) Communication of special conditions of parole for parolees

released to Not In Custody (NIC) status while parole 

revocation proceedings are pending; and

(d) Consideration of diversion to remedial sanctions 

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 7 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

programs.

See Joint Certification ¶ 8. 

V. Certification of Funding

Defendants were required to certify to the Court, by November

27, 2006, "that they have taken all necessary steps to secure

funding for utilization of the RSTS, or other State-wide

computerized tracking system, and of the plan to provide

accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language

interpreters." May, 2006 Order ¶ 5 at 10:12-17. On November 27,

2006, Defendants filed a Certification of Funding, but only as to

the tracking system, not as to the accommodations plan. Defendants

requested clarification as to whether the May, 2006 Order required

certification as to only the status of the accommodations plan, or

also as to the funding of the accommodations plan. In an order

entered on December 14, 2006 denying Defendants' request for an

extension of time, the Court clarified that "it ordered Defendants

to certify that they had taken all necessary steps to obtain

funding for the plan to provide timely accommodations." December

14, 2006 Order at 4:6-8. Defendants have failed to make any

subsequent certification to the Court that they have obtained

funding for their accommodations plan.

VI. Accommodations Plan

By January 1, 2007, Defendants were required to certify to the

Court "that they have fully implemented . . . the plan to provide

accommodations in a timely manner, including sign language

interpreters." May, 2006 Order ¶ 6 at 10:19-24. Defendants were

required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 8 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

plan. Id. ¶ 4 at 10:6-11.

Defendants failed meaningfully to meet and confer with

Plaintiffs' counsel before the January 1, 2007 deadline, and filed

a "Certification of Implementation of Interim Plan and Tracking

System" on January 3, 2007, containing their interim plan for

providing accommodations in all parole proceedings between January

1, 2007 and March 30, 2007. On February 20, 2007, Defendants filed

their "Plan to Provide Accommodations in Parole Proceedings." 

Defendants' meet-and-confer efforts following the issuance of their

Accommodations Plan have been sporadic and insufficient. During

that process, Defendants have provided Plaintiffs' counsel with

draft policies and procedures that address some of the deficiencies

in the Accommodations Plan, but have yet to implement those

procedures, and have not filed an amended plan with the Court.

Defendants' Accommodations Plan is deficient in many respects. 

As described above, Defendants have failed to certify that they

have secured funding for the Accommodations Plan. The

Accommodations Plan has not been distributed to all necessary CDCR

staff, nor has training been provided on its requirements, aside

from training on the use of DECS for certain staff. The Plan also

fails to provide adequate means to ensure that there are not delays

in parole proceedings in order to arrange needed accommodations. 

Defendants have failed to provide an adequate plan to ensure the

timely provision of needed accommodations for parole proceedings

that take place in county jails (including parole revocation and

revocation extension hearings). There is no proof to support

Defendants' assertions that all county jails where parole

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 9 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

proceedings take place have structurally accessible locations for

those parole proceedings, or that the county jails provide adequate

access to necessary assistive devices for class members. This is

particularly disturbing, given the uncontested evidence presented

by Plaintiffs in April, 2006 that a paraplegic parolee had to drag

himself up stairs to consult with his revocation defense attorney

at Kern County Jail. 

Defendants have also failed to ensure that there are

structurally accessible locations for BPH hearings at Folsom State

Prison. And Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there are

structurally accessible locations at each CDCR institution for

parole proceedings other than hearings, such as attorney

consultations and file reviews.

There is no procedure for panel attorneys retained by the BPH

to access current information from DECS prior to their

consultations in life prisoner, MDO, or SVP proceedings. Instead,

Defendants provide panel attorneys only with a hard copy printout

from DECS that may contain no information, or information that is

outdated by the time of the consultations and subsequent

proceedings. 

Defendants have identified serious problems with their

contracts to provide sign language interpretation at parole

proceedings, including unacceptably long lead times for securing

interpretation, but have not developed any plan to address these

problems. Defendants' problems with providing timely sign language

interpretation continue. Defendants also plan to rely on

videoconferencing as a backup method for providing sign language

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 10 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

interpretation at parole proceedings, but have failed to

demonstrate that videoconferenced sign language interpretation is

effective, or that they have the capability to provide it. 

 Defendants' Accommodations Plan acknowledges that training,

such as annual training on the Armstrong Remedial Plan for DAPO

staff, is an essential component, but the Plan fails to acknowledge

the need for improved ADA and Armstrong training for BPH panel

attorneys who represent prisoners in life prisoner, MDO, and SVP

proceedings, despite long-standing evidence that the current

training is inadequate. 

Defendants have failed to ensure that there is adequate DECS

access at Department of Mental Health (DMH) institutions where MDO

hearings are held. They have also failed to inform staff there

adequately about resources available for providing accommodations.

Defendants have failed to maintain their policies and

procedures for ensuring compliance with the ADA, the Revised

Permanent Injunction, and this Court's remedial orders in a

coherent or comprehensive manner. 

In order to remedy Defendants' violations and deficiencies and

ensure compliance with the terms of the May, 2006 Order, the Court

issues further remedial orders, as follows.

A. Use of DECS in Parole Proceedings

1. Within fourteen days of this order, Defendants shall

provide DECS access to all hearing officers and parole agents

involved in MDO hearings conducted at DMH institutions. Within

fourteen days of this order, Defendants shall certify to

Plaintiffs' counsel that hearing officers and parole agents at DMH

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 11 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

institutions have DECS access; the certification shall be based on

personal knowledge and accompanied by documents demonstrating that

such access is established. 

2. By January 1, 2008, Defendants shall provide full DECS

computer connectivity, by providing DECS access for the following

individuals, as set forth in the Joint Certification of Meet and

Confer Results Pursuant to the May, 2006 Order Granting Plaintiffs'

Motion To Enforce Permanent Injunction, Paragraph 7: all

Classification and Parole Representatives, Reception Center

Correctional Counselor III's, BPH hearing schedulers, Correctional

Counselor I's, mental health clinicians (permanent, contract and

employed by DMH), staff assigned as assistants in life prisoner

proceedings, MDO and SVP Coordinators, "lifer desk" and "revocation

extension desk" staff, and BPH Commissioners and Deputy

Commissioners. The DECS access for BPH Commissioners and Deputy

Commissioners shall be in hearing rooms and real time. By January

1, 2008, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

Plaintiffs' counsel that all of the above-listed staff have DECS

access; the certification shall be based on personal knowledge and

accompanied by documents demonstrating that such access is

established. 

3. "Access," as used in paragraphs one and two above, and

throughout this order, shall mean that the user can utilize DECS at

his or her workstation personally, individually, and routinely in

the ordinary course of business. Utilizing another user's

workstation, login, or computer to enter DECS shall not constitute

"access."

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 12 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

4. Correctional Counselors shall check DECS prior to all

parole proceedings including but not limited to: notice of charges

and rights for parole revocation extension hearings, reviewing life

prisoner packets with life prisoners, service of life prisoner

packets, interviews with life prisoners for Board reports,

providing assistance with life prisoner parole plans, review of

Board Reports, including psychological evaluations, with the

prisoner, providing assistance with life prisoner appeals,

interviews with alleged MDOs, interviews with alleged SVPs, and

service of notice of conditions of parole. Within thirty days of

this order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

Plaintiffs' counsel that all Correctional Counselors have been

instructed to check DECS for the above-listed proceedings and have

been trained on the use of the system. 

5. Defendants shall require mental health clinicians

employed on either a permanent or contract basis by the CDCR to

check DECS prior to all parole proceedings including, but not

limited to: interviews with life prisoners for the purpose of

providing an evaluation of the prisoner to the BPH, review of a

life prisoner psychiatric report with the prisoner, interviews with

alleged MDOs and alleged SVPs in CDCR institutions and interviews

regarding a "knowing and intelligent" acceptance or refusal of the

MDO condition in a CDCR institution. Within thirty days of this

order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

Plaintiffs' counsel that all such mental health staff have been

instructed to check DECS for the above-listed proceedings and have

been trained on use of the system. 

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 13 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

6. Parole agents shall check DECS prior to all parole

proceedings, including but not limited to: the initial meeting with

parolees following each release to parole when the agent gives

notice of conditions of parolee, any meeting when the parole agent

gives notice of amended conditions of parole, notification to a

parolee of any alleged violation of parole, notice of the date and

time of a Not-In-Custody parole hearing, and service of notice and

rights for MDO certification, placement and annual review hearings

in state hospitals. Within thirty days of this order, Defendant

Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that

he has issued a policy directive requiring parole agents to check

DECS prior to the above-listed events and that training on use of

the system has been provided to all parole agents. 

7. If Defendants contend that inadequate connectivity is a

bar to implementing the requirements of paragraphs one through six

at particular institutions or parole offices, within thirty days of

this order, they shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel that

connectivity is not established and explain the barriers to

connectivity. In addition, they shall develop local procedures

based on the existing connectivity to ensure that Correctional

Counselors, mental health staff and Parole Agents are all provided

with the information in DECS prior to all parole proceedings. The

local procedures shall be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel within

thirty days of any relevant report of non-connectivity. 

8. In no case shall a local procedure set forth in paragraph

eight be operative beyond January 1, 2008. 

9. If Defendants are unable to comply with any requirement

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 14 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

included in paragraphs one through eight, they shall present

evidence regarding any and all attempts to secure funding for,

establish connectivity to, and provide training on DECS.

10. The Court finds that each of the following events is

essential to "parole proceedings" as defined by the Revised

Permanent Injunction, because they are "events related to the

hearings that occur prior to . . . the [life prisoner or

revocation] hearings." Revised Permanent Injunction 

¶ 3. In addition, these events have due process implications

requiring a heightened standard for effective communication under

Defendants' own policies and procedures. Therefore, DECS must be

checked by CDCR staff prior to each of the following four steps in

order to determine disability information and accommodation needs.

This list is not exhaustive and does not supersede the Revised

Permanent Injunction's definition; it only clarifies that these

events are parole proceedings, or are essential to parole

proceedings, and therefore treated as parole proceedings for

purposes of this case: 

a. Notice of conditions of parole by Correctional

Counselor I in CDCR Institutions and Parole Agent in parole field

offices;

b. Inclusion in the Life Prisoner Board Report by the

Correctional Counselor I in CDCR Institutions of information

regarding the life prisoner's ability to access programs previously

recommended by the BPH under paragraphs thirty-six and thirty-seven

of the Revised Permanent Injunction;

c. Communication of special conditions of parole for

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 15 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

parolees released to Not In Custody (NIC) status while parole

revocation proceedings are pending; and

d. Consideration of remedial sanctions in lieu of

returns to custody for parolees with pending parole violation

charges.

Within thirty days of this order, Defendant Tilton, or his

designee, shall certify that DAPO and BPH and CDCR staff have been

ordered to check DECS prior to each of these proceedings, have been

trained on DECS and have appropriate access to DECS. The

certifications shall be based on personal knowledge and shall be

accompanied by supporting documentation.

11. Defendants shall enter into DECS, within twenty-four

hours of completion of the prisoner/parolee interview, all

information gathered on the hard copy of the BPH form 1073. 

Defendants shall enter the information at the institution level and

immediately cease the practice of sending 1073 forms to BPH

headquarters for data entry purposes. Within thirty days of this

order, Defendant Tilton, or his designee, shall certify to

Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendants have ceased sending 1073 forms

to the ADA Compliance Unit for entry into DECS and that information

on the 1073 forms is being entered in DECS at the institutions

within twenty-four hours of completion of the interview. Defendant

Tilton, or his designee, shall specify how Defendants effected the

practice and how they have verified that it was followed. 

12. Defendants shall certify within fourteen days of this

order that they have remedied the gap in entering disability

information in DECS between March 10, 2007 and April 16, 2007. 

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 16 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17

B. Defendants' Plan to Provide Accommodations in Parole 

Proceedings

13. Within ten days of this order, Defendants shall develop

and implement procedures for ensuring the effective communication

of the situation when detaining prisoners past their release dates

for SVP evaluations and of any way in which prisoners can challenge

their continued detention. The procedures must include a DECS

review prior to the communication of the information to the

parolee. Within fourteen days of this order, Defendant Tilton, or

his designee, shall certify, based on personal knowledge and with

supporting documentation, how Defendants are communicating to

prisoners the reason they are being retained past their release

dates and the procedures by which prisoners can challenge the

retention, and the manner in which the rights of class members with

developmental, learning, hearing and vision impairments are being

preserved in the new process.

14. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Defendants

shall report to Plaintiffs' counsel how they have addressed the

problems with Defendants' sign language interpretation contracts

and services identified in the February 15, 2007 Review of

Sign-Language Interpretation Contracts Utilized for Parole

Proceedings, including, but not limited to, the long lead times

required by most of the agencies. Defendants also shall produce to

Plaintiffs' counsel, within ten days of this order, the BPH forms

1103 and 1104 or any other documentation explaining the reason for

the untimely hearings for the nine parolees that required sign

language interpretation between January and June of 2007.

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 17 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

15. Defendants shall not use video teleconferencing as a

substitute for live sign language interpretation in parole

proceedings and hearings unless and until they have demonstrated

and certified that the equipment, resolution, connectivity,

reliability and procedures are adequate to ensure effective

communication. 

16. Defendants' failure to provide a necessary accommodation

for a disability does not constitute good cause for delaying any

parole proceeding, including, but not limited to, parole hearings,

life prisoner hearings, MDO hearings and SVP hearings. Defendants

shall permit Plaintiffs' counsel to monitor life prisoner parole

proceedings as follows: 

a. On a monthly basis, Defendants shall produce to

Plaintiffs' counsel documents and information, concerning life

prisoner parole consideration hearings scheduled during the next

sixty days for class members, sufficient to demonstrate that

Defendants have identified and arranged for all necessary

disability accommodations. 

b. The documents shall include all disability

information, including BPH forms 1073 and 1074, and relevant source

documents, and shall include evidence that Defendants have

recognized the need for accommodations, such as scheduling sign

language interpreters in advance of hearings, and whether they have

provided accommodations in prior parole proceedings. 

c. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be permitted, in addition

to any regular monitoring, to observe and monitor any life prisoner

hearings of class members as well as parole proceedings prior to

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 18 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19

the hearings, and to make informal inquiries directly to Defendants

on specific cases. 

17. Defendant Tilton, or his designee, must certify within

fourteen days of this order that he has obtained funding for all

components of Defendants' plan to provide disability accommodations

and access to DECS in all parole proceedings, including details

showing the specific allocations for staffing, training, computer

software and hardware, outside contracts and capital items.

18. Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall

produce to Plaintiffs' counsel any and all draft or final requests

for funding or Budget Change Proposals or work load studies,

prepared by or for the BPH, DAPO, CDCR, DMH or the Department of

Finance, regarding funding, staffing, training, construction or

other resources necessary to comply with the terms of this Court's

May, 2006 Order, including, but not limited to, the development of

DECS, and any other provisions of the Accommodations Plan since the

issuance of the May, 2006 Order. Plaintiffs shall report to the

Court, within fourteen days after the production of these

documents, as to the adequacy of the funding for implementation of

the May, 2006 Order and the need for any additional orders. 

19. Within thirty days of this order, Defendants shall report

to Plaintiffs' counsel which housing units in Alameda, Sacramento

and Los Angeles County Jail facilities are wheelchair accessible

and how Defendants ensure that class members at those institutions

who are designated DPW and DPO are housed in the accessible

facilities and receive necessary accommodations and assistive

devices in both their housing units and at their hearings. Within

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 19 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 20

ninety days of this order, Defendants shall do the same with the

remaining county jails. A necessary component of both reports is

how Defendants track class members who are housed in county

facilities due to parole holds.

20. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the Warden

of Folsom State Prison shall provide, in the form of a sworn

declaration, evidence that he or she has established written

policies and procedures for ensuring that mobility-impaired inmates

are able to access the locations where parole proceedings are held

at Folsom State Prison. 

21. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the Warden

of each CDCR prison shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that the

prison has sufficient structurally accessible locations for parole

proceedings other than hearings, such as attorney consultations and

file reviews, and that local policies, procedures and training are

in place to assure appropriate and timely access and

accommodations. 

C. Training of BPH Panel Attorneys 

22. Within 120 days of this order, Defendants shall certify

that all attorneys contracted by the BPH to represent prisoners in

life prisoner, MDO, and SVP proceedings have participated in the

ADA and effective communication training provided to CalPAP

revocation defense attorneys, or an equivalent training approved by

Plaintiffs' counsel. In the interim, Defendants shall assign class

members to those attorneys who have already completed the CalPAP

training. 

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 20 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 21

D. Accountability

23. The accountability procedures and provisions of the

January 18, 2007 Injunction at 7:5-19 in this case shall also apply

to CDCR staff, including BPH and DAPO staff, responsible for

carrying out parole proceedings in institutions. Within 120 days

of this order, Defendants shall develop a system for holding Parole

District Administrators, Associate Chief Deputy Commissioners and

all subordinate staff accountable for compliance with the orders of

this Court. The accountability system shall track the record of

each parole district and track the conduct of individual staff

members who are not complying with the Court's orders. Defendants

shall refer any individual with a record of repeated violations to

the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation if appropriate. 

Prior to the next status conference, Defendants shall report to

Plaintiffs' counsel on their progress toward complying with this

paragraph. 

E. Revision of Accommodation Plan and Meet and Confer 

Requirements 

24. Within sixty days of this order, Defendants shall revise

the Plan for Providing Accommodations in Parole Proceedings. The

revised plan shall integrate all policies and procedures for

providing accommodations in parole proceedings. Within 180 days of

this order, Defendants shall certify to Plaintiffs' counsel that

they have trained all staff involved in parole proceedings on the

provisions of the plan. 

25. Any policies and procedures developed pursuant to this

order must be presented to Plaintiffs' counsel at least fourteen

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 21 of 22
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Plaintiffs' objections to evidence submitted by Defendants

are overruled as moot. The Court did not consider any improper or

inadmissible evidence in deciding these motions. Plaintiffs'

motion for leave to file a supplemental declaration in support of

their motion to enforce is granted. (Docket No. 1181). 

22

days in advance of the deadlines therefore. Both parties must make

all possible efforts to resolve any disagreements as to their

adequacy. Defendants shall ensure that staff with sufficient

authority to amend and approve procedures attend all meet and

confer sessions. In the event that disagreements cannot be

resolved, Defendants shall implement, on the date ordered, the

procedures as written and Plaintiffs' counsel may file objections

with the Court. The Court will rule on the objections and issue

orders amending procedures as necessary.

25. The Court finds that the relief ordered is narrowly

drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation

of federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the violation of the federal rights.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/11/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:94-cv-02307-CW Document 1199 Filed 09/11/07 Page 22 of 22