Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LANCASTER, JEFFERY MILLS,

DEXTER WILLIAMS, WILLIAM DENNIS,

STEVE LIVADITIS, JIMMY VAN PELT,

H. LEE HEISHMAN III AND JOHNATON

GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

An issue has arisen concerning the requirement in the class-certification order requiring

the class representatives to submit declarations on future motions. The order (dated October 4,

2006) stated in part (emphasis added): 

Given the substantial objections made and given the nature of the

class, this order requires the following procedure for all future

motions in this case. Each motion on behalf of the class must be

accompanied by declarations of all the representatives of the

class stating their specific views on the motion and demonstrating

that the declarants have read and understood the motion. When a

motion by defendants is responded to, the same procedure shall

apply to verify that the class representatives are on board with

counsel’s litigation strategy. Class actions are supposed to be

directed by the class representatives. Of course, they must be

advised by class counsel but the class representatives, not class

counsel, are supposed to direct the litigation. For too long, this

action has been directed solely by the Prison Law Office without

even the semblance of a class representative. A copy of this order

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1134 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

must be provided to each representative and counsel shall explain

this paragraph to each representative and explain his obligations

as a class representative. This declaration requirement does not

apply to purely procedural motions, such as scheduling motions. 

Class counsel has taken offense by the italicized language. The Prison Law Office has

construed this to mean that it must have unanimous agreement among all eight representatives

before it can adopt a substantive litigation strategy. This is not what the order said and not what

was meant by “on board.” Rather, given the many objections by prisoners to the way in which

the Prison Law Office have purported to represent their interests and given the many years of

neglect by the Prison Law Office of the Rule 23 basics in this case, the purpose of the

declaration requirement (on substantive motions), going forward, is to inform the Court of the

class representatives’ views on the substantive issues at stake. The views of the representatives

will be taken into account. They need not be in unanimous agreement but the Court will take

into consideration the substantive views of the class representatives. 

For example, if six support and two oppose the substantive action, then the Court may

accept the proposed reform as one desired by the class anyway, although the Court will take

into account the reasons given by the objecting representatives. On the other hand, if six

oppose and two support the substantive relief sought, the Court will have some question for

counsel as to why they are acting against the wishes of the class representatives (who were

selected by counsel themselves). 

The Court has recently learned that the Prison Law Office has petitioned the Court of

Appeals to suspend this requirement. Class counsel are requested to immediately advise the

Court of Appeals of this clarifying order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1134 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 2