Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03712/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03712-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR WAYNE COOPER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-02-3712 JSW (JCS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTIONS OF INMATES MICHAEL

CAMOU, MICHAEL VAUGHN, AND

FLOYD HENLEY [Docket Nos. 137, 138,

151]

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court is in receipt of letters from three inmates at California State Prison - Solano

(“Solano”) raising concerns about the kosher diet program at Solano. All three letters were

construed as motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement in this action and referred to the

undersigned magistrate judge. Although the three inmates – Michael Camou, Michael Vaughn, and

Floyd Henry – consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the Court has determined that a

Report and Recommendation to the district court judge is appropriate. The findings and conclusions

of this Report have implications for all Solano inmates who are receiving, or seek to receive, kosher

meals at Solano and have standing to enforce the Settlement Agreement in question – most of whom

have not even appeared before this Court, let alone consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the Motions be DENIED. The issues

raised do not fall within the scope of the continuing jurisdiction stipulated to by the parties in the

Settlement Agreement and agreed to by this Court. It is further recommended that, to the extent that

all three inmates have claimed that the kosher meal program at Solano violates not only the terms of

the Settlement Agreement but also their statutory and constitutional rights, the latter claims should

Case 3:02-cv-03712-JSW Document 162 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 5
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

be dismissed without prejudice to their being asserted in the form of complaints filed in the

appropriate jurisdiction.

II. BACKGROUND

The original parties to this lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement

Agreement”) in November 2003. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to provide

Plaintiff Victor Wayne Cooper with kosher meals at any California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”) facility at which he was housed. Settlement Agreement at 3, Section II(1). In addition,

Defendants agreed to establish a kosher diet program at California State Prison - Solano (“Solano”),

where Cooper was housed at the time of the settlement, for “all kosher-observant inmates” who

complied with certain procedural requirements. Id. at 4, Section II(2). The kosher meals were to

“comply with the guidelines established under ‘CDC Kosher Meal Provision Plan,’” which were

attached to the Settlement Agreement and incorporated by reference therein. Id. at 4, Section II

(2)(d). Broad standing was conferred on Solano inmates who were participants in the program to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the usual exhaustion requirements were reduced

for those inmates. Id. at 5, Section II (2)(e). However, it was the rabbi who was to make “the

ultimate determinations on violations of the Kosher Diet Program.” Id. at 4, Section II(2)(b).

At the time the Settlement Agreement was entered, it was envisioned that the kosher diet

program established at Solano under the Settlement Agreement would soon be replaced by a new,

state-wide kosher diet program (the “State-Wide Kosher Diet Program”) that was still being

developed. See id. at 6, Section II(6) (“[w]ithin two years from signing of this Settlement

Agreement, Defendants shall make good faith efforts to comply on a California State-wide basis

with applicable law governing provision of kosher meals . . .”). The parties agreed that this Court

would exercise continuing jurisdiction over enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for “three

years after the implementation of the State-wide Kosher Diet Program.” Id. at 7, Section II(8).

There is now evidence before the Court that the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program was

enacted on April 24, 2006, when the California Department of Corrections amended the California

Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3050-3056, to establish such a program. See Opposition to

Motions by Inmates Camou and Vaughn to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“Opposition”) at 2 &

Case 3:02-cv-03712-JSW Document 162 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Ex. A. On May 15, 2006, that program was put in force at Solano. Id. at 3 & Ex. B. Subsequently,

inmates Camou, Vaughn, and Henley each asserted in their Motions that the kosher diet program at

Solano – which is now governed by the rules and regulations established in the State-Wide Kosher

Diet Program – is inadequate and that it violates both the terms of the Settlement Agreement and

their statutory and constitutional rights.

III. ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, the Court must address whether the continuing jurisdiction created

under the Settlement Agreement and accepted by this Court extends to challenges to the adequacy of

the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program, as implemented at Solano. The Court concludes that it does

not. 

For the purposes of construction and enforcement, settlement agreements are “governed by

principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” United Commercial

Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted). Under

California law – the applicable local law here – courts seek to establish the parties’ intent from the

contract’s language: “[t]he paramount rule governing the interpretation of contracts is to give effect

to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as it is

ascertainable and lawful. The intention of the parties must, in the first instance, be derived from the

language of the entire contract.” Royal Thrift and Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc., 123 Cal. App.

4th 24, 45 (2004) (quotations omitted).

Here, the parties agreed in the Settlement Agreement that the Court would exercise

continuing jurisdiction over enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for “three years after the

implementation of the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program.” Id. at 7, Section II(8). Read in isolation,

this provision might be construed as giving rise to continuing jurisdiction over any challenges

Solano inmates might seek to assert to the new program. Reading the Settlement Agreement as a

whole, however, the Court concludes that such a construction would be inconsistent with the

intentions of the parties. 

To the extent that the Settlement Agreement required the California Department of

Corrections to make good faith efforts to implement a state-wide program, it is clear that Plaintiff

Case 3:02-cv-03712-JSW Document 162 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 Because the named Plaintiff has not appeared in this action in several years and has not filed

any motion to enforce, the Court does not reach the question of whether its jurisdiction continues with

respect to potential future challenges by Cooper. 

4

understood that the standards adopted for the interim program at Solano – governed by the

guidelines established under the “CDC Kosher Meal Provision Plan” – would soon be replaced by

other standards that were still in the development stage. Thus, the Settlement Agreement contained

no specific standards for the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program, except that it would comply with

“applicable law.” The Settlement Agreement did not even require that such a program be

implemented – just that Defendants make good faith efforts to do so.

 In light of the absence of (1) a requirement under the Settlement Agreement that a statewide program be implemented, and (2) specific standards to govern such a program, the Court finds

that the parties did not intend to sweep within the scope of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction all

future challenges by Solano inmates to the new state-wide program. Rather, the parties intended that

the Court would retain jurisdiction only with respect to motions to enforce the Settlement

Agreement pending the introduction of the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program at Solano – at least for

inmates other than the original named Plaintiff. Now that that program is in force, the Court

concludes that challenges by Solano inmates other than Cooper regarding the current provision of

kosher meals at Solano are no longer within the scope of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction.1

 Even assuming the parties did intend in the Settlement Agreement to establish continuing

jurisdiction over all challenges by Solano inmates to the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program, as

implemented at Solano, the Court declines to exercise such broad continuing jurisdiction. See

Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[a] federal court may refuse to exercise

continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it”). By permitting any challenges to

the new program to be brought as motions to enforce, a broad exception to the usual exhaustion

requirements by Solano inmates other than Cooper would be created – a result that would defeats the

important policies that underlie the exhaustion requirements. Therefore, the Court exercises its

discretion to decline such continuing jurisdiction.

Case 3:02-cv-03712-JSW Document 162 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 5
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

IV. CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Motions be DENIED on the basis that challenges by Solano

inmates other than Cooper to the adequacy of the State-Wide Kosher Diet Program at Solano,

implemented May 15, 2006, fall outside of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction under the Settlement

Agreement. To the extent inmates Camou, Vaughn, and Henley assert statutory and constitutional

challenges to the new program, those claims should be dismissed without prejudice to their asserting

them in complaints filed in the appropriate jurisdiction. Similarly, in the future, any Solano inmates

seeking to challenge the kosher diet program at Solano will be required to file their claims in the

appropriate jurisdiction and meet any exhaustion requirements that may apply to those claims. It is

further recommended that Defendants be required to post at Solano on bulletin boards in each

facility chapel a notice stating as follows:

NOTICE TO KOSHER-OBSERVANT INMATES: All kosher-observant inmates are notified

that as of May 15, 2006, a new state-wide Kosher diet program has been put into effect at

Solano. The Federal District Court for the Northern District of California has held that legal

challenges to the new kosher diet program at Solano are not within the scope of the continuing

jurisdiction created in the settlement agreement in Cooper v. State of California, C-02-3712

JSW. Therefore, the Court will no longer be accepting motions to enforce the Cooper

settlement agreement asserting legal challenges to the new kosher diet program. Rather, any

such challenges must be filed, in the form of a legal complaint, in the appropriate jurisdiction

and in compliance with applicable law. 

Dated: December 18, 2006 JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:02-cv-03712-JSW Document 162 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 5