Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY VALDIVIA, ALFRED YANCY,

and HOSSIE WELCH, on their own

behalf and on behalf of the class

of all persons similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of 

the State of California, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

file a first supplemental civil class action complaint pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (d). The court decides

the matter based on the papers and after oral argument.

I.

Background Facts 

In 2002, plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint. The

complaint alleged, inter alia, that California’s parole process

deprived adult parolees of due process and their right to

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1300 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants put forth evidence in the form of a 1

declaration that in January of 2007, responsibility for juvenile

2

counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See 2002 Compl. On June 14,

2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

The court held that the “current California parole revocation

system violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights.” Valdivia

v. Davis, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (J.

Karlton). 

On March 9, 2004, this Court entered a Stipulated Order For

Permanent Injunctive Relief ("Permanent Injunction"), ordering

defendants to provide certain due process protections to

plaintiffs during the parole revocation process. Among other

things, defendants were ordered to serve adult parolees with

actual notice of the alleged violation and notice of the

parolee's rights and timeframes within three days of the parole

hold; to provide probable cause hearings within ten days of the

notice of charges and final hearings within thirty-five days of

the parole hold; and to provide parolees with counsel. 

In 2005, California created the Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This organization took authority

over the former Department of Corrections, Youth Authority

("CYA"), Board of Prison Terms, and Youthful Offender Parole

Board. Under the new organizational scheme, a new single agency

within CDCR, the Board of Parole Hearings, now oversees and is

responsible for parole revocation for both adults and

juveniles. 

1

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1300 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 5
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

parole hearings will be transferred to the Chief Deputy Secretary

of Juvenile Justice within the division of Juvenile Justice

(formally named California Youth Authority). See John Monday Decl.

in support of Defs.’ Opp’n to the Mot. to file Supp. Compl. 

3

Plaintiffs’ now seek to file a supplemental complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint alleges, inter alia, that

juvenile parolees in California are denied prompt preliminary

hearings, assistance of counsel, and other protections in the

parole revocation process. Plaintiffs aver that the alleged

violations raised in the supplemental complaint are closely

related to the constitutional violations at issue in the

original Valdivia action and thus, pursuant to Rule 15 (d), the

court should grant the motion to file the supplemental

complaint. 

II. 

STANDARD FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 15 (d) 

Rule 15 (d) provides that "[u]pon motion of a party the

court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are

just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting

forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened

since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(d). The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote as

complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as

possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after

the initial pleadings are filed. William Inglis & Sons Baking

Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 

(9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1300 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Rule 15(d) is intended to give district courts broad

discretion in allowing supplemental pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P.

15, advisory committee's note. “While leave to permit

supplemental pleading is ‘favored,’ it cannot be used to

introduce a separate, distinct and new cause of action.” 

Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400,

402 (9th Cir. 1997).

III.

Analysis

Although Rule 15(d) is to be liberally applied, see Keith

v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988), in the case at

bar, the circumstances are such that permitting the supplemental

complaint is not the proper course of action. 

The court is persuaded that significant differences between

the adult and juvenile parole systems exist. In theory,

juveniles who are found in violation of parole are returned to

juvenile facilities for training and treatment. See Monday

Decl. at 3:10-13. In contrast, adult prisoners have parole

revoked as a form of punishment. Id. The court also notes that

defendants have provided some evidence that in January, 2007

responsibility for juvenile parole hearings will be transferred

to the Chief Deputy Secretary of Juvenile Justice within the

division of Juvenile Justice (formally named California Youth

Authority). Id.

These differences are significant and it is not clear that

the permanent injunction currently applied to adults would apply

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1300 Filed 09/06/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

with equal force to juveniles. More likely than not, the

differences between the two systems and the differences between

juvenile and adult parolees generally, will require the court to

either craft a new remedy or significantly modify the previous

injunction. 

In sum, the court finds that the circumstances are such

that allowing a supplemental complaint would be inappropriate at

this time. That being said, it is apparent that the cases are 

related. Both cases allege that the parole revocation process

in California violates the due process rights of parolees. 

Should plaintiffs’ file a new action, the court will not

hesitate in relating the two cases.

IV.

Conclusion

For these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a

first supplemental complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 5, 2006.

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1300 Filed 09/06/06 Page 5 of 5