Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-00671-62/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

 In the same motion, the plaintiffs also sought an order

finding defendants in violation of the permanent injunction with

regard to Cooperative Parolees. The court disposed of that part of

plaintiffs’ motion in a September 28, 2007 order.

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.

 /

Plaintiffs bring a motion for an order finding defendants in

violation of the Stipulated Order of Permanent Injunction entered

in 2003. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the defendants have

violated the terms of the injunction by failing to adhere to it

when revoking the parole of Civil Addicts Parolees.1

 For the

reasons provided herein, the court denies the motion.

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 11
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

2

I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS

The court described the background of this suit in its

September 28, 2007 order. In the present motion, the plaintiffs

argue that the defendants have violated the permanent injunction

by failing to abide by its terms in the revocation of the parole

of those parolees in the Civil Addict Program, Cal. Welf. & Inst.

Code § 3000 et seq. 

II.

STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS’ IN VIOLATION

OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

When interpreting the parameters of a class, a district court

should be guided by the plain language of the class definition. In

re. Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 817 F.2d 1435, 1442-

43 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the court’s approach is the

same that it would use when construing the language of a statute

or contract. Id. at 1443. The court’s interpretation also should

be informed by apparent purpose of class certification and the

common questions among the class members’ claims. Id. 

III. ANALYSIS

 Plaintiffs argue that Civil Addict Parolees are included

in the certified plaintiff class and therefore that the terms of

this court’s order in 2002 and the terms of the 2003 permanent

injunction apply to this group. Because defendants have not

abided by the terms of the permanent injunction with respect to

these parolees, plaintiffs argue that defendants are in

violation of it. As explained below, the court cannot agree with

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 11
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

2

 For ease, the court uses the term “civil addicts” to refer

to those individuals convicted of an infraction, misdemeanor, or

3

the plaintiffs’ postion.

A. California Statutory Scheme Governing Civil Addicts

If a defendant has been convicted of a crime and the judge

believes that the defendant may be addicted to narcotics or may

be in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics, the

judge may commit the defendant to the California Rehabilitation

Center for treatment. Cal. Welf & Inst. Code §§ 3050, 3051. The

purpose of this commitment is nonpunitive. Instead, the

legislature has sought to successfully treat addiction for the

sake of the addict’s own safety and the well-being of the

public. Id. § 3000. Upon commitment to the inpatient treatment

program, the judge suspends the defendant’s felony sentence or,

where the defendant has been convicted of a misdemeanor or an

infraction, may suspend the defendant’s sentence or adjourn the

proceedings. Id. §§ 3050, 3051. 

A person who has not been convicted of a crime may be

committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation if

the superior court finds that the person may be addicted or may

be in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics. Cal.

Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 3100, 3104, 3106, 3106.5. 

1. Process By Which Civil Addicts Are Released As

Outpatients

It appears from the statutes that there are two routes by

which a person committed to inpatient treatment2

 may be released

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 11
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

felony, who have been committed to inpatient treatment, or those

persons committed to inpatient treatment without having been

convicted of a crime, in accordance with California Welfare and

Institutions Code section 3000 et seq. “Civil Addict” is the term

used in the relevant regulations. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §

5000.

4

to outpatient status. First, section 3151 of the Welfare and

Institutions Code appears to give the Board of Parole Hearings

discretion to release someone to outpatient status when his

personal progress seems to warrant it. Second, section 3201 of

the Welfare and Institutions Code appears to mandate that if a

civil addict has spent a period of time in custody that equals

the amount of time he would have spent in prison had his

sentence not been suspended, then the BPH must release that

person on parole. Once on parole, that person is supervised in

the same manner and governed by the same conditions as those who

have been released to outpatient status on the BPH’s discretion.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 3201(c).

Under the first option, described in section 3151, the

civil addict may be determined to have recovered from addiction

or imminent danger of addiction. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §

3151(a). In that case, the Secretary of the Board of Parole

Hearings certifies to the Board that the defendant’s release to

outpatient status is proper. Id. §§ 3150, 3151(a). If twelve

months have passed since the defendant’s commitment, the Board

automatically must consider whether outpatient treatment for the

defendant is warranted. Id. § 3151(a)

Under the second option, described in section 3201(c), a

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 4 of 11
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

civil addict must automatically be released to parole if he has

spent a sufficient amount of time in custody. Specifically, if

the committed person has spent an equivalent amount of time in

custody as he would have if his sentence had not been suspended,

he must be released on parole under the jurisdiction of the

Board of Parole Hearings. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 3201(c),

3150(a). While on parole, he is supervised under the terms of

sections 3151 and 3152. He is also subject to the conditions

described in Section 3000 of the Penal Code, which describes

parole generally. 

2. Terms of Outpatient Status

Whether a civil addict is released to outpatient status via

the discretion of the BPH as described in section 3151 or as a

parolee as described in section 3201(c), as an outpatient the

civil addict is “subject to all rules and regulations adopted by

the [BPH]” and “all conditions imposed by the [BPH].” Cal. Welf.

& Inst. Code § 3151(a) These conditions include those that are

specific to the defendant, as well as those of “general

applicability.” Id.; see also 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 5302. The

defendant may be returned to inpatient status pursuant to “those

rules, regulations, and conditions.” Id.

While a civil addict is an outpatient, he is supervised by

the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Id.; see also

15 Cal. Code Regs. § 5170. His supervision may include testing

for narcotics use and counseling. Id. § 3152. 

A civil addict may be returned to inpatient status if the

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 5 of 11
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

3

 The regulations describe that a hold may be the arrest and

temporary detention of an outpatient civil addict pending an

investigation of whether the civil addict violated the terms of his

outpatient status. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 5332.

6

Board of Parole Hearings concludes that doing so is in the best

interests of the defendant and society. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

§§ 3151, 3152; 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 5334, 5335 (listing factors

to be considered when deciding whether to issues a parole hold).

The BPH bases this determination on reports of Department of

Corrections agents “or other information,” including law

enforcement reports. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 3152. If it is

determined that the civil addict should be returned to inpatient

treatment, a commissioner of the Board may order the civil

addict to be retaken into custody until the Board’s next

meeting. Id. § 3151(b). A peace officer may execute a written

order to this effect in the same manner that the officer would

execute “ordinary criminal process.” Id. § 3151(b), (c). 

3. Process of Returning Civil Addict to Inpatient Status

The California Code of Regulations describes the process by

which a civil addict is to be returned to inpatient status. Once 

a hold3 is placed on an outpatient civil addict, a review

conference must occur between the parole agent and unit

supervisor as soon as possible, to determine whether the hold

should continue. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 5336. As soon as possible

after the placement of the hold, the civil addict should receive

written notice of the reasons for the hold. Id. §§ 5337, 5204.

Suspected violations must be investigated fully and all

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 6 of 11
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

7

available facts must be documented by the parole agent. Id. §

5352. This must be documented in a violation report, which

should be submitted to the BPH in a timely manner. Id. §§ 5353,

5354, 5356. 

Based on the violation report, the BPH determines whether

to continue the civil addict’s outpatient status or to return

him to inpatient status. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 5171. The BPH may

also consider other alternatives, such as whether to modify the

conditions of outpatient status. Id. Even if the BPH concludes

that the civil addict has violated a term of his outpatient

status, the BPH still has discretion to decide whether a return

to inpatient status is warranted. Id. § 5171(j). 

If a civil addict is in custody under a hold and is also

undergoing prosecution for criminal charges, he is entitled to a

probable cause hearing (“pre-return hearing”) for the alleged

violation of outpatient status. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 5208. This

hearing should occur “at a location near where the violation is

alleged to have occurred.” Id. This hearing may be substituted

by the probable cause hearing on the additional criminal

charges, if they are felony charges, or by a conviction, if the

additional criminal charges are misdemeanors. Id. The civil

addict also may waive the pre-return hearing. Id. The civil

addict has the right to request an attorney for the pre-return

hearing and the return hearing. Id. § 5207. 

If the BPH determines that probable cause exists to believe

that the civil addict violated the terms of outpatient status,

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 7 of 11
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

8

the BPH then holds a return hearing. 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 5210,

5211. At this stage, the civil addict has a panoply of rights,

including that the return hearing be prompt, that the hearing be

conducted by a neutral party, notice of the time and place of

the hearing so that he may prepare a defense, the opportunity to

be heard and to present testimonial and documentary evidence,

and the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Id.

§ 5204. 

4. Discharge from Commitment

The superior court that committed the defendant to

inpatient treatment retains the authority to discharge the

defendant from commitment. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 3200(b). In

order to discharge a person, the Director of Corrections must

recommend discharge to the BPH. Id. If the BPH agrees, it files

a request for discharge with the superior court that had

committed the defendant. Id. “The court may, unless otherwise

prohibited by law, modify the sentence, dismiss the criminal

charges of which the person was convicted, or suspend further

proceedings, as it deems warranted in the interests of justice.”

Id.

B. Applicability of Injunction to Civil Addicts

In determining the parameters of the plaintiff class, the

court is guided by principles of contract and statutory

interpretation. See In re. Cement, 817 F.2d at 1443. The court

must consider the plain language of the class certification and

the apparent intent of the parties and the court defining the

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 8 of 11
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

9

class at the time of certification. Id.

Here, the plain language of the class certification offers

no guidance. The class was certified as California parolees,

with little indication of which subgroups were included in this

class. See Cervantes v. State of California, No. S-94-671 (E.D.

Cal. Dec. 1, 1994). None of the named class members were civil

addicts. See Complaint ¶¶ 4-14; First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 26-

92. Certainly, there was no discussion by either of the parties

or the court of whether civil addicts were included or excluded

from the class. See Motion for Certification of Class Action

(July 5, 1994); Defendants’ Opposition to Class Certification

(August 19, 1994); Transcript of Proceedings of September 6,

1994 (hearing on motion to certify class); Cervantes v. State of

California, No. S-94-671 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 1994). Neither the

court nor the parties contemplated the inclusion of civil

addicts in the class, and there is nothing to suggest that the

parties had intended specifically to exclude or include civil

addicts in the certified class. See id.

Turning to whether subsequent actions in the case suggest

that civil addicts should properly be considered as class

members, the court considers whether reading the 2004 permanent

injunction so as to include civil addicts in the plaintiff class

would render the injunction internally inconsistent or

meaningless. See Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v.

Metropolitan Transp. Com’n, 366 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir.

2004)(describing both contract and statutory interpretations).

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 9 of 11
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

10

After reviewing the statutory and regulatory framework of the

civil addict program and the terms of the 2004 injunction and

corresponding remedial plan, the court concludes that civil

addicts may not properly be considered members of the plaintiff

class. Paragraph 9(e) of the injunction defines a parole hold as

“any invocation by Defendants of their authority to

involuntarily detain a parolee for revocation proceedings under

Section 3056 of the California Penal Code.” Penal Code section

3056 does not apply to civil addict parolees, however. The

authority to place an outpatient civil addict back into custody

(the equivalent of a parole hold) derives from sections 3151 and

3152 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Although Welfare and

Institutions Code section 3151 may be read to state that

portions of the Penal Code applying to parolees also apply to

civil addict outpatients, this appears only to include those

sections of the Penal Code describing the conditions of the

outpatient’s release. See Welf. & Inst. Code § 3151(a)(the

outpatient may be “subject to all rules and regulations adopted

by the [BPH] and subject to all conditions imposed by the [BPH],

whether of general applicability . . ., and subject to being

retaken and returned to inpatient status as prescribed by those

rules, regulations, and conditions”); see also Cal. Penal Code §

3053 (granting Board of Prison Terms authority to impose on a

parolee any conditions deemed proper). 

The court concludes that including civil addicts in the

plaintiff class would render inoperative as to civil addicts

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 10 of 11
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

 After reviewing the extensive and thorough briefing of this

issue by the parties, the court believes that it is only the

reference to Penal Code section 3056 that makes the 2004 injunction

inapplicable to civil addicts. 

11

those portions of the 2004 injunction and remedial plan that

refer to parole holds. See, e.g., Stipulated Order for Permanent

Injunctive Relief ¶¶ 11(b)(i)-(iv); Remedial Plan at 2, 3. Such

a construction of the injunction is not supportable. Persons

cannot be members of a class if subsequent orders in the same

case would necessarily not apply to them. Consequently, the

court must conclude that civil addicts are not members of the

plaintiff class.4

IV. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the plaintiffs’ motion to find the

defendants in violation of the permanent injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2007.

Case 2:94-cv-00671-LKK-GGH Document 1381 Filed 10/22/07 Page 11 of 11