Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01059/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01059-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAM JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1059 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

The parties to this action move jointly for final approval of class action settlement. 

(ECF No. 158.) The court held a hearing on the matter on December 18, 2015, at which Keith 

Wattley appeared for the plaintiff class and Jessica Blonien and Heather Heckler appeared for 

defendants. As explained below, the court GRANTS the parties’ motion. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

This class action lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the protocol adopted by 

California’s Board of Parole Hearings’ (Board) Forensic Assessment Division (FAD) for use in 

the preparation of psychological evaluations to be considered in determining the suitability of 

class members for parole. The class consists of California state prisoners who are serving life 

sentences and are eligible for parole consideration after having served their minimum terms. 

(ECF No. 40 at 14; ECF No. 44 at 2.) 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 10
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

This action was filed on April 20, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Following service of 

process, defendants moved dismiss. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) By order filed October 18, 2012, 

defendants’ amended motion to dismiss was granted with leave to file an amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 17.) On November 15, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing sixteen 

causes of action, (ECF No. 18), which defendants answered on December 6, 2012. (ECF No. 21.) 

Thereafter, discovery commenced, plaintiff moved for class certification, (ECF No. 29), and 

defendants moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 30.) On November 1, 2013, the magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion for class certification 

be granted and defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. 

(ECF No. 40.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted as to 

plaintiff’s equal protection and pendent state law claims, denied as to plaintiff’s due process 

claims insofar as defendants relied on Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) to support the 

motion, and denied in all other respects without prejudice to renewal after completion of 

discovery. (ECF No. 40 at 21-22.) The findings and recommendations were adopted in full by 

this court on March 31, 2014, (ECF No. 44), leaving only plaintiff’s due process claims. (ECF 

No. 62 at 3.) 

On April 14, 2014, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the order 

granting class certification. (See ECF No. 47.) On June 12, 2014, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition. (ECF No. 53.) 

On September 26, 2014, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

(ECF No. 55.) On December 3, 2014, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the motion be granted as to four of the six claims remaining in the action and 

denied as to two claims. (ECF No. 62.) The two surviving claims were characterized as “(1) a 

Due Process violation predicated upon the denial of a fair and unbiased parole procedure (the 

‘systemic bias’ claim), as principally embodied in the First and Eleventh Claims; and (2) a Due 

Process violation predicated upon the denial of fair and unbiased parole panels, as principally 

embodied in the Tenth Claims.” (ECF No. 62 at 26.) Five of the claims were “construed not as 

independent causes of action but as additional factual predicates for the overarching bias claims.” 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 10
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

(ECF No. 62 at 26.) On May 15, 2015, this court adopted the findings and recommendations and 

set a status conference for August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 68.) 

Thereafter, on July 17, 2015, the parties filed a joint status report informing the 

court of substantial progress in settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 73.) The court directed the 

parties to file a further status report on their settlement efforts by August 11, 2015. (ECF No. 76.) 

The parties filed a joint statement on August 11, 2015, indicating that settlement negotiations had 

been productive and they anticipated filing final settlement documents with the court by 

September 10, 2015. (ECF No. 77.) The court continued the status conference, (ECF No. 78), 

and on September 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of their 

settlement agreement. (ECF No. 79.) 

On October 1, 2015, the court held a telephonic status conference on the motion 

for preliminary approval. (ECF No. 82.) Following the status conference, the court granted the 

motion, directed the parties to file a final version of the proposed settlement agreement removing 

paragraph 15 and incorporating deadlines for posting notice in prison housing units, postmarking 

comments to the court, filing final briefing, and setting a date for the final fairness hearing. (ECF 

No. 84.) 

The court received numerous comments from prison inmates. (ECF Nos. 91-114, 

116-132, 134-153, 155-157, 160.) On December 18, 2015, the court held a final fairness hearing. 

(ECF No. 161.) During the hearing, the court discussed with the parties issues raised in the 

objections, including (1) whether risk assessment interviews can be recorded; (2) whether the risk 

assessment tools have been validated or found reliable or proper for use in predicting potential 

recidivism among life inmates; and (3) whether there is a procedure for objecting to factual errors 

and/or conclusions in risk assessments. (ECF No. 163.) The court directed the parties to file 

further briefing concerning the validity of the risk assessment tools at issue. Id. at 8-9. The 

parties filed a joint brief and exhibits on January 8, 2016, (ECF Nos. 165, 166), which the court 

has now considered. 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 10
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

II. THE KEY TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

Under the settlement agreement, defendants have agreed to the following changes 

in evaluating class members’ eligibility for parole: 

1. The Board agreed to, and did, submit a Budget Change Proposal to obtain 

additional funding in order to administer Comprehensive Risk Assessments (CRAs) every three 

years. (ECF No. 83 at 3.) The Board obtained the additional funding, and will now begin 

preparing new CRAs every three years for parole hearings scheduled on or after June 1, 2016, 

where the existing CRA is more than three years old. (Id.) Similarly, a new CRA will be 

prepared for hearings “advanced as a result of a petition to advance or the Board’s administrative 

review process under California Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(4) or (d)(1)” where the existing CRA is 

more than three years old. These changes will be reflected in revised regulations. (Id.) Class 

counsel will be given multiple opportunities to comment to the Board and the Office of 

Administrative Law (OAL) on the proposed regulations. (Id. at 4.) As a result of these changes, 

the Board will no longer conduct Subsequent Risk Assessments. (Id.) 

2. The agreement provides for class counsel to present an expert to the Board if, 

before December 31, 2016, the Board proposes any changes in how or whether the CRA will be 

administered, including any changes in the three risk assessment tools called into question by this 

action: the HCR-20 Version 3, PCL-R, and Static 99-R. The same expert presentation 

opportunity arises if the Board proposes using a risk-assessment tool other than the foregoing 

three tools. (Id.) The expert, who “must have experience with use of risk assessments in a 

correctional setting”, will be allowed to speak and answer questions for up to two hours. (Id.) 

3. The agreement provides for two presentations by the Board’s Chief 

Psychologist to the Board’s commissioners in open session, one regarding recidivism rates for 

long-term offenders and one regarding use of the Static 99-R, “a risk assessment tool used to 

predict an offender’s risk of sexual recidivism.” (Id. at 4.) The information presented to the 

Board will be put in text documents “and made available to class members through class counsel, 

on the Board’s website . . . and . . .emailed to all attorneys on file with the Board who are 

currently representing life prisoners.” (Id. at 4-5.) In addition, when the Static 99-R is used for a 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 10
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

risk assessment, the CRA “will inform the reader that the Static 99-R score alone generally does 

not assess dynamic characteristics that may mitigate or elevate a prisoner’s risk.” (Id. at 5.) 

Going forward, “CRAs will clarify that the Overall Risk Rating is relative to other life prisoners” 

and inform the report reader that “generally speaking, the current recidivism rates for long term 

offenders are lower than those of other prisoners released from shorter sentences.” (Id.) 

4. The Board will develop a formal process for inmates or their attorneys “to 

lodge timely written objections asserting factual errors in a CRA (to be defined in the regulations) 

before their parole consideration hearing occurs.” (Id.) The Board will provide a written 

response to timely objections. (Id.) These changes will be incorporated in proposed regulations 

to be submitted to the OAL by July 1, 2016. (Id.) Class counsel will be given multiple 

opportunities to comment to the Board and the OAL on the proposed regulations. (Id.) 

5. All defendants will be dismissed except defendant Shaffer, the Executive 

Officer of the Board. (Id.) The court will retain jurisdiction over this action until January 1, 

2017. (Id.) Plaintiffs may seek an extension of the court’s supervision based on evidence of 

material non-compliance with the agreement. (Id.) 

III. THE SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS 

A. Legal Framework 

When parties settle a class action, a court cannot simply accept the parties' 

resolution; rather it must also satisfy itself the proposed settlement is “fundamentally fair, 

adequate, and reasonable.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir.1998). After 

the initial certification and notice to the class, a court conducts a fairness hearing before finally 

approving any proposed settlement. Narouz v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 591 F.3d 1261, 1267 (9th 

Cir.2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (“If the proposal would bind class members, the court may 

approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.”). A court 

must balance a number of factors in determining whether a proposed settlement is in fact fair, 

adequate and reasonable: 

[(1)] the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; [(2)] the risk, expense, 

complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; [(3)] the risk of 

maintaining class action status throughout the trial; [(4)] the amount 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 10
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

offered in settlement; [(5)] the extent of discovery completed and 

the stage of the proceedings; [(6)] the experience and views of 

counsel; [(7)] the presence of a governmental participant; and [(8)] 

the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. 

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026; Adoma v. Univ. of Phx., 913 F.Supp.2d 964, 974–75 (E.D.Cal.2012). 

The list is not exhaustive, and the factors may be applied differently in different circumstances. 

Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City & Cnty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th 

Cir.1982). 

The court must consider the settlement as a whole, rather than its component parts, 

in evaluating fairness; the settlement “must stand or fall in its entirety.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 

1026. Ultimately, the court must reach “a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the 

product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the 

settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Officers for 

Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. 

B. The Strength of Plaintiff’s Case 

When assessing the strength of plaintiff’s case, the court does not reach “any 

ultimate conclusions regarding the contested issues of fact and law that underlie the merits of 

[the] litigation.” In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Secs. Litig., 720 F.Supp. 1379, 1388 

(D.Ariz.1989). The court cannot reach such a conclusion because evidence has not been fully 

presented and the “settlements were induced in large part by the very uncertainty as to what the 

outcome would be, had litigation continued.” Id. Instead, the court is to “evaluate objectively the 

strengths and weaknesses inherent in the litigation and the impact of those considerations on the 

parties’ decisions to reach these agreements.” Id. 

A central issue in this action is the reliability of the three risk assessment tools 

referred to in the settlement agreement when used to evaluate the suitability of life inmates for 

parole. The parties disagree about the reliability of the instruments for use with California’s life 

inmate population. (ECF No. 165 at 2-5.) The parties agree, however, that despite “extensive 

discovery” no evidence was presented “to support the claim that the Board intentionally chose 

flawed risk instruments.” (ECF No. 158 at 11.) 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 10
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

The court agrees that evidence of such intent would be required for named plaintiff 

to prevail on his remaining claims. In light of the uncertainties of litigating this case in the face of 

this apparent evidentiary void, an immediate benefit to the purported class members is in their 

interest. See Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625 (noting that “voluntary conciliation and 

settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution”). 

This factor favors approving the settlement. 

C. The Risk, Expense, Complexity and Likely Duration of Further Litigation 

“Approval of settlement is ‘preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with 

uncertain results.’” Morales v. Stevco, Inc., No. 09–00704, 2011 WL 5511767, at *10 (E.D.Cal. 

Nov. 10, 2011) (quoting Nat'l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV), 221 

F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D.Cal.2004)). The Ninth Circuit has explained “there is a strong judicial 

policy that favors settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.” In 

re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Class Plaintiffs v. City of 

Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir.1992)). 

Here, the parties agree there are significant risks associated with continued 

litigation of the claims in this case. The parties’ dispute over the reliability of use of the risk 

assessment tools combined with the apparent dearth of evidence that defendants intentionally 

chose flawed risk instruments presents obstacles for plaintiff in pursuing these claims further. In 

response to the court’s directive at the fairness hearing, the parties have provided an extended list, 

accompanied by evidence, of “studies and literature validating the risk assessment tools,” which 

defendants aver “support use of the risk assessment tools on California life inmates.” ECF No. 

165 at 2-5 and evidence cited therein. This highlights the nature of the dispute, which is not 

resolved by the court in approving this settlement agreement. The difficulties plaintiff faces in 

turn would result in expenditure of more time and resources, for all parties. Given the high costs 

associated with litigating the claims at issue, and the potential lengthy duration of litigation, the 

court finds this factor too weighs in favor of approval. 

These factors weigh in favor of approving the settlement. 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 10
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

D. The Settlement Agreement 

As discussed above, the settlement negotiated by the parties provides for new risk 

assessments for class members every three years, and defendants have agreed to develop a 

process by which inmates can submit formal written objections to factual findings in the risk 

assessments. These changes will be formalized in new regulations and class counsel will have 

opportunities to comment on the proposed regulations before they are adopted. The agreement 

also provides for two presentations to the Board, one on recidivism rates of long-term offenders, 

and one on use of one of the risk assessment tools at issue. In addition, the agreement provides 

that class counsel will be given an opportunity to present expert testimony to the Board if by the 

end of calendar year 2016 the Board proposes any changes in administration of the risk 

assessments, including the tools used. Finally, the agreement provides for this court’s continuing 

supervision until January 1, 2017, or longer if it is demonstrated that material compliance with the 

agreement has not been achieved. 

Although the settlement does not require use of different risk assessment tools for 

use with California’s life inmate population, it does incorporate several mechanisms that address 

concerns of possible bias in the risk assessment process and parole decisions based on such risk 

assessments. The parties have jointly moved the court to approve the settlement agreement, 

which was reached after “extensive arms-length negotiation.” ECF No. 158 at 11. The nature of 

the settlement agreement weighs in favor of approval. 

E. The Extent of Discovery and the Stage of the Proceedings 

This action has been pending for almost four years. The class was certified in 

March 2014, (ECF No. 44), and the parties have engaged in “extensive discovery”, ECF No. 158 

at 9. In addition, the claims have been narrowed through resolution of a motion for summary 

judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF Nos. 44, 68.) The court is satisfied 

that the proceedings in this matter have provided the parties with sufficient information to enable 

them to reach a meaningful settlement agreement. 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 10
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

F. The Experience and Views of Counsel 

Class counsel is the founder and managing attorney of a non-profit organization 

that “provides advocacy and representation on behalf of individual prisoners and parolees, 

educates the public about the rights of life-term prisoners and parolees, and provides legal 

trainings to attorneys and law students across the state.” (ECF No. 86-1 ¶¶ 1-2.) He has 

“litigated hundreds of prisoner and parolee cases over the last 15 years,” including In re 

Rutherford, No. SC13599A (Superior Court for Marin County), a class action lawsuit that 

preceded this one and whose class had interests “closely aligned” with the present class. (Id. ¶ 2; 

ECF No. 40 at 19.) Defendants are represented by two attorneys with the California Office of the 

Attorney General, one of whom is a supervising deputy attorney general. The court has already 

found that counsel for both sides are “experienced and knowledgeable.” (ECF No. 84 at 2.) 

Counsel agree that the settlement is fair and “benefits class members while eliminating the risk of 

trial for both sides.” ECF No. 158 at 11. Accordingly, given the experience of counsel and their 

views, this factor favors approving the settlement. See Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 

297 F.R.D. 431, 447 (E.D.Cal.2013). 

G. The Presence of a Governmental Participant 

Here, defendants are state officials sued in their official capacities. (ECF No. 18 at 

3-4.) There is no separate governmental participant involved in the issues presented by this 

litigation. Cf. Hanlon, supra (class action litigation against Chrysler Corporation seeking 

replacement of defective latches on minivans and damages paralleled National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration investigation resulting in a voluntary resolution under which Chrysler 

agreed to, inter alia, replace the latches.) This factor is neutral. 

H. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement 

As noted above, the court received numerous comments from prison inmates. 

(ECF Nos. 91-114, 116-132, 134-153, 155-157, 160.)1 The number of objections and the content 

 1

 On February 8, 2016, inmate Avon Davies filed a document styled “Ex Parte Request for 

Subclass Certification, for Permission to Reply to Amended Stipulated Settlements ‘Proposed 

Findings,’ and for issuance of Findings and Orders related to these matters.” The court construes 

this document as a request for leave to file late objections to the proposed settlement and, so 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 10
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

of those objections raised concerns about the settlement that were discussed with the parties at the 

final fairness hearing. One of those objections, the validity of the risk assessment tools, was the 

subject of further briefing required by the court. The court is satisfied that the objections have 

been addressed by counsel and do not outweigh the other factors favoring approval of the 

settlement agreement. 

IV. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE 

In conclusion, after considering the parties' submissions and oral argument at the 

final fairness hearing, and after considering the relevant factors, the court finds final approval of 

the class settlement to be appropriate. The court is mindful that “voluntary conciliation and 

settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution” and that “[t]his is especially true in 

complex class action litigation. . . .” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. The court concludes 

that the parties have reached a fair and adequate settlement and have satisfactorily addressed the 

questions raised by class members’ objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the comments received from inmate 

Avon Davies nunc pro tunc to February 8, 2016; and 

2. The joint motion of the parties for final approval of the settlement agreement 

(ECF No. 158) is GRANTED. 

DATED: May 26, 2016. 

 

construed, the request will be granted. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to file inmate 

Davies’ comments nunc pro tunc to February 8, 2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-01059-KJM-AC Document 167 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 10