Case Name: Richard M. GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California and Robert Doyle, Chairman of the Board of Parole Hearings, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 382 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 09-16087
Parties: Richard M. GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California and Robert Doyle, Chairman of the Board of Parole Hearings, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Richard M. GILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California and Robert Doyle, Chairman of the Board of Parole Hearings, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-16087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010.
Filed June 3, 2010.
Monica Knox, Esquire, David Miles Porter, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, Carter White, U.C. Davis School of Law, Davis, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terence J. Cassidy, Tom L. Riordan, Esquire, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err in certifying the class, regardless of whether we review its decision de novo or for abuse of discretion. Viewed as a whole, the complaint constitutes a challenge to "a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members." Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir.2001). Because the claims of the named plaintiffs are coextensive with those of the rest of the class with regard to the Board of Parole Hearings, the plaintiffs' claims are sufficiently typical as well. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.1998). Finally, the plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), as they request an injunction imposing standards for parole hearings that would apply across the entire class. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998).
We express no view as to whether further sub-classifications may be necessary or appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.