Opinion ID: 200027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Case at Hand.

Text: 23 Here, the Secretary appeals from the district court's order of May 23, 2001, claiming that it modifies a previously issued injunction. He maintains that the underlying injunctive decree — the decree modified by the order appealed from — is the January 1996 partial final judgment. This designation strikes us as arbitrary. The district court created the CHCC position in an order dated October 22, 1990; broadened its purview somewhat by order dated December 18, 1992; and continued the office in effect without any appreciable change in the 1996 partial final judgment. By the same token, the court issued several orders affecting the CHCC position in the period between January of 1996 and May of 2001. 2 Last — but far from least — the district court did not refer at all to the 1996 partial final judgment in crafting the order of May 23, 2001. Given this history, the Secretary's designation of the 1996 partial final judgment as the underlying injunction seems odd. The most that can be said is that the combination of orders composing the status quo as of May 23, 2001 amounted to an injunction. 24 Leaving to one side this obvious weakness in the Secretary's case, the question remains whether the May 23 order represented a jurisdictionally significant change in the status quo. See Sierra Club, 907 F.2d at 212-13. Answering this question requires us to focus on the practical effect of the order. See id. at 213. 25 As a practical matter, the May 23 order did not break new ground. The stipulation entered into by and between the parties on September 26, 1997 heralded the dawning of a new era, paving the way for a phase-out of the preexisting correctional health program and the creation of the Corporation as a new and different way to provide health services to inmates. That stipulation itself imposed obligations on the CHCC to report on the progress, and otherwise monitor the activities, of the new Corporation. While these changes constituted a dramatic modification of the status quo ante, the Secretary certainly cannot complain about them; they were introduced with the consent and active cooperation of his predecessor in office and, thus, bind the Secretary now. See Cornelius v. Hogan, 663 F.2d 330, 334-35 (1st Cir.1981) (finding, in an official-capacity suit, that a successor in office was bound by his predecessor's consent decree); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)(1). A party's stipulations are binding on that party and may not be contradicted by him at trial or on appeal. Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194, 1199 n. 8 (7th Cir.1995). It follows from these two propositions that a government official, sued in his representative capacity, cannot freely repudiate stipulations entered into by his predecessor in office during an earlier stage of the same litigation. 26 The Secretary tries to wiggle off this hook by arguing that we should disregard the stipulation because it was not explicitly entered by the district court. This argument borders on the jejune. The parties docketed the stipulation and, although the district court did not instantly embrace it, the court's subsequent actions — particularly the entry of orders designed to facilitate the establishment of the new remedial framework and the release of funds to finance those activities — made manifest the court's adoption of the concept. In all events, the court certainly believed that it had approved the stipulation and its serial orders put the Secretary on clear notice of its belief. See, e.g., Order of July 2, 1998 (reminding the parties that [c]orrectional health services w[ould] soon begin to undergo the transition to a private non-profit corporation); Order of April 19, 2000 (stating that the court previously had accepted and ordered the implementation of the parties' stipulations and proposals to create a not-for-profit Correctional Health Services Corporation). If the Secretary wished to hold the district court to a particular punctilio in the entry of the stipulation, the Secretary had an obligation to assert that position in a timely manner. See Putnam Resources v. Pateman, 958 F.2d 448, 456-57 (1st Cir.1992) (explaining that an aggrieved party must act expeditiously to cure perceived error); see generally United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 972 (1st Cir.1995) (stating that a litigant who deems himself aggrieved by a ruling of the trial judge ordinarily must object then and there, or forfeit any right to complain at a latter time). His failure to do so constitutes a waiver. 27 Against this backdrop, it is surpassingly difficult to see how the May 23 order worked a jurisdictionally significant change in the status quo. In some respects, this case is reminiscent of Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 178 F.3d 951 (7th Cir.1999). There, the Seventh Circuit held that an order directing a housing authority to involve a receiver in any settlement negotiations with tenants of a particular housing project was merely a reiteration of an earlier receivership decree that required full cooperation with the receiver. Id. at 953. On that basis, the court deemed the order unappealable under section 1292(a)(1). Id. at 958. 28 This case is similarly configured. The stipulation obligated the parties, in effect, to cooperate fully in the privatization process. The assignment of specific duties to the CHCC — the part of the May 23 order that rankles the Secretary — is simply another way of expressing what is reasonably to be expected from the stipulated promise of full cooperation. In short, the May 23 order is a logical corollary to the Secretary's stipulated commitment to assist in the privatization of the delivery of correctional health services. 3 29 The particulars of the May 23 order do not alter this analysis. The specific dictates contained in that order — for instance, those requiring consultation with Corporation personnel and support of training programs — do no more than identify particular areas in which cooperation is required. Thus, the enumerated duties, taken as a whole, do not modify the status quo in any meaningful way. Confirming this conclusion is the fact that the Secretary initially objected to the May 23 order on the ground that it added nothing new to what the CHCC already was doing. His belated attempt to press the opposite view in this venue is untenable. Cf. Lydon v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., 175 F.3d 6, 12 (1st Cir.1999) (warning that if parties feel free to select contradictory positions before different tribunals to suit their ends, the integrity and efficacy of the courts will suffer) (quoting Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. Gen. Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 214 (1st Cir.1987)). 30 For much the same reasons, we do not accept the Secretary's plaint that the May 23 order has serious consequences. The order is disruptive, he tells us, because it undermines his authority to control the actions of a subordinate and, concomitantly, forces that subordinate — the CHCC — to preside over the dismantling of the correctional health program. This tale is unconvincing — and mischaracterizes the record to boot. 31 In the first place, it was the Secretary — not the district court — who insisted on filling the CHCC position. He nominated Dr. Guzmán for the post knowing full well that a court-ordered privatization of health care services was in full swing. He cannot seriously contend that his unilateral decision to fill this vacancy somehow wipes the slate clean, allowing him to throw a monkey wrench into the privatization process and scuttle the reforms to which his predecessor had stipulated. 32 In the second place, the consequences that the Secretary cites are the natural sequelae of the earlier agreement to transfer correctional health services to the Corporation. Those woes are not fairly attributable to the May 23 order. By first consenting to the privatization plan and then seeking to fill the CHCC position while the transition to privatization was underway, the Secretary became the author of his own misfortune. 33 If more were needed on this point — and we doubt that it is — the Secretary's argument misstates the nature of the CHCC position. That position has never been exclusively under the Secretary's hegemony. From the very beginning, the CHCC has been subject to dual oversight, reporting both to the Secretary and the district court. 4 This dual reporting relationship dovetails with the remedial framework that the court erected when it created the CHCC position to address constitutional shortcomings in inmate health services. Given the hybrid nature of the position, fine-tuning the CHCC's role to accommodate the stipulated changeover to privatization does little to alter the legal relations of the parties as they existed on May 23, 2001. The alteration, as we have said, dates back to the execution of the stipulation. 34 There is yet another basis for our conclusion that the May 23 order does not significantly modify the status quo. The parties, through the stipulation, explicitly agreed that [t]he privatization process must be subject to Court supervision. This language gave the court substantial latitude in procedural matters relating to how best to achieve privatization. Given that fostering compliance with the district court's remedial framework is the CHCC's raison être, the order that the Secretary challenges here can be viewed as procedural in nature (akin, say, to the appointment of a monitor). 35 The Ninth Circuit dealt with an analogous procedural order in Thompson v. Enomoto, 815 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir.1987), a prisoner class action. There, the court had to decide whether the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance with a consent decree constituted a modification of the decree. Emphasizing the interim nature of the position, the court found no serious or irreparable harm stemming from the appointment. Id. at 1327. We think that here, as in Thompson, the order appealed from was within the lower court's reserved power to establish procedures for compliance with the court's earlier decrees. 5 Id. So viewed, the May 23 order was simply a step in controlling the litigation before the court, Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 185, 75 S.Ct. 249, 99 L.Ed. 233 (1955). Orders of that stripe are not immediately appealable. See, e.g., Van Orman v. Am. Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 301, 314 (3d Cir.1982) (dismissing interlocutory appeal when the order appealed from was merely a judicial housekeeping measure designed to assist the court in framing ultimate relief in the case).