Opinion ID: 776026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Injunction

Text: 61 On appeal, the Board asserts three principal objections to the propriety of the district court's injunction: that the Board has provided a legitimate penological justification for its actions (or inactions) under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987); that many of the claims against the Board were resolved in the settlement agreement between plaintiffs and the Department; and that Governor Davis and Secretary Presley are not properly subject to the injunction. We address each in turn.
62 Turner holds that when a prison regulation impinges upon inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. 482 U.S. at 89. Here, we are presented with policies and regulations of a state parole board which apply both to the inmates inside the prison and the parolees on the outside. While we have not yet considered whether Turner is limited to the prison context or whether it also applies to matters affecting parolees, certainly many of the reasons justifying prison authorities overriding prisoners rights disappear outside the prison walls. 34 See Felce v. Fiedler, 974 F.2d 1484, 1495-1496 (7th Cir. 1992). However, we need not decide that issue for purposes of this appeal. 63 Assuming, without deciding, that Turner applies to all aspects of the case before us, we are required to determine whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. The Board has, however, repeatedly failed to adduce any justification, rational or not, for its ADA policy. For starters, it presents no justification that we can discern in its briefs. Equally surprising, the Board admitted at oral argument that we would find none in the record: it argued that such omission was immaterial so long as, even at that late stage of proceedings, we can come up with any reason in our heads that would justify its policies. 35 64 To satisfy Turner, the Board must, at the very least, adduce some penological reason for its policy at the relevant stage of the judicial proceedings. Considerations advanced to support a restrictive policy [must] be . . . sufficiently articulated to permit meaningful . . . review. Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, at a minimum, the reasons must be urged in the district court. While the Board is correct that the burden rests with the plaintiff to refute the Board's defense that its actions were penologically justified, see Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir. 1999), that defense must at the very least be raised. Here, at oral argument, the Board for the first time referred obtusely to something about cost and administrative concerns without any explanation whatsoever as to how or in what respect the injunction implicated these matters. Certainly, it did not suggest that the unspecified costs and administrative concerns were any greater than those of any other agency subject to the ADA, or offer any reason why it should be exempted from the ordinary costs and burdens of complying with the ADA. We agree with the Seventh Circuit that prison authorities cannot avoid court scrutiny [under Turner] by reflexive, rote assertions. Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir. 1996). In this case, the Board's unusual contentions did not even rise to that level, see n. 35, supra. In short, the Board has failed totally to establish that the injunctive order in any way conflicts with Turner.
65 The Board next argues that the injunction applies to parts of the original litigation already resolved by the settlement agreement, and is directed at facilities and individuals that are under the control of the Department. This objection does not properly apply to the parole revocation notification and hearing process. Prior to the hearing, the parolees are not incarcerated in facilities controlled by the Department, and notices may be served by any qualified persons designated by the Board. Moreover, parole revocation hearings need not be conducted at Department facilities. Because the Board can conduct the parole revocation process without using Department personnel or premises, the Board could readily comply with this aspect of the injunction without involving the Department's staff or facilities in any way. 66 The case of prisoners (and parolees whose parole has already been revoked) is different, however. The Department may in some instances require the Board to utilize Department staff or facilities when serving notice or conducting hearings on Department premises. We have identified three aspects of the injunction that must be construed or modified in a manner that will ensure that it does not order the Department to further modify its facilities, policies, or procedures, 36 or direct the Board to require the Department to do so (even assuming the Board had such authority). 67
68 Paragraph 6 of the injunction, which requires the Board to develop a transition plan in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 25.150(d), mandates that the Board evaluate facilities in which parole proceedings are conducted; provide the Department of Corrections with a list of all facilities that are not fully accessible; and produce a schedule for providing accessible proceedings for prisoners with disabilities at each facility. While most of paragraph 6 is unobjectionable, and simply requires the Board to inform itself as to which facilities, including Department facilities, provide accessible hearing rooms for mobility impaired prisoners or parolees, to the extent that it requires mobility impaired prisoners housed in Department facilities to be transported to alternative, accessible hearing locations, paragraph 6 may interfere with the Department's penological interest in securely confining certain prisoners. Accordingly, we construe this provision as requiring only that the Board request that the Department transport mobility impaired prisoners to accessible locations if the facilities at which they are housed are inadequate. The Department may, for valid security or other penological reasons, decline to do so. 37 69
70 Paragraph 14 of the injunction requires the Board to provide ADA training to its own staff, any attorneys it employs, and Department staff involved in the parole and parole revocation process. This portion of the injunction is designed to enforce 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1), which prohibits state entities from avoiding compliance with the act by delegating their services through contractual, licensing, or other agreements. To the extent that paragraph 14 directs the Board to require Department personnel to undergo training, we agree with the Board's objection. Accordingly, we instruct the district court to modify the injunction as follows on remand: The Board shall provide training for all persons under its jurisdiction to the extent set forth in paragraph 14; it shall also offer training to Department staff involved in the parole and revocation process; should any Department personnel decline such training, the Board shall use its own personnel in their stead, except when the Department requires that Department employees perform the services involved. 71
72 Paragraphs 15-18 of the injunction require that the Board establish a tracking system by which it can determine which inmates suffer from disabilities, and what their disabilities are. 38 The Board relies upon a prior decision of ours in the Department phase of this case, see Armstrong v. Davis, 215 F.3d 1332, 2000 WL 369622 (9th Cir. 2000), in asserting that no tracking system is required. However, in our earlier opinion we did not reject the tracking requirement per se, but held that the tracking system proposed by the Department was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, and should not have been rejected by the district court. See id. Because the regulations implementing the ADA require a public entity to accommodate individuals it has identified as disabled, 28 C.F.R. 35.104, some form of tracking system is necessary in order to enable the Board to comply with the Act. However, to the extent that tracking is conducted by the Department, it is not necessary for the Board to duplicate that system, and the Board may make use of the Department's tracking system as a permissible means of complying with the injunction.
73 Governor Davis and Secretary Presley contend that they are not properly part of this portion of the lawsuit and that plaintiffs are barred from proceeding against them here by virtue of the settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiffs and the Department. A settlement is interpreted as any other contract, under the interpretive rules of the state. Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994). The first step in contractual interpretation in California is to examine the text, Cal. Civil Code 1638, and determine the intent of the parties. Cal. Civil Code 1636. Here, the Governor and the Secretary rely on two parts of the settlement agreement. First, they point to the text, which states that: This settlement does not resolve any issues between plaintiffs and the Board of Prison Terms or defendant Nielsen. Second, they rely on the inclusion in the settlement agreement of their names among the Department defendants. The two provisions on which they rely do not show that the agreement was intended to release Davis and Presley from the Board's portion of the case. The purpose of the provision of the settlement agreement quoted above was to make it clear that none of the issues regarding the Board's operations were to be affected by the Department's agreement. The fact is that the settlement agreement did resolve some issues involving Davis and Presley, because they, unlike Nielsen, have supervisory authority over the Department. Thus, it would have been erroneous to include their names in the quoted provision of the settlement agreement. As to the inclusion of Davis' and Presley's names on the list of Department defendants, their names were included because the two state officials have supervisory authority over the Department, and to the extent the claims against the Department were resolved, so were the claims against them. The claims against the Board were not resolved, however, nor were the claims against Davis or Presley that were based on their supervision of the Board. It is significant in this regard that there is no language in the settlement agreement providing that the Governor and the Secretary shall be dismissed as parties, or that all claims against them would be resolved by the agreement. 74 The simple fact is that the settlement agreement resolved only a portion of the issues between the plaintiffs and Davis and Presley, the two state officers who have jurisdiction over both the Department and the Board. While it might have been preferable to include a sentence stating explicitly that the Governor and the Secretary remain defendants in the instant portion of the lawsuit, such language was not essential. Thus, Davis and Presley properly remain parties to the litigation between the plaintiffs and the Board.