Opinion ID: 3201252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: We first address the applicable constitutional standard and then turn to the injunction’s remedial scope. Because “[a] permanent injunction involves factual, legal, and discretionary components, . . . [w]e review legal conclusions . . . de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the scope of the injunction for abuse of discretion.” Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. C.I.A, 811 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). I. DUE PROCESS REASONABLENESS GOVERNS THE TIMING OF COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS We begin with the premise that due process analysis governs pretrial detention: “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (setting presumptively reasonable time limits on immigration detention); see also LopezValenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 777–80 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (summarizing case law applying substantive due process to the fundamental liberty interests of pretrial detainees). 10 This principle was reinforced in Mink, where we held that “[p]retrial detainees, whether or not they have been declared unfit to proceed, have not been convicted of any crime. Therefore, constitutional questions regarding the . . . circumstances of their confinement are properly addressed under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” 322 F.3d at 1120. Addressing the circumstance of individuals who had been evaluated and found incompetent, but were awaiting treatment, we held that waiting “in jail for weeks or months violates . . . due process rights because the nature and duration of their incarceration bear no reasonable relation to the evaluative and restorative purposes for which courts commit those individuals.” Id. at 1122. Mink adopted the framework set out in two Supreme Court cases: Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) and Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In Jackson, the Supreme Court articulated a general “rule of reasonableness” limiting the duration of pretrial detention for incompetent defendants and requiring, at a minimum, “that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” 406 U.S. at 733, 738. Thus, “[w]hether the substantive due process rights of incapacitated criminal defendants have been violated must be determined by balancing their liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and in restorative treatment against the 11 legitimate interests of the state.” Mink, 322 F.3d at 1121 (citing Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321). Although the specifics of the calculus may vary, the framework set out in Jackson, and applied to restorative competency services in Mink, is equally applicable to individuals awaiting competency evaluations. Weighing the parties’ respective interests, there must be a “reasonable relation” between the length of time from the court order to the inception of the competency evaluation. Essentially for the first time on appeal, DSHS argues that the district court applied the wrong constitutional provision to Trueblood’s claims because the more specific Sixth Amendment speedy trial right supercedes substantive due process analysis where plaintiffs challenge delay, rather than the fact or conditions of confinement.4 We exercise our “limited discretion to consider purely legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal,” Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted), in order to put to rest the 4 Throughout this litigation, DSHS invoked the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for its arguments. The district court did not consider the Sixth Amendment either at summary judgment or at the trial. DSHS contends that two references to the Sixth Amendment in its trial brief were sufficient to raise the argument before the district court or, alternatively, that as a pure question of law, we should consider the Sixth Amendment argument on appeal. 12 state’s effort to shift the focus of the litigation and because consideration of the legal issue at this stage will not prejudice the class members. The Sixth Amendment is ill-suited to the claim on appeal. Unlike in Sixth Amendment cases, these class members do not seek relief from prejudicial delays in their criminal prosecutions. Their complaint is that they should receive a timely determination of competency—a go or no-go decision on whether their criminal proceedings will move forward and whether they are eligible for restorative services. Many of them will never be tried, or might not be tried until after a lengthy restorative treatment process. Their focus is not the guarantee of a speedy trial. To determine whether there has been a speedy trial violation, courts balance the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). In United States v. Sutcliffe, we excluded delays due to competency issues from both the statutory and constitutional speedy trial analysis in part because “the delays were all either directly caused by Defendant or . . . were deemed necessary in the interests of justice.” 505 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2007). Our sister circuits are in accord that competency-related delays are not relevant to the speedy trial 13 inquiry.5 We reject the state’s argument that the Sixth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, provides the framework for Trueblood’s claims. II. DUE PROCESS REASONABLENESS DOES NOT COMPEL COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS TO BE COMPLETED IN SEVEN DAYS We recognize the challenges inherent in the district court’s task of setting a reasonable time frame, particularly in light of the state’s history of non-compliance with its own performance targets and with court orders. As the district court found, the state has “demonstrated a consistent pattern of intentionally disregarding court orders . . . and [has] established a de facto policy of ignoring court orders which conflict with [its] internal policies.” The state acknowledges that “some of the waiting periods are excessive and indefensible.” In fashioning a remedy, however, the district court did not ask whether there was some reasonable relation between the timing and the confinement, nor did it distinguish sufficiently between the pre- and post-evaluation categories at issue. 5 See, e.g., United States v. DeGarmo, 450 F.3d 360, 362-63 (8th Cir. 2006) (competency delays not considered under statutory or constitutional speedy trial analysis, even where the defendant did not request the competency evaluation and the evaluation took longer than the state statute required); United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 777 (6th Cir. 2002) (sixty-six day competency delay not presumptively prejudicial under the Sixth Amendment); United States v. Vasquez, 918 F.2d 329, 333, 337-38 (2d Cir. 1990) (even unreasonable delays in competency evaluations not considered in determining whether the right to a speedy trial was violated). 14 The findings and conclusions elide what is a reasonable delay when providing restorative services with what is a reasonable delay when conducting initial competency evaluations, often assessing both categories together under the rubric of “competency services.” Yet, both the class members and the state have different interests at the pre-evaluation stage than they do once a finding of incompetency has issued. The state, correctly observing that the categories of pre- and postevaluation class members are distinct, does not challenge the seven-day deadline for providing restorative services. In Mink, all of the detainees had been found incompetent and had a distinct “liberty interest[] in freedom from incarceration” so they could receive restorative treatment. 322 F.3d at 1121. The state had no legitimate interest in keeping them “locked up in county jails for weeks or months” following an incompetency determination. Id. The interests to be weighed before a finding of incompetency bear a similarity to the Mink situation, but are factually distinct. The state argues that it has an interest in accurate evaluations, preventing the stigma of an incorrect determination, avoiding undue separation of a detainee from her counsel and family, and protecting the detainee’s rights to counsel and against selfincrimination. In contrast, Trueblood claims a legitimate interest in mitigating the harm caused to detainees who languish in jail awaiting a competency 15 determination and in reducing the impact of solitary confinement and other conditions often imposed on mentally ill detainees who are awaiting evaluation. The court’s findings neither weigh the interests related to competency evaluations as distinct from other competency services, nor benchmark these interests against a range of constitutionally acceptable timeframes. With respect to the evaluation deadline, the district court did not articulate a sufficiently strong constitutional foundation to support the mandatory injunction. Indeed, the findings are couched in terms of what is “reasonable and achievable,” not whether the state’s present fourteen-day requirement bears the constitutionally requisite reasonable relationship, or whether the balancing of interests requires a seven-day deadline. Seven days, while perhaps feasible, does not constitute a bright line after which any delay crosses the constitutional Rubicon. Indeed, most jurisdictions in the United States do not require initial competency evaluations to be carried out in seven days. According to the state’s expert report, the national average for competency evaluation deadlines is thirty-one days, while fifteen states have no specific statutory deadline for evaluations, and only six have deadlines under ten days. Federal law allows up to thirty days for federal detainees. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). The district court did not consider any less restrictive alternatives, nor did it identify any reason why Washington should be held to such 16 a restrictive rule other than that “[w]ith appropriate planning, coordination, and resources” nothing prevented DSHS from “providing competency services within seven days.” But even if the seven-day time frame is not constitutionally mandated, that does not mean that Washington should let up on achieving its seven-day target. The injunction has two other deficiencies. First, it mandates compliance within seven days of the signing of a competency evaluation order, not receipt of an order by DSHS. This requirement goes beyond what Trueblood requested and fails to account for any period from issuance of the court order to receipt. To be sure, neither the court nor the state should dally, but practical impediments, such as intervening weekends or the time necessary to obtain documents, can eat up the time period. Notably, even Trueblood’s expert stated only that the majority of evaluations could be completed within ten days of the receipt of a court order. Second, the permanent injunction currently excludes the possibility of an extension for delays attributable to non-clinical interests of a detainee awaiting evaluation, including the unavailability of defense counsel or a defense expert. In such cases, after the evaluation deadline has passed, the criminal defendant would automatically be moved to a state psychiatric hospital, often far from his lawyer and family, and then transferred back to jail if he is found competent, all without 17 the detainee’s consent. To honor the state’s interests in accurate and efficient evaluations and the defendant’s right to counsel, the district court should consider a broader “good cause” exception. The question then remains: what constitutes a reasonable time in which to conduct the evaluations? We leave the answer to the district court in the first instance, but note that federal courts have often looked to a state’s own policies for guidance because “appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379 (1976); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996) (concluding that a federal injunction had “failed to give adequate consideration to the views of state [] authorities”). During the course of this litigation, Washington amended its law to set a fourteen-day maximum time limit for competency evaluations, although the legislation incorporated a non-binding seven-day performance goal. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.068. The court’s findings and conclusions do not take into consideration this legislative change, nor do they consider whether this time limit 18 would pass constitutional muster.6 On remand, the district court should evaluate the effects of the revised legislation.