Opinion ID: 177118
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separate Hearing on Remedies

Text: Sheriff Arpaio contends that the district court did not give him an adequate opportunity to propose a plan for correcting the ongoing constitutional violations found by the district court. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Supreme Court held that the district court erred when, after finding ongoing constitutional violations in prisons operated by the Arizona Department of Corrections, it delegated responsibility for devising a remedial plan to a special master. Id. at 363, 116 S.Ct. 2174. Although the Arizona Department of Corrections was given an opportunity to object to the special master's proposed plan, [t]he State was entitled to far more than an opportunity for rebuttal. Id. [C]onsiderations of comity ... require giving the States the first opportunity to correct the errors made in the internal administration of their prisons. Id. at 362, 116 S.Ct. 2174. While Lewis is clear that prison officials must be given an opportunity to propose remedies in the first instance, the Supreme Court did not specify whether that opportunity must come after the district court finds ongoing constitutional violations. The Court did suggest that, ideally, a district court would first determine whether there are ongoing violations, then assign the state the task of devising a Constitutionally sound program to correct those constitutional violations, and then finally approve the state's plan subject to any amendments necessary to address well-founded objections raised by the prisoners. Id. at 362, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court recommended this procedure but did not require it. The district court did not err by requiring Sheriff Arpaio to propose remedies at the twelve-day hearing on the Renewed Motion to Terminate. District courts have broad discretion when it comes to trial management. See Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir.2001) (We review such challenges to trial court management for abuse of discretion.); Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir.2004) (A district court's refusal to bifurcate a trial is accordingly reviewed for an abuse of discretion.). Federal-state comity requires a district court to give prison officials an opportunity to propose remedies; the Constitution does not also dictate the precise timing for that proposal or how that proposal should be submitted for consideration by the court. Such logistical issues are best left to the district court's discretion. In light of the PLRA's clear instruction that a district court promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1), and the lower court's reasonable desire to act quickly to curb ongoing civil rights violations at Maricopa County jails, we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to hear evidence on both rights and remedies at one hearing.