Court Opinion

ID: 2963498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:59.183942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.490208
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 27, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1816

                           NICHOLAS A. PALMIGIANO, ET AL.,
                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                BRUCE SUNDLUN, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                
                                      __________

                                   KEITH A. WERNER,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Keith A. Werner on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Alvin J. Bronstein, Mark J. Lopez,  and National Prison Project of
            __________________  _____________       __________________________
        the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, on  brief for appellees
        _____________________________________________
        Nicholas A. Palmigiano, et al.
            Jeffrey  B. Pine,  Attorney  General, Maureen  G.  Glynn,  Special
            ________________                      __________________
        Assistant  Attorney  General, and  Anthony  A.  Cipriano, Chief  Legal
                                           _____________________
        Counsel,  Rhode  Island  Department   of  Corrections,  on  brief  for
        appellees Bruce Sundlun and Rhode Island Department of Corrections.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.     In  this   long-standing  class  action
                 ___________

            involving  prison conditions in Rhode Island, plaintiff Keith

            Werner  (a non-named  member of  the class)  appeals  from an

            order  denying his motion  to be  excluded from  a settlement

            agreement recently  adopted by the district court.  The class

            was  certified back  in 1976  as one  under Fed.  R.  Civ. P.

            23(b)(2).    As  plaintiff  himself  concedes,  there  is  no

            automatic  right to opt-out of  a Rule 23(b)(2)  class.  See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., Ticor  Title Ins. Co. v.  Brown, 114 S. Ct.  1359, 1361
            ____  _____________________     _____

            (1994).   Even if the district court had discretion to permit

            a  class  member  to  opt-out  in  this  context, see,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485,  487 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994), the
            ________    _____

            refusal to  do so cannot be  deemed error in a  case, such as

            this,  where only  equitable  relief has  been  sought.   See
                                                                      ___

            Palmigiano v. Garrahy,  443 F. Supp.  956, 959 (D.R.I.  1977)
            __________    _______

            ("No  damages are sought in this action.").  And the concerns

            underlying plaintiff's  request prove misplaced in any event.

            We decline to consider  the various constitutional challenges

            advanced  on appeal to the absence of an opt-out procedure in

            Rule 23(b)(2) proceedings,  inasmuch as  plaintiff failed  to

            raise  them below.   For  the same  reason, we  disregard his

            argument  that  the class  should  have  been decertified  or

            restructured at some point in the past.

                 Assuming arguendo that plaintiff  has standing to  raise
                          ________

            the issue, we also reject his perfunctory suggestion that the

            district court abused its discretion in adopting the  decree.

            Having reviewed the agreement in full, we find its provisions

            to be "fair, adequate,  and reasonable."  Durrett  v. Housing
                                                      _______     _______

            Auth.  of City  of Providence,  896 F.2d  600, 604  (1st Cir.
            _____________________________

            1990); accord, e.g., Conservation Law Foundation v. Franklin,
                   ______  ____  ___________________________    ________

            989 F.2d 54,  58-59 (1st Cir.  1993).  We  likewise find  the

            other  criteria  enumerated in  Durrett  to  have been  fully
                                            _______

            satisfied.

                 The  judgment  is  affirmed.     Appellant's  motion  to
                 ________________________________________________________

            supplement his reply brief is denied.
            _____________________________________

                                         -3-