Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
P. 1
Parsons 9th Cir Opinion 6-5-14

Parsons 9th Cir Opinion 6-5-14

Ratings: (0)|Views: 94 |Likes:
Published by cbsradionews
Parsons v. Ryan, 9th Circuit ruling affirming class action case brought by Arizona prisoners alleging 8th Amendment violations.
Parsons v. Ryan, 9th Circuit ruling affirming class action case brought by Arizona prisoners alleging 8th Amendment violations.

More info:

Published by: cbsradionews on Jun 05, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
V
ICTOR
A
 NTONIO
P
ARSONS
;
 
S
HAWN
J
ENSEN
;
 
S
TEVE
S
WARTZ
;
 
D
USTIN
B
RISLAN
;
 
S
ONIA
ODRIGUEZ
;C
HRISTINA
V
ERDUZCO
;
 
J
ACKIE
T
HOMAS
;
 
J
EREMY
S
MITH
;
 
OBERT
C
ARRASCO
G
AMEZ
,
 
J
.;
 
M
ARYANNE
C
HISHOLM
;
 
D
ESIREE
L
ICCI
;
 
J
OSEPH
H
EFNER 
;
 
J
OSHUA
P
OLSON
;C
HARLOTTE
W
ELLS
;
 
A
RIZONA
C
ENTER FOR
D
ISABILITY
L
AW
,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.C
HARLES
L.
 
YAN
;
 
ICHARD
P
RATT
,
 Defendants-Appellants
. No. 13-16396D.C. No.2:12-cv-00601- NVWOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, PresidingArgued and Submitted  November 6, 2013—San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled June 5, 2014Before: Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Reinhardt
Case: 13-16396 06/05/2014 ID: 9120594 DktEntry: 61-1 Page: 1 of 63
 
P
ARSONS V
.
 
YAN
2
SUMMARY
*
Prisoner Civil Rights/Class Action
The panel affirmed the district court’s order certifying aclass and a subclass of inmates in Arizona’s prison systemwho alleged that they were subjected to systemic EighthAmendment violations. The panel held that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in concluding that the putative class of inmates challenging Arizona Department of Corrections’health care policies and practices and the subclass of inmateschallenging the isolation unit polices and practices satisfiedthe requirements for class certification set forth in FederalRule of Civil Procedure 23. The panel held that certification of the class and subclasswas appropriate with respect to Rule 23(a)(2)’s requirementof commonality because plaintiffs’ claims set forth commoncontentions whose truth or falsity could be determined in onestroke: whether the specified statewide policies and practicesexposed them to a substantial risk of harm. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse itsdiscretion in determining that the named plaintiffs, inmates inArizona custody who alleged that they were exposed to asubstantial risk of harm by the challenged polices and practices, satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule23(a)(3).
*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Case: 13-16396 06/05/2014 ID: 9120594 DktEntry: 61-1 Page: 2 of 63
 
P
ARSONS V
.
 
YAN
3The panel held that considering the nature and contoursof the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the district court did notabuse its discretion in concluding that a single injunction anddeclaratory judgment could provide relief to each member of the proposed class and subclass and therefore that plaintiffssatisfied Rule 23(b)(2).
COUNSEL
 Nicholas D. Acedo (argued) and Daniel P. Struck, Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C., Chandler, Arizona; Thomas C.Horne, Arizona Attorney General, and Michael E. Gottfried,Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendants-Appellants.David C. Fathi (argued), ACLU National Prison Project,Washington, D.C.; Daniel Pochada, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Daniel C. Barr, Amelia M.Gerlicher, Kirstin T. Eidenbach, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix,Arizona; Caroline Mitchell, Jones Day, San Francisco,California; Donald Specter and Corene Kendrick, Prison LawOffice, Berkeley, California; John Laurens Wilkes, JonesDay, Houston, Texas; Jennifer K. Messina, Jones Day, NewYork, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.Catherine Weiss, Michael Hahn, Jason Halper, and MonicaPerrette, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland, New Jersey;Mark A. Chavez, Chavez & Gertler LLP, Mill Valley,California, for Amici Curiae American Friends ServiceCommittee, Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Children’sRights, Impact Fund, National Alliance on Mental Illness(NAMI), NAMI-Arizona, National Center for Youth Law, National Disability Rights Network, National Immigrant
Case: 13-16396 06/05/2014 ID: 9120594 DktEntry: 61-1 Page: 3 of 63

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->