304 F.R.D. 683
D. Colo.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (three inmates) sued Colorado DOC Executive Director and CSP Warden alleging a policy of denying outdoor exercise to all inmates in administrative segregation violates the Eighth Amendment; they seek injunctive relief to provide regular outdoor exercise.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class defined as all current and future inmates in CSP administrative segregation subject to the no-outdoor-exercise policy; Defendants opposed certification and sought to challenge exhaustion and manageability.
- Plaintiffs submitted evidence that at least 500 inmates are currently in administrative segregation at CSP and that DOC policy requires progression through four levels typically lasting a minimum of nine months; Defendants concede a uniform policy applies to all class members while in segregation.
- Defendants argued (1) PLRA exhaustion requires each class member to exhaust, and (2) individual differences in duration of deprivation defeat commonality/manageability; Plaintiffs argued vicarious exhaustion by named plaintiffs and that the uniform policy produces classwide issues.
- The court found Rule 23(a) factors satisfied (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and that Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief is appropriate because the defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and requested classwide injunctive relief.
- The court denied a motion to consolidate the class action with an earlier individual case (Moore) because parties, relief sought (class injunctive relief v. individual monetary damages), and plaintiff representation differed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity: Is joinder impracticable? | At least 500 inmates in segregation; class is fluid with new inmates—joinder impracticable. | PLRA exhaustion means each class member must have exhausted, undermining numerosity. | Numerosity satisfied; named plaintiffs' exhaustion suffices (vicarious exhaustion) so class joinder impracticable. |
| Commonality: Do common questions exist? | Uniform DOC policy denying outdoor exercise creates common legal/factual question whether policy violates Eighth Amendment. | Whether deprivation is unconstitutional depends on each inmate's duration in segregation, causing individualized inquiries. | Commonality satisfied: policy uniformly denies exercise and DOC’s policies require minimum ~9 months, creating classwide Eighth Amendment claims. |
| Typicality/Adequacy: Are named plaintiffs typical and adequate? | Named plaintiffs are subject to same policy and have suffered prolonged denial; counsel experienced. | No significant conflict identified. | Typicality and adequacy satisfied: claims align and counsel adequate. |
| Rule 23(b)(2): Is classwide injunctive relief appropriate? | Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable; injunctive relief can be fashioned to apply classwide. | Variations in deprivation length and individualized remedies defeat (b)(2) cohesion. | (b)(2) satisfied: court can fashion appropriate classwide injunction; PLRA/Rule 65(d) concerns manageable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to show Rule 23(a) prerequisites).
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (district court discretion in class certification).
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution).
- DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) (requirements for Rule 23(b)(2) class injunctive relief and cohesiveness).
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (total denial of exercise for extended period can state Eighth Amendment claim).
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (purpose of PLRA exhaustion).
- Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004) (vicarious exhaustion for prisoner class actions).
- Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (one class member’s exhaustion can satisfy PLRA for the class).
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (class exhaustion satisfied if at least one member exhausted).