732 F.3d 955
9th Cir.2013Background
- Since 1994, disabled state prisoners and parolees sue California for ADA/RA accommodations in prisons and county jails.
- Armstrong court previously held states must provide accommodations regardless of facility; housing in county jails not a shield.
- Realignment (2011) amended Cal. Penal Code § 3056, shifting some parole supervision to counties.
- Amendments in 2012 further altered custody provisions for parolees awaiting revocation or under revocation terms in county jails.
- District court issued April 2012 and August 28, 2012 orders to disseminate a Plan and track accommodations, which defendants resisted.
- Court holds amendments do not absolve state defendants of ADA/RA responsibility and affirms the district court’s enforcement orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do § 3056 amendments absolve defendants of ADA/RA duties for Armstrong class in county jails? | Armstrong class remains entitled to accommodations. | Amendments absolve state of responsibility during county-jail detention. | No; amendments do not relieve obligations. |
| Are the August 28 orders consistent with § 3056 and federal law? | Orders properly remediate ongoing violations with minimal burden. | Orders impermissibly alter the appeal’s status and broaden obligations. | Yes; orders are consistent and properly tailored. |
| Did Rule 62(c) allow district court to enforce pending injunction while appeal ongoing? | Court may preserve status quo to protect rights during appeal. | Appeal divests district court of enforcement authority. | District court properly exercised Rule 62(c) authority. |
| Does realignment eliminate state's ongoing responsibility to assist in remedies for ADA violations? | Realignment does not remove state liability or duty to aid counties. | Realignment shifts or reduces state responsibility. | State remains responsible; continued obligation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (state must provide ADA accommodations regardless of prison facility)
- Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2010) (state liable where it creates danger and familiarizes with risk)
- Hoffman for & on Behalf of NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1976) (continuing supervisory action permissible without divesting district court)
- Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) (appeal does not automatically terminate ongoing district court supervision)
- Bacon v. City of Richmond, 475 F.3d 633 (4th Cir. 2007) (distinction when a city is not found liable for discrimination itself)