Todd Ashker v. Gavin Newsom, 968 F.3d 939

Class action challenged California’s practice of placing gang-affiliated prisoners in Security Housing Units (solitary) based on gang affiliation; parties settled in August 2015.
Paragraph 25 of the Settlement Agreement required eligible class members to be transferred from Security Housing to a General Population (Level IV 180-design) facility.
Paragraph 28 created a Restricted Custody General Population category for inmates unsafe in general population and called for programming “designed to provide increased opportunities for positive social interaction,” including yard/out-of-cell time “commensurate with Level IV GP in small group yards, in groups as determined by the Institution Classification Committee (ICC).”
California implemented transfers and Restricted Custody; some inmates were put on indefinite “walk-alone” status when no compatible small group would accept them, receiving individual fenced yards (limited physical contact) and restricted day-room release but access to phones, visitors, and programs.
Prisoners moved to enforce the settlement, arguing (1) transfers under ¶25 should have produced increased out-of-cell time and GP conditions, and (2) walk-alone fenced-yard/limited-contact practices violated ¶28; the district court agreed and ordered remedies; California appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ¶25 required specific General Population conditions (e.g., increased out-of-cell time) after transfer from Security Housing	¶25 requires placement in "actual" General Population conditions — sufficient yard, day room, programming, jobs, and social interaction	¶25 only requires transfer out of Security Housing to a GP facility; it does not mandate specific out-of-cell time or GP staffing/privileges	Court: ¶25 obligates transfer to GP facility only; no explicit out-of-cell/time terms were agreed, so no breach
Whether ¶28 required small-group yard time/physical contact for Restricted Custody walk-alone inmates	¶28 requires increased opportunities for positive social interaction, including small-group yards; walk-alone fenced yards and limited contact fail that requirement	¶28 is aspirational/programming-focused and vests ICC discretion to form groups; limited-contact measures are safety-based and do not defeat the paragraph	Court: ¶28 does not mandate minimum group sizes or absolute physical-contact rights; ICC discretion and safety limitations are permitted and California substantially complied

Parsons v. Ryan, 912 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 2018) (contract interpretation principles applied to settlement enforcement)
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 444 P.3d 97 (Cal. 2019) (California law: settlement agreements governed by contract principles)
State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., 281 P.3d 1000 (Cal. 2012) (plain meaning and mutual intent control contract interpretation)
Tanner v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 129 P.2d 383 (Cal. 1942) (courts may not insert terms not found in the agreement)
Cline v. Yamaga, 158 Cal. Rptr. 598 (Ct. App. 1979) (substantial compliance standard under California law)
Rouser v. White, 825 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining substantial compliance and when deviations are minor)