Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10466

Background

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) operates statewide, centralized policies for medical, dental, mental-health care and isolation for ~33,000 inmates; Director Ryan and interim Health Services Director Pratt sued in official capacities.
Plaintiffs: thirteen inmates + Arizona Center for Disability Law allege systemic Eighth Amendment violations (deliberate indifference) from ADC policies and practices (e.g., understaffing, delays/denials of care, medication failures, substandard dental care, inadequate suicide prevention, severe isolation conditions).
Plaintiffs supported class-certification with a 74‑page complaint, hundreds of ADC/Wexford documents, and four unrebutted expert reports documenting statewide deficiencies and staffing shortfalls.
District court certified (Rule 23) a class for health care (all prisoners now/future subject to ADC medical/mental/dental policies) and a subclass for isolation (defined by 22+ hours/day confinement or certain housing), identifying 10 classwide health practices and 7 subclass isolation practices.
Defendants primarily argued individualization precludes commonality and that written policies (some newly revised) govern; they submitted minimal factual rebuttal and no expert counter‑reports.
Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed class and subclass certification, holding systemic claims about exposure to risk satisfy Rule 23(a)(2), (a)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) — do class members share common questions answerable in one stroke?	Parsons: ADC’s centralized, uniform policies and practices expose all inmates to a substantial risk of serious harm; the constitutionality of each specified statewide policy can be adjudicated classwide.	Ryan: Eighth Amendment healthcare and confinement claims are inherently individualized; Wal‑Mart bars class treatment because disparate circumstances among inmates prevent common answers.	Affirmed. Court: systemic, future‑risk Eighth Amendment claims can present common contentions (yes/no) about specified statewide policies; commonality satisfied.
Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) — are named plaintiffs’ claims typical of class?	Plaintiffs: Named inmates allege same injury (exposure to systemic risk) from same defendant policies; not necessary to be identically injured.	Ryan: Variation in named plaintiffs’ past injuries and needs undermines typicality and invites individualized defenses.	Affirmed. Typicality met because named claims are co‑extensive with class theory (same course of conduct and similar injuries).
Adequacy of Rule 23(b)(2) — is injunctive/declaratory relief appropriate for the class as a whole?	Plaintiffs: Uniform systemic policies produce classwide exposure; remedial injunctive relief (staffing, screening, chronic care, emergency response, medication, etc.) would provide relief to all class members.	Ryan: Any injunction would be too abstract or require individualized remedies; plaintiffs must provide detailed remedial plan.	Affirmed. Rule 23(b)(2) appropriate: single injunction can address the systemic policies applicable to whole class; detailed remedy can be refined later.
Evidentiary sufficiency at certification — did plaintiffs present enough proof of systemic policies?	Plaintiffs: Complaint, extensive internal ADC/Wexford documents, and four unrebutted expert reports provide significant proof of statewide policies/practices and risk.	Ryan: Plaintiffs’ proof is insufficient; reliance on anecdotal incidents and outdated/individual examples cannot show systemwide policy.	Affirmed. Court finds plaintiffs’ evidence (including unrebutted expert reports and internal documents) sufficient at certification stage; defendants failed to rebut.

Key Cases Cited

Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention answerable in one stroke)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment forbids deliberate indifference to substantial risk of future harm)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference to substantial risk of serious harm violates the Eighth Amendment)
Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) (distinguishes systemwide Eighth Amendment claims from isolated individual claims; systemic deficiencies can support injunctive relief)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (courts may consider merits to the extent relevant to Rule 23 analysis)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference framework for medical-care claims)
Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (policy/practice challenges that affect all class members inform typicality/commonality analysis)
Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1985) (recognizes systemic prison‑condition claims raising risk to multiple inmates)