MARCIANO PLATA; OTIS SHAW; RAY STODERD; JOSEPH LONG; LESLIE RHOADES; GILBERT AVILES; PAUL DECASAS; STEVEN BAUTISTA; RAYMOND JOHNS; ELIJAH J. SANDOVAL; GARY ALAN SMITH; CLIFFORD MYELLE; DONDI VAN HORN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of the State of California; JEFFREY A. BEARD, Dr., Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; ANA J. MATOSANTOS, Director of the Department of Finance, Defendants-Appellants, J. CLARK KELSO, Receiver-Appellee.
No. 13-15466
D.C. No. 3:01-cv-01351-TEH
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted September 11, 2013—San Francisco, California. Filed May 28, 2014
Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Opinion by Judge Schroeder;
Dissent by Judge Bybee
SUMMARY**
Prisoner Civil Rights
The panel construed an appeal, filed by California Governor Jerry Brown and state officials, as a petition for writ of mandamus and so construed, denied the petition in an ongoing prison class action concerning the provision of health care in California prisons.
* The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
The panel determined that because the district court‘s order was interlocutory and procedural in nature, and did not resolve any issue on the merits, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over the matter. The panel construed the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and considered the issues under the factors set forth in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977).
The panel held that district court‘s order was a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intended to rely upon in a motion to terminate. The order established a schedule for expert disclosures that was consistent with the State‘s own time line, and it did not affect the operation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act‘s automatic stay. Because the panel upheld the district court‘s order as consistent with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, it did not reach plaintiffs’ claim that without the notice provisions of the order, the automatic stay provision violated due process.
COUNSEL
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda (argued), Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellants.
Donald Specter, Rebekah Evenson, Kelly Knapp (argued), Prison Law Office, Berkeley, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
We deal with still another phase of litigation aimed at curing egregious constitutional violations in the operation of the California prison system. The Supreme Court in 2011 said the violations “remain uncorrected” after having “persisted for years.” Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1922 (2011). The Court there affirmed a three-judge district court order releasing prisoners in accordance with the strictures of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA“).
After the Supreme Court affirmed the three-judge court decision concerning the release orders in this case, the three-judge court in early 2013 asked the State when it intended to file a motion to terminate. The district court had appointed experts to evaluate the prisons’ progress and had established a schedule for reporting.
The State, anxious to end the entire litigation, responded to the three-judge court in February 2013 that it hoped to be able to file a motion to terminate the injunctive relief within a few months. Plaintiffs indicated their need to file an informed response to any such motion, so the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery. The court ordered the State to disclose its expert witnesses and their reports at least 120 days before it filed a motion to terminate relief. This would provide Plaintiffs and the court with the ability to understand and evaluate the basis for the motion.
The State filed a notice of appeal seeking our court‘s review of that order. The State contends that the order violates the PLRA by delaying its ability to move for termination and thus delaying the automatic stay that would follow after thirty days elapsed without a district court
It follows that the district court‘s order does not affect the availability of the automatic stay, since it would only be triggered thirty days after the filing of the motion, and then only if the district court failed to reach a decision within that time period. The district court has violated no statutory time limits.
The appropriateness of the order in this case becomes apparent with an understanding of the background of the PLRA and the historic complexity of this litigation. A time line of this litigation is attached as Appendix A.
With respect to appellate jurisdiction, we conclude that the order itself is not appealable, but the issues are sufficiently significant to warrant review by mandamus. We ultimately deny relief.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Congress enacted the PLRA in order to expedite prison litigation and place control over prisons back into the hands of state and local officials. See 141 Cong. Rec. S14418 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1995) (statement of Sen. Hatch); 141 Cong. Rec.
Under the PLRA, a defendant in prison litigation may move to terminate any prospective relief two years after the date the court approved the relief.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2001, Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of California prisoners alleging that defects in the prison healthcare system violated the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). Early in the litigation, the parties entered into two consent decrees. The first, in 2002, required the State to implement various remedial measures to ensure the provision of constitutionally adequate healthcare in California prisons. Id. When little progress had been made by 2004, the parties entered into an additional consent decree designed to ensure the competency of medical
When no prison had successfully implemented these remedial measures by 2005, the district court issued an order to show cause as to why the State should not be held in contempt and why the court should not appoint a receiver to manage prison healthcare. Id. The court found that the State had “repeatedly delayed [its] progress and ultimately failed to achieve even a semblance of compliance” with the consent decrees. In early 2006, the court appointed a receiver. Id. at 1092.
In 2007, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge court to address whether a prisoner release order was warranted. Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1922; see also
In early 2012, the district court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding post-receivership planning. Several months later, the district court entered an order setting forth a receivership transition plan, which included a requirement that court-appointed experts evaluate the state of medical care at each prison.
On January 29, 2013, the three-judge court directed the State to answer whether it intended to file a motion to terminate prospective relief in Plata and, if so, when it intended to file such a motion. Several weeks earlier, the State had moved to terminate prospective relief in Coleman
In its response filed February 12, 2013, the State represented that it would move to terminate relief if the court-appointed experts “fail to conduct an appropriate or timely evaluation of the prison medical care system,” and that it would be ready to do so “in a few months.” Concerned that they would not have sufficient time to prepare a response to the State‘s motion before the PLRA‘s automatic stay took effect, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to reopen discovery, and the court granted it.
The district court then entered the order on review here. The court found that it would be “fundamentally unfair” to allow the State an unlimited amount of time to prepare its motion to terminate, while providing Plaintiffs only the limited time allowed by the PLRA‘s automatic stay provision to prepare an adequate opposition. Citing the complexity of the case, the need for detailed factual inquiry to determine whether the case should be terminated, the restrictions of the PLRA‘s automatic stay provision, and the requirements of
The State filed a notice of appeal from the district court‘s order, arguing that it impermissibly extended both the time when defendants may move to terminate prospective relief under the PLRA and the time at which the PLRA‘s automatic stay would take effect. Plaintiffs question whether this court has jurisdiction to review the district court‘s order.
There is a threshold issue of jurisdiction, for Plaintiffs point out that the district court‘s order is interlocutory, procedural in nature, and does not resolve any issue on the merits. They correctly contend that we lack appellate jurisdiction under
The State offers four grounds for appellate jurisdiction, none of which are sufficient. The State first argues that the district court‘s order is appealable as a post-judgment order. We have held that an order entered after the underlying dispute has been settled is appealable because it does not implicate the concern with avoiding piecemeal appellate review that underlies the final judgment rule. United States v. State of Washington, 761 F.2d 1404, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 1995). Review of the order here, however, does raise the problem of piecemeal review, because this particular litigation has been in the post-judgment, remedial phase since the entry of the first consent decree in 2002. Such consent decrees operate as final judgments. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[C]onsent decrees are considered final judgments . . . .“). The district court has since 2002 entered a number of orders designed to facilitate the State‘s compliance with the consent decrees and help draw this case to a close. If this order were immediately appealable as a post-judgment order, then every scheduling order setting the framework for further
The State also argues that the district court‘s order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. This doctrine provides that some rulings that do not end the litigation will be deemed final because they are “too important to be denied review” and too independent of the merits of the case to require deferral of review. Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546; see also Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009). To warrant review under the collateral order doctrine, the order must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs point out that because the order is essentially a scheduling order, it does not conclusively determine or resolve any issue. Moreover, the State‘s argument regarding the collateral order doctrine suffers from the same problem as its argument with respect to post-judgment orders. The collateral order doctrine is a “narrow exception” that “should stay that way and never be allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal . . . .” Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994) (internal citation omitted); see also Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 106. Applying the collateral order doctrine here would open the door to piecemeal review of a large class
The State‘s final arguments regarding jurisdiction arise from the PLRA itself. The PLRA provides that “[a]ny order staying, suspending, delaying, or barring the operation of the automatic stay . . . shall be treated as an order refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction and shall be appealable pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §] 1292(a)(1) . . . .”
Lack of jurisdiction over an appeal does not necessarily foreclose review by this court if the issues raised are significant enough to warrant review by mandamus. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that mandamus is appropriate to review a discovery order that raises novel and important questions); Medhekar v. United States District Court, 99 F.3d 325, 327 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that mandamus is an especially appropriate vehicle for review where the court is confronted with an issue of first impression). We may construe an appeal of an otherwise non-appealable order as a petition for
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be obtained only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Miller, 333 F.3d at 895 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court reviews the district court‘s order for clear error and grants the writ only where the district court has usurped its power or clearly abused its discretion. Id. (citation omitted). Under the five factors set forth in Bauman, we consider:
(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such as direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court‘s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court‘s order is an oft-repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the district court‘s order raises new and important problems or issues of first impression.
Perry, 591 F.3d at 1156 (citing Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654–55).
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CLEARLY ERR IN ISSUING THE ORDER THAT REQUIRES DISCLOSURE AND NOTICE
The district court‘s order was entered after twelve years of litigation and with an eye toward bringing it to a close. The district court had appointed experts to evaluate the state of medical care at the prisons, and the State had retained its own experts. The district court‘s order requires the State to provide the court and Plaintiffs with copies of its experts’ reports at least 120 days before the State moves to terminate relief.
The PLRA itself, of course, provides that a defendant may move to terminate injunctive relief under a consent decree when two years have elapsed since its imposition.
The State in this case did not file a motion to terminate after two years. As a practical matter, the State in this particular case could not have moved to terminate after two years. At that point, medical care at the prisons had not come close to constitutional standards. In 2005—more than two years after the entry of the first consent decree—the district court found that “the California prison medical care system [was] broken beyond repair,” resulting in an “unconscionable degree of suffering and death.” A motion to terminate would likely have been futile.
The State has not indicated that it is ready to file a termination motion now. It nevertheless contends that the district court‘s order violates the PLRA by requiring the State to provide notice to the court and Plaintiffs before it files such a motion.
The PLRA does not mandate the filing of motions to terminate at any particular time. The district court in this case took no action that prevented the State from filing a motion. The State had never tried to file one and does not represent it is in a position to file one now.
The district court‘s order was thus premised on the State‘s own representations as to when it might file a motion. The order is therefore not based on an interpretation of the statute, but upon the circumstances of this case. The State indicated that it would need several months to prepare a motion to terminate; the practical effect of the court‘s order is to require the State, while it is preparing its motion, to disclose the experts’ reports upon which the motion will rely.
The district court‘s order does not preclude a request for modification of its terms; none has been made. The order is intended to provide the court and parties adequate notice of the evidence and the arguments supporting or opposing termination.
Moreover, nothing in the text of the PLRA prevents the district court from setting a schedule for expert disclosures. The district court‘s order is consistent with its broad authority to manage complex litigation. See
Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require pretrial notice of the expert witnesses and reports to be relied upon. See
The relief ordered in this case is complex and has affected thirty-three different institutions for nearly twelve years. See Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1939 (noting the “long history of failed remedial orders” in the case). Providing Plaintiffs with notice that the State intends to file a motion to terminate will allow both the State and Plaintiffs to have an adequate record on which the district court may decide the merits of the motion. With the benefit of informed briefing from both parties, the district court will be able to make a timely ruling on a motion to terminate, as the PLRA contemplates. See
It appears that the State‘s more practical concern is with obtaining the automatic stay that the PLRA mandates if the district court does not rule on the motion to terminate within thirty days. See
The State asserts that the court‘s order violates the statute by delaying the operation of the stay. Yet pursuant to the statute, the stay is triggered only by the district court‘s failing to decide a termination motion within thirty days. If no motion has been filed, there can have been no decisional delay triggering the stay.
The words of the statute expressly limit the judge‘s time to decide a motion to terminate.
The district court‘s order is consistent with the Supreme Court‘s decision in Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327. There the Court held that the PLRA prohibits district courts from exercising their equitable authority to suspend the operation of the automatic stay. Id. at 338. The order here does not affect the operation of the automatic stay. Any possible stay of relief is conditioned on two events that have not yet occurred: the filing of a motion to terminate, and the district court‘s failure to rule on that motion within the time allowed.
The order thus also furthers the purpose of the automatic stay provision by ensuring that the district court has the information it needs to rule quickly on a motion to terminate. On the basis of the record before this court, there is no reason to hold the district court‘s order has prejudiced the State in any way.
CONCLUSION
The district court‘s order is a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and Plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intends to rely upon in a motion to terminate. The order establishes a schedule for expert disclosures that is consistent with the State‘s own time line, and it does not affect the operation of the automatic stay. There was no clear error in the district court‘s issuance of the order.
Because we uphold the district court‘s order as consistent with the provisions of the statute, we need not reach Plaintiffs’ claim that without the notice provisions of the order, the automatic stay provision violates due process.
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| April 5, 2001 | Plaintiffs file their Complaint. |
| June 13, 2002 | District court approves the parties’ stipulation and order for injunctive relief. |
| September 17, 2004 | District court approves the parties’ stipulation and order regarding the quality of patient care and staffing. |
| May 10, 2005 | District court orders the State to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with prior orders and why the court should not appoint a receiver to manage the prison health care system. |
| October 3, 2005 | District court issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the order to show cause. District court states that it will hold the contempt citation in abeyance and establish a receivership to remedy constitutional violations. |
| February 14, 2006 | District court appoints a receiver and suspends the authority of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. |
| November 13, 2006 | Plaintiffs move to convene a three-judge court to address whether prison overcrowding violates their constitutional rights. |
| July 23, 2007 | District court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge court. |
| July 26, 2007 | Ninth Circuit designates a three-judge court. |
| January 28, 2009 | State moves to replace the receiver with a special master and to terminate the receiver‘s plan regarding construction of additional prisons. |
| March 24, 2009 | District Court denies the State‘s motion to replace the receiver with a special master and to terminate the receiver‘s plan regarding construction of additional prisons. |
| August 4, 2009 | Three-judge court orders reduction of the prison population. |
| April 30, 2010 | Ninth Circuit affirms the district court‘s denial of the State‘s motion to replace the receiver with a special |
| May 23, 2011 | Supreme Court affirms the order of the three-judge court requiring reduction of the prison population. |
| September 5, 2012 | District court issues an order setting forth a plan to transition from the receiver to a special master and to begin expert evaluations of California‘s prisons. |
| January 29, 2013 | Three-judge court directs the State to answer whether it intends to file a termination motion. |
| February 12, 2013 | State represents in its response and objections to the January 29, 2013 order of the three-judge court that if court-appointed experts “fail to conduct an appropriate or timely evaluation of the prison medical care system,” the state will file a termination motion “in a few months.” |
| February 14, 2013 | Plaintiffs move to reopen discovery. |
| February 19, 2013 | District court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery. |
| February 21, 2013 | District court orders a schedule for expert disclosures should the state opt to file a termination motion. |
| March 11, 2013 | State appeals the district court‘s February 21, 2013 order. |
BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
This case arises out of serious constitutional violations throughout California‘s prison system. Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011). The complexity of the case notwithstanding, the sole issue before our panel is nominally procedural. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA“) provides that “[t]he court shall promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions.”
I respectfully dissent.
I
“[O]ne of the purposes of the [PLRA] was to restrict severely the intrusion of the judiciary into the operation of prisons.” Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). For this reason, the PLRA provides that prospective relief “shall extend no further than necessary to
In addition, the PLRA provides standards and timetables by which prospective relief may be terminated. There are two relevant provisions here. First,
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener–
(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief;
(ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the [PLRA], 2 years after such date of enactment.
Second, the PLRA accelerates rulings on motions for termination. Specifically, the PLRA provides that district courts “shall promptly rule” on such motions and authorizes mandamus relief for failure to do so.
II
The district court‘s order violates the plain and unambiguous command of the PLRA that all prospective relief orders “become[] terminable, at the latest, two years after [their] imposition.” Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 999; see also Berwanger v. Cottey, 178 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 1999) (“What subsection (b)(1) does is identify a class of cases that are eligible for termination: that is, cases in which a district court must entertain motions to terminate prospective relief.“). Congress did not carve out any exceptions to this mandate, not even for complex cases involving large prison systems. The State therefore had the right to move for termination at any point 2 years after relief was entered.
The purpose and effect of the district court‘s order is to delay the operation of the automatic stay. See
III
The majority rationalizes the district court‘s order by arguing that it is “consistent with [the district court‘s] broad authority to manage complex litigation.” Maj. Op. at 16. In fact, the majority says, the order is based not “on an interpretation of the statute, but [rather on] the circumstances of this case.” Maj. Op. at 16.
To allow courts to exercise their equitable discretion to prevent the stay from “operating” during this statutorily prescribed period would be to contradict § 3626(e)(2)‘s plain terms. It would mean that the motion to terminate merely may operate as a stay, despite the statute‘s command that it “shall” have such effect. . . .
Viewing the automatic stay provision in the context of § 3626 as a whole [ ] confirms that Congress intended to prohibit federal courts from exercising their equitable authority to suspend operation of the automatic stay.
Next, the majority asserts that “nothing in the text of the PLRA prevents the district court from setting a schedule for expert disclosures.” Maj. Op. at 16. I agree that the PLRA does not expressly forbid district courts from setting
In addition, the majority emphasizes that the State did not file a motion to terminate 2 years after relief was entered, that a motion filed at that time likely would have been futile, and
Finally, the majority contends that the State has not triggered the automatic stay provision‘s 30-day clock because it has not yet filed a motion to terminate prospective relief. Maj Op. at 18. That is correct as far as it goes, but blaming the State for failing to trigger the 30-day clock ignores the fact that the district court has intervened to delay the triggering event itself. The federal courts cannot circumvent congressional intent so easily. Thus, although I agree with the majority that the 30-day clock is not yet ticking, I nonetheless would conclude that the district court‘s order delays the operation of the automatic stay.4 Were it not so, a district
IV
As courts of law, we are frequently called upon to enforce timetables prescribed by statute or rule. Sometimes these are jurisdictional. See, e.g., Bowles, 551 U.S. at 208–15 (enforcing
And, although less common, Congress sometimes has imposed strict deadlines on us as well. See, e.g.,
Sometimes we have exercised our discretion to extend statutory or regulatory deadlines when we have felt that tolling or some other equitable principle has demanded it. See, e.g., Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is available in FTCA actions); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that petitioner may obtain equitable tolling during periods when he is prevented from filing a motion to reopen removal proceedings “because of a deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner acts with due diligence” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (articulating a two-part test to determine whether a mental impairment amounts to an “extraordinary
V
Absent statutory interference, district courts have broad discretion in managing their cases. But here, the PLRA decrees that all prospective relief orders become terminable, at the latest, 2 years after their imposition. Not 2 years and 1 day, and certainly not 2 years and 120 days, as required by the district court‘s order and upheld by the majority today. I respectfully dissent.