University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Valdivia v. Davis PC-CA-0052
Docket / Court 2:94-cv-00671 ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Prison Conditions
Special Collection California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article
Attorney Organization Prison Law Office
Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld
Youth Law Center
Case Summary
On May 2, 1994, a group of California parolees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California. Specifically, plaintiffs challenged California's parole revocation procedures under the Fourteenth ... read more >
On May 2, 1994, a group of California parolees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California. Specifically, plaintiffs challenged California's parole revocation procedures under the Fourteenth Amendment and alleged that the state violated their due process rights.

On December 1, 1994, the Court (Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton) certified a class defined as California parolees (1) who are at large; (2) who are in custody as alleged parole violators awaiting revocation of their parole status; or (3) who are in custody having been found in violation of parole.

For the next several years, the parties engaged in prolonged discovery. On June 13, 2002, the Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that California's parole revocation system failed to safeguard plaintiffs' due process rights under Morrissey, 408 U.S. 481, 487-90 (1972). The Court's order emphasized that, in order to ensure adequate due process, probable cause hearings must be both accurate and promptly-held. Valdivia v. Davis, 206 F.Supp. 2d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2002). Four months later, on October 18, 2002, the Court ordered defendants to file a proposed remedial plan to address the identified due process violations.

On March 17, 2003, defendants presented their proposed Valdivia Remedial Plan (VRP), which added a preliminary Probable Cause Hearing (PCH) to the parole revocation process. Plaintiffs filed objections to the VRP related to the timing and substance of the PCH. On July 23, 2003, the Court set forth the following minimum standards for hearing: that they be conducted by a neutral decision-maker, that parolees have an opportunity to present documentary evidence and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and that the hearing's results be documented in a written report. Valdivia v. Davis, July 23, 2003.

In November 2003, the parties filed a stipulated order for permanent injunctive relief, which the Court approved in March 2004; this injunction included for alternative sanctions for minor parole violations, a PCH within 10 days after a parolee is notified of charges, a revocation hearing no later than 35 days after a parole hold is placed, and appointment of attorneys to represent all parolees facing revocation proceedings.

The parties then fought for years over compliance issues:
  • Defendants moved, successfully, for the appointment of a Special Master, and on December 16, 2005, the Court appointed Chase Riveland to the position. The Special Master has subsequently filed thirteen reports with the court addressing the implementation of the VRP.
  • On June 9, 2005, the Court found defendants in violation of the permanent injunction by virtue of a policy decision to prohibit the consideration and use of electronic in-home detention (EID) and substance abuse treatment control units as sanctions in lieu of parole revocation.
  • On August 31, 2005, the Court ordered that parolees' counsel receive access to information in their client's parole field files without any limitations or restrictions on disclosing the information to the parolee based on perceived risk of harm to the parolee's mental health.
  • On September 15, 2006, the Court ordered the case related to L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-GGH (E.D. Cal.).
  • On November 13, 2006, the Court ordered implementation of the recommendations contained in the Special Master's 9/14/06 report, including improving their information systems and maintaining the infrastructure needed for self-monitoring. The Court noted that the information system changes should be coordinated with the changes already underway pursuant to a court order from Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 4:94-cv-02307-CW (N.D. Cal.).
  • On April 4, 2007, the Court entered a stipulated order requiring defendants to take certain steps to ensure timely compliance with the remedial sanctions provisions of the permanent injunction. These steps included, among others, adding more beds as part of the In Custody Drug Treatment Program (ICDTP), increasing the number of operational EID units, as well as distributing information regarding their updated policies and procedures.
  • On January 14, 2008, the Court ordered that defendants undertake, in consultation with plaintiff attorneys and the special master, efforts to afford due process to parolees who appear too mentally ill to participate in parole revocation proceedings.
  • On March 25, 2008, the Court adopted the report and recommendations of the Special Master, which held that use of hearsay evidence in parole revocation proceedings would be limited by parolee's confrontation rights as established by controlling law. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 548 F.Supp.2d 852 (E.D. Cal. 2008). This decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. 603 F.Supp.2d 1275 (E.D. Cal 2009).
  • On August 7, 2008, the Court ordered specific procedures for Defendants upon taking custody of parolees who may have mental health problems. This order was prompted by a motion submitted jointly by plaintiff classes in this case and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (see PC-CA-0002).
  • On April 12, 2010, the district court found Defendants in substantial compliance with the injunction's requirements regarding designation of information as confidential, consideration of remedial sanctions at each step, remedial sanctions order requirements for female parolees, and out of county transfers.
  • On December 2, 2010 the district court held that the defendants had met the requirements of the court's April 4, 2007 order and the return to custody assessment step of the revocation process for all facilities, including Los Angeles County Jail. Moreover, the court found defendants in violation of the November 13, 2006 order concerning information system changes. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 4983396 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010).
  • On May 13, 2011, the Court found the Defendants in substantial compliance with the injunction's requirements that Plaintiffs' counsel have access to the information reasonably necessary to monitor compliance and that Deputy Commissioners shall not have authority to increase the Return to Custody Assessment at the PCH.

On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 9, which altered a number of the parameters for the parole revocation systems that had been mandated by the VRP. Plaintiffs moved to enjoin enforcement of portions of Proposition 9 as conflicting with the VRP; defendants cross-moved to modify the VRP to conform to the new law. After hearing, the Court denied the defendants' motion and granted plaintiffs' motion in substantial part. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (E.D. Cal. 2009). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the court erred by failing to make an express determination that Proposition 9 violated constitutional rights or that the injunction was necessary to remedy a constitutional violation. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2010). On remand, the Court determined several aspects of Proposition 9 were unconstitutional and ultimately granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the VRP, with some modifications. Valdivia v. Brown, 2012 WL 219342 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012).

In April of 2011, California transferred substantial responsibilities for the parole system to county authorities and state courts. On July 2, 2013, the Court found that the statutory realigned rendered this case moot and directed the parties to file their final motions for fees and costs. On December 17, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed all pending appeals as moot.

This case is now closed.

Timothy Shoffner - 10/12/2012
Tifani Sadek - 10/02/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Goals and Timekeeping
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Over/Unlawful Detention
Medical/Mental Health
Mental health care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) State of California
Plaintiff Description (1) California parolees at large; (2) California parolees in custody, as alleged parole violators, and who are awaiting revocation of their state parole; and (3) California parolees who are in custody, having been found in violation of parole and who have been thereupon sentenced to prison custody.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Prison Law Office
Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld
Youth Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2002 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing CJ-CA-0008 : L.H. v. Schwarzennegger (E.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
2:94−cv−00671 (E.D. Cal.) 04/23/2014
PC-CA-0052-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
CIVIL COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES 05/02/1994
PC-CA-0052-0028.pdf | Detail
Order [certifying P class] 11/29/1994 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0027.pdf | Detail
Order {Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss} 09/08/2000 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0035.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [granting partial summary judgment to Pl.] 06/13/2002 (206 F.Supp.2d 1068) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [certifying Def's interlocutory appeal re: 6/13/02 order] 08/29/2002 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
FIFTH AMENDED CIVIL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 09/13/2002
PC-CA-0052-0029.pdf | Detail
Order [that Def. serve proposed remedial plan] 10/17/2002 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ruling on P's objections to D's proposed remedial plan] 07/23/2003 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief 11/19/2003 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0030.pdf | Detail
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval for Class Action Settlement, and Scheduling Hearing on Final Settlement Approval 12/03/2003 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief 03/08/2004 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Final Approval of Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief 03/16/2004 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Judgment Awarding Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Plaintiffs' lead council 09/17/2004 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0037.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [relating and consolidating 3 writs of habeas corpus with this case] 11/09/2004 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0012.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Order Regarding Policies and Procedures for Designating Information as Confidential in Parole Revocation Proceedings 06/01/2005 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [finding Def. in violation of permanent injunction] 06/09/2005 (2005 WL 1388555) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Amended Order Re Special Master Order of Reference 08/19/2005 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0033.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [concluding that parolees' counsel should have access to client's field file without limit on whether they can discuss that info with their clients] 08/31/2005 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0032.pdf | Detail
Order { Denying Motion to Amend Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief} 05/24/2006 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0036.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Case Order 09/14/2006 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 11/13/2006 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 04/04/2007 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0034.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [denying in part Pl's motion to find D's in violation of permanent injunction by failing to treat 'cooperative parolees' as plaintiff class members] 09/27/2007 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0031.pdf | Detail
Order [re: Def's treatment of potentially mentally ill parolees] 01/14/2008 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Report and Recommendation Regarding Motion to Enforce Paragraph 24 of the Valdivia Permanent Injunction 02/08/2008
PC-CA-0052-0017.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [re: use of hearsay evidence in parole revocation proceedings] 03/25/2008 (548 F.Supp.2d 852) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [re: D's treatment of potentially mentally ill inmates] 08/07/2008 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0018.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [granting Pl's motion to enforce Permanent Injunction in spite of Prop 9 §5.3 (Penal Code §3044)] 03/26/2009 (603 F.Supp.2d 1275) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0019.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 03/25/2010 (599 F.3d 984)
PC-CA-0052-0021.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 04/12/2010 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0020.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [finding Defs in substantial compliance w/ 2 requirements (the 4/4/07 order and return to custody assessment of the revocation process) and in violation of 11/13/06 order] 12/02/2010 (2010 WL 4983396) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0022.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/13/2011 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0023.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/23/2012 (2012 WL 219342) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0024.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 04/20/2012 (2012 WL 1414384) (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0025.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/21/2012 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0026.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Thirteenth Report Of The Special Master On The Status Of Conditions Of The Remedial Order 12/17/2012
PC-CA-0052-0038.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Order 07/02/2013 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0039.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Order [Terminating Stipulated Order For Permanent Injunctive Relief] 11/20/2013 (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0040.pdf | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Hawkins, Michael Daly (Ninth Circuit)
PC-CA-0052-0021
Hollows, Gregory G. (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
PC-CA-0052-9000
Karlton, Lawrence K. (E.D. Cal.)
PC-CA-0052-0001 | PC-CA-0052-0002 | PC-CA-0052-0003 | PC-CA-0052-0004 | PC-CA-0052-0006 | PC-CA-0052-0007 | PC-CA-0052-0008 | PC-CA-0052-0009 | PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0012 | PC-CA-0052-0013 | PC-CA-0052-0014 | PC-CA-0052-0015 | PC-CA-0052-0016 | PC-CA-0052-0018 | PC-CA-0052-0019 | PC-CA-0052-0020 | PC-CA-0052-0022 | PC-CA-0052-0023 | PC-CA-0052-0024 | PC-CA-0052-0025 | PC-CA-0052-0026 | PC-CA-0052-0027 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-0031 | PC-CA-0052-0032 | PC-CA-0052-0033 | PC-CA-0052-0034 | PC-CA-0052-0035 | PC-CA-0052-0036 | PC-CA-0052-0037 | PC-CA-0052-0039 | PC-CA-0052-0040 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Noonan, John T. Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
PC-CA-0052-0021
Monitors/Masters Campbell, Nancy (Washington)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Riveland, Chase (Washington)
PC-CA-0052-0017 | PC-CA-0052-0034 | PC-CA-0052-0038 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Aljens, Erika C. (Pennsylvania)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Baldwin, Holly MacLeish (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Bien, Michael W. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-0034 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Burrell, Susan L. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Comiskey, Paul Wayne (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028
Galvan, Ernest (California)
PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-0033 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Grunfeld, Gay Crosthwait (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Herman, Richard P. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028
Holtz, Geoffrey Thomas (California)
PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Huey, Shirley (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Kennard, Karen (California)
PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Landon, Alexander L. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028 | PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Miller, Andrea M. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Morris, Maria V. (Alabama)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Nelson, Laurel M. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028 | PC-CA-0052-0034 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Palumbo, Kristen A. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Pavone, Benjamin Laurence (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Perrello, Stephen J. Jr. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028 | PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Prescott, David (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028
Rifkin, Lori Ellen (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Rosen, Sanford Jay (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Specter, Donald H. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0029 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Stewart, Loren Grey (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Walczak, Kenneth M. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Wallace, Jackson (California)
PC-CA-0052-0028
Willits, Mari L. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0030
Defendant's Lawyers Acquisto, Stephen (California)
PC-CA-0052-0033
Anderson, Robert R. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0030
Cashdollar, William V. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Devencenzi, Jessica (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Grunder, Frances T. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-0033
Gruwell, Paul B. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Humes, James M. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0033
Jacob, Renju Palanilkumuryil (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Johnson, S. Anne (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Lee, Michael Gregory (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Lockyer, Bill (California)
PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-0033
Manian, Maya (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Mello, Paul Brian (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Nussbaum, Peter David (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Oliver-Thompson, Megan (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Patterson, Thomas S. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0030 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Rice, Benjamin Terrence (California)
PC-CA-0052-0010 | PC-CA-0052-0033 | PC-CA-0052-9000
Schneider, Walter R. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Tebrock, Katherine (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Whitney, Vickie Pochelle (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Wolff, Samantha D. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Wolff, Jonathan L. (California)
PC-CA-0052-0030
Other Lawyers Adams, Mark F. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Flood, Valerie D (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
McCabe, Michael J. (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000
Philipsborn, John Timothy (California)
PC-CA-0052-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -