Case: Valdivia v. Davis

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.
• 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.