Ashker v. Newsom

Background

The plaintiffs filed an enforcement motion concerning the alleged unauthorized confinement of class members in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for participating in a “rout” connected to a Security Threat Group (STG). The dispute arose from an incident at Pleasant Valley State Prison in February 2019. According to the report of violation discussed by the court, approximately 112 members of one prison gang gathered after one prisoner rushed toward a dining hall occupied by members of another gang. The prisoner pushed a correctional officer, and other prisoners gathered, refused orders to get down, yelled at staff, and were eventually restrained and returned to their housing units. The plaintiffs said the report was representative of four other reports involving similarly situated prisoners.

The parties’ settlement agreement ended indeterminate SHU terms based only on gang affiliation and adopted a behavior-based system. Its SHU Assessment Chart listed disturbances, riots, and strikes as eligible offenses when the required STG connection existed. It also provided terms for inciting conditions likely to threaten institutional security and addressed the treatment of attempts, conspiracies, and solicitations.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the agreement contained an exclusive list of SHU-eligible offenses and did not specifically list “rout.” They contended that rout activity therefore could not support SHU confinement. They also argued that a rout was distinct from a disturbance and challenged the defendants’ reliance on a dictionary definition treating “rout” as a disturbance.

The defendants argued that rout activity fell within the chart’s reference to disturbances, riots, and strikes. They relied on the ordinary meaning of “rout,” California law defining a rout as an attempt or advance by two or more people toward an act that would be a riot if completed, and the circumstances described in the violation report. The defendants also noted that the prisoner involved in the submitted report pleaded guilty to a prison-rule violation prohibiting participation in riots, routs, or unlawful assemblies.

Court’s Analysis

The court interpreted the settlement agreement under California law, which provides that contract terms generally are understood in their ordinary and popular sense unless used in a technical sense or given a special meaning through usage. The court concluded that “rout” has a recognized legal meaning involving a group acting together toward unlawful conduct and that “disturbance” appropriately described the effect of rout activity on the public peace.

The court explained that not every possible disturbance would qualify for SHU confinement. Instead, the separate listing of “disturbance,” “riot,” and “strike” was intended to cover collectively committed, STG-related offenses against the public peace, including routs. The court found that the incident described in the report was the type of disturbance contemplated by the settlement agreement and noted that it might also have constituted a riot under California law.

The plaintiffs separately argued in their reply that, if a rout were treated as an attempted riot, the defendants improperly imposed full SHU terms rather than the shorter terms applicable to attempts. The court did not consider that argument because plaintiffs had raised it for the first time in the reply brief. The court stated that plaintiffs could present the argument in a new enforcement motion, but first ordered the parties to meet and confer in light of the guidance in the opinion.

Disposition

The court held that the settlement agreement had not been breached by imposing SHU terms for the rout activity at issue. Judge Robert M. Illman denied the plaintiffs’ enforcement motion. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.