Ashker v. Newsom

Background

The order addressed two unrelated enforcement motions alleging retaliation against two individual class members because of their activism and participation in the case. The parties filed much of their evidence under seal because of concerns about the prisoners’ safety and institutional security.

The first motion concerned “Prisoner-1,” whose placement in restrictive housing was challenged as retaliation. Plaintiffs argued that the placement was based on participation in the litigation rather than legitimate prison-safety concerns. They sought an order requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to place Prisoner-1 in a general-population unit. Plaintiffs also sought additional discovery, exclusion of a prison guard’s expert report, and an evidentiary inference based on alleged failure to preserve recordings.

The second motion concerned “Prisoner-2.” Plaintiffs alleged that Prisoner-2 was falsely accused of assault, found guilty of battery, and disciplined in retaliation for participating in the litigation. They also alleged that a nurse’s assistant threatened Prisoner-2 and the prisoner’s family and failed to provide certain cleaning assistance after a digestive accident. Plaintiffs sought discovery concerning the disciplinary matter and related communications.

First Prisoner’s Motions

The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery concerning Prisoner-1. It interpreted the earlier referral and briefing schedule as allowing limited preliminary discovery followed by a discovery cutoff, not discovery continuing indefinitely. The court stated that the retaliation motion had already been fully briefed and was ready for decision.

The court also denied Plaintiffs’ request to exclude the prison guard’s expert report. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the court found that testimony about the relevant prison gang’s rules and practices involved specialized knowledge that could assist the court. It further found, for purposes of the motion, that the testimony was based on sufficient data, reliable methods and principles, and a reliable application of those methods to the case. The court treated Plaintiffs’ criticisms of the report as matters more properly directed to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse evidentiary inference based on alleged destruction or failure to preserve recordings. It found no willful spoliation, meaning no intentional destruction or loss of evidence warranting that inference.

On the retaliation claim, the court denied the enforcement motion. It found that Plaintiffs had not shown retaliatory motive or a convincing connection between Prisoner-1’s activism or participation in the litigation and the restrictive-housing decision. The court accepted Defendants’ position that the housing decision was based on safety concerns arising from Prisoner-1’s alleged violation of prison-gang rules. The court emphasized the serious risk of violence and the responsibility of prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners.

Second Prisoner’s Motions

The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for discovery concerning Prisoner-2’s disciplinary matter. It found that Plaintiffs had not identified particular facts they expected to uncover, specific evidence likely to exist, or facts showing that the requested evidence would establish retaliation.

The court also denied the enforcement motion concerning Prisoner-2’s discipline. It found that, apart from conclusory statements and what it viewed as unreasonable inferences, Plaintiffs had not shown even a preliminary indication that government action in the disciplinary matter was motivated by retaliation rather than legitimate prison purposes. The court concluded that Plaintiffs had not convincingly connected Prisoner-2’s activism or litigation participation to the decision to discipline Prisoner-2 for the alleged assault.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiffs’ motions. Specifically, it denied further discovery regarding both prisoners, denied exclusion of the expert report, denied the requested adverse evidentiary inference, denied the first prisoner’s retaliation motion, and denied the second prisoner’s enforcement motion.