Ashker v. Newsom

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking enforcement of a 2015 settlement agreement. The agreement allowed them to seek enforcement if they showed, by a preponderance of the evidence—the greater weight of the evidence—that prison officials were in material breach of the agreement’s terms. The agreement also provided that a court order under that provision could address certain systemic constitutional violations and had to comply with federal limits on prospective relief in prison-condition cases.

The plaintiffs asserted three broad categories of continuing violations: misuse of confidential information in disciplinary proceedings, denial of fair parole opportunities because of gang validations, and due-process problems involving placement and retention in Restricted Custody General Population housing. They proposed remedies addressing each category, including recording and preserving confidential-source interviews, new training and guidelines, independent review of certain disciplinary proceedings, instructions to the parole board about old gang validations, and individualized supervision plans and additional reviews for people in Restricted Custody General Population.

The defendants argued that the settlement had not been breached, or at least had not been materially breached. They also argued that the proposed remedies exceeded the limits of federal law and would rewrite the settlement agreement.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs had not proved that the provisions concerning disciplinary proceedings and confidential information had been breached. The court noted that the cited settlement provisions did not specifically address confidential information in the way the plaintiffs argued, and the plaintiffs did not explain how earlier findings about constitutional violations established a breach of the provision requiring compliance with California regulations governing confidential information.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument concerning Restricted Custody General Population housing. The plaintiffs challenged how periodic safety reviews and verification were conducted, including the notice provided and the safeguards against error. But the court concluded that the motion did not show that the defendants had failed to conduct the periodic reviews and verification required by the settlement.

As to parole, the court found that the plaintiffs had not identified a specific settlement provision that the defendants breached. The court also viewed the argument as improperly grouping reliable and unreliable gang validations together and as relying on speculation about how validations might be used. The court rejected the argument that the settlement’s termination and enforcement provisions themselves imposed a general obligation to avoid the alleged systemic constitutional violations. It characterized those provisions as establishing an enforcement process, not as obligations whose violation automatically entitled the plaintiffs to remedies.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman denied the plaintiffs’ enforcement motion. He held that the plaintiffs had failed to show any breach that could support relief under the settlement’s enforcement provision, and therefore had not shown a material breach. The court stated that it did not need to go further, but added that even if a material breach had been established, the proposed remedies were overly broad, failed to give the required degree of deference to prison officials and public-safety concerns, and would effectively rewrite the settlement agreement.