Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan
2014 WL 2523682, 754 F.3d 657, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10466 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a class action challenging systemic constitutional violations, the commonality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) is satisfied when all class members are subjected to a uniform policy or practice that allegedly exposes them to a substantial risk of serious future harm. This shared exposure constitutes a single, common constitutional injury, even if the ultimate effects of the policy differ among individual class members.
Facts:
- The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), under the direction of Charles Ryan and Richard Pratt, was responsible for providing medical, dental, and mental health services for approximately 33,000 inmates across ten state prison facilities.
- ADC promulgated extensive statewide policies governing health care and contracted with private entities, including Wexford Health Services and Corizon, Inc., to provide these services.
- Inmates alleged that numerous ADC policies and practices were systemically deficient, leading to inadequate staffing, denials of care, lack of emergency treatment, failure to provide medication, and substandard dental and mental health care.
- Specific alleged practices included an "extraction only" dental policy, routine delays in providing specialist and emergency care, and failure to properly treat mentally ill inmates.
- Inmates in isolation units alleged they were subjected to conditions of extreme social isolation, 24-hour-a-day illumination, denial of outdoor exercise, and inadequate nutrition.
- Internal communications revealed ADC's awareness of these issues; in 2009, ADC's Director of Medical Services stated that ADC was "probably" violating inmates' rights and that "deliberate indifference has occurred."
- A 2012 review by ADC's contractor, Wexford, described the existing healthcare system as "extremely poor," "dysfunctional," and "sub-standard," and revealed that vacancy rates for high-level medical provider positions exceeded 50%.
Procedural Posture:
- Thirteen inmates and the Arizona Center for Disability Law filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court against senior officials of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC).
- The plaintiffs alleged systemic Eighth Amendment violations regarding health care and isolation unit conditions and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification, submitting extensive evidence including expert reports and internal ADC documents.
- The district court granted the motion, certifying a class of all current and future inmates challenging health care policies and a subclass challenging isolation unit policies.
- The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied by the district court.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by certifying a class of prison inmates challenging systemic healthcare and conditions-of-confinement policies under the Eighth Amendment, where the inmates' common claim is exposure to a substantial risk of serious future harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt, Circuit Judge
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class and subclass because the plaintiffs' claims are based on a common constitutional injury: exposure to a substantial risk of serious future harm from systemic, statewide policies. The key to commonality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) is not whether each inmate suffered the same past harm, but whether their claims depend on a common contention whose resolution will resolve an issue central to all claims in one stroke. Here, the plaintiffs challenge uniform ADC policies and practices that allegedly expose all inmates to a substantial risk of serious harm, a claim recognized under Helling v. McKinney and Farmer v. Brennan. The constitutionality of these statewide policies—such as systemic understaffing or inadequate emergency care—is a common question that can be answered for the entire class at once, satisfying the standard from Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Unlike Wal-Mart, this case involves centralized, uniform policies, not millions of discretionary decisions by local managers. The named plaintiffs' claims are typical because they, like all class members, are subject to the same injurious policies. Finally, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate because the defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, and the requested injunctive relief would provide a single, indivisible remedy to reform the system for all inmates.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the Supreme Court's stringent commonality standard from Wal-Mart v. Dukes to institutional reform litigation. It affirms that class actions remain a powerful tool for challenging systemic constitutional violations where the injury is the uniform exposure of a population to a risk of future harm. By distinguishing this type of claim from cases involving numerous discrete, individualized adverse decisions, the court preserved a critical avenue for plaintiffs seeking broad injunctive relief against state-run institutions like prisons or foster care systems. The ruling provides a clear framework for certifying classes based on a shared risk, ensuring that widespread, policy-based constitutional violations can be addressed collectively rather than through piecemeal, individual lawsuits.
Unlock the full brief for Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan