Jensen v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 9, 2023
Docket2:12-cv-00601
StatusUnknown

This text of Jensen v. Thornell (Jensen v. Thornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jensen v. Thornell, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Shawn Jensen, No. CV-12-00601-PHX-ROS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn1,

13 Defendant. 14 15 This Order includes the requirements of the planned injunction. The parties, and 16 Naphcare, will be allowed thirty days to file written objections as well as time to file 17 responses to those objections. The terms set forth in the planned injunction are the product 18 of extensive work by the Court and its experts. The experts worked with all counsel and 19 personnel at ADCRR. Therefore, the parties should not anticipate significant changes will 20 be made absent compelling reasons. 21 The parties are reminded this injunction must remedy the serious constitutional 22 violations found at trial, as found in the June 30, 2022, Order. Any objection based on the 23 belief that a proposed provision goes beyond the scope of the facts proven at trial must be 24 supported by argument establishing that provision has no relation to the claims and facts 25 proven at trial. That is, the Court has already attempted to ensure each provision of the 26 proposed injunction is directly linked to a constitutional violation proven at trial. The

27 1 The Court understands that David Shinn is no longer the Director of ADCRR. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), his successor will automatically be substituted. 28 In responding to this Order, Defendants shall identify the appropriate individual to be substituted for David Shinn. 1 || Court’s experts made additional recommendations which the Court did not include because 2|| they could not be specifically supported by what was proven at trial. Therefore, the Court || is likely to overrule any objections asserting certain provisions cannot be linked to facts 4|| proven at trial. 5 For any provision where the parties have an objection, they must set forth the basis 6|| for the objection and propose an alternative solution, using the same general framework set forth in the injunction. For example, the injunction bases staffing on the number of 8 || prisoners each medical professional may carry on a caseload. If Defendants believe those || numbers are inappropriate, they must propose alternative numbers. Defendants may make || a general objection that staffing should not be assessed in this manner, but they must also 11 || set forth their own proposed numbers accepting the assumption that the Court will adopt a 12 || caseload-based staffing approach. 13 Finally, the parties shall confer prior to filing their objections to reach agreements 14]| on alternatives. If the parties can reach an agreement on an alternative for a particular 15 || provision, that agreement will have substantial weight when the injunction 1s finalized. 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED the parties and Naphcare shall file their objections to the attached injunction no later than February 10, 2023. The parties and Naphcare shall file their 19 || responses to the objections no later than February 27, 2023. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motions for Leave (Doc. 4371, 4377) are GRANTED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motions filed by class members (Doc. 4375, || 4378) are DENIED. 14 Dated this 9th day of January, 2023. _—

26 CO Dyan ACN, 27 Senior United States District Judge 28

_2-

1 DRAFT INJUNCTION 2 On June 30, 2022, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. 3 (Doc. 4335). In that Order, the Court required the parties “nominate proposed experts to 4 assist the Court with crafting an injunction that complies” with the statutory limitations on 5 injunctions addressing prison operations. (Doc. 4335 at 180). The parties subsequently 6 nominated their preferred experts. In their list, Defendants nominated Dr. Marc Stern. 7 (Doc. 4339). Defendants in writing informed the Court “Dr. Stern’s dedication to the 8 design, management, and operation of health services in corrections settings [would] 9 provide this Court and the parties with valuable guidance in crafting an injunction 10 regarding the provision of medical care at ADCRR.” (Doc. 4339 at 4). After reviewing 11 the parties’ lists, the Court solicited additional briefing. (Doc. 4340). In that additional 12 briefing, Plaintiffs made no objection to the appointment of Dr. Stern. 13 On August 4, 2022, the Court held a hearing with the parties and Dr. Stern. (Doc. 14 4351). During that hearing the Court noted Dr. Stern’s past work in this case made him 15 experienced and therefore an “attractive expert” to help with crafting an injunction.2 (Doc. 16 4358 at 8). Dr. Stern stated he could address medical care aspects of the planned injunction, 17 but he would need additional assistance on the topics of mental health care and conditions 18 imposed on the subclass. Dr. Stern stated he had individuals in mind who may be able to 19 assist him on those topics. 20 After finding Dr. Stern was an appropriate expert, the Court discussed with Dr. Stern 21 and the parties the type of communications the Court’s experts could have with the Court 22 and the parties. Both sides agreed the experts could have ex parte communications with 23 Defendants, defense counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Court. (Doc. 4358 at 19-20). 24 Accordingly, the Court held the experts could have ex parte conversations as they deemed 25 2 That hearing included some discussion of appointing a receiver. The Court stated it was 26 “not prepared to consider, at [that] time, a receivership. That doesn’t mean it’s off the table forever in this case, but not now.” (Doc. 4358 at 4). The refusal to appoint a receiver was 27 based on the Court’s expectation that Defendants appeared willing “to cooperate” and “act in good faith” in monitoring their performance under an injunction. (Doc. 4358 at 7). Any 28 failure to act in good faith or to meaningfully comply with this injunction will revive the possibility of appointing a receiver. 1 appropriate. The Court stated it would keep general notes regarding the contents of its 2 communications with the experts. 3 The day after the hearing, the Court formally appointed Dr. Stern and shortly 4 thereafter the Court appointed two additional experts to assist Dr. Stern to which the parties 5 had no objection. (Doc. 4352, 4362). Those three experts then began crafting 6 recommendations for the final injunction. In doing so, the experts have had extensive back 7 and forth communications with individuals who had relevant information. Thus, Dr. Stern 8 and Dr. Bart Abplanalp spoke with Plaintiffs’ trial experts, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendants’ 9 counsel, Defendants, ADCRR personnel, Centurion personnel, and NaphCare personnel. 10 John McGrath spoke with some of the same individuals but he also spoke with wardens, 11 deputy wardens, and other custody staff. Mr. McGrath visited some of the facilities to gain 12 a better understanding of possible solutions to the flaws identified by the Court. The 13 experts have also explained some of their recommended changes to the Court. Altogether, 14 the Court-appointed experts have spent close to 500 hours investigating and identifying the 15 appropriate solutions to the unconstitutional findings outlined in the Court’s Findings of 16 Fact. 17 The back-and-forth between the parties and the Court’s experts included discussions 18 regarding specific recommendations the experts might propose. And the experts have 19 incorporated some recommendations made by the parties or their agents that the experts 20 may not have otherwise included. In other words, the experts have thoroughly made 21 genuine efforts to assess the possible solutions to the unconstitutional conditions and they 22 paid particular attention to the solutions proposed by Defendants and their agents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Optional Capital, Inc. v. Das Corporation
18 F.4th 1032 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jensen v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-thornell-azd-2023.