Parsons v. Ryan, No. 16-17282 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Inmates at the ADC, and the Arizona Center for Disability Law, filed suit against senior ADC officials, alleging that ADC's policies and practices governing health care delivery in ADC prisons and conditions of confinement in ADC isolation units exposed them to a substantial risk of serious harm to which defendants were deliberately indifferent. The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement in which defendants agreed to comply with more than 100 performance measures. At issue on appeal were the district court's rulings interpreting and enforcing the settlement agreement.
Determining that it had jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's November 10, 2016 Outside Provider Order; reversed the February 3, 2017 ruling that the Stipulation precludes it from issuing a general staffing order; and reversed the December 23, 2016 ruling that close custody inmates are part of the subclass. The panel noted that the district court may, in the future, consider ordering defendants to develop and implement a plan to increase staffing in general as a remedy for defendants' non-compliance. Furthermore, offering close custody inmates 15.5 hours or more out-of-cell time per week is sufficient to place these inmates outside of the subclass for purposes of monitoring compliance with the Stipulation.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s rulings interpreting and enforcing a settlement agreement, and remanded, in a civil rights class action alleging systemic Eighth Amendment violations in Arizona’s prison systems. Arizona inmates alleged that the Arizona Department of Corrections’ policies and practices governing health care delivery in prisons and conditions of confinement in isolation units exposed them to a substantial risk of serious harm to which defendants were deliberately indifferent. On the eve of trial, the parties signed a settlement agreement (Stipulation) by which defendants agreed to comply with more than 100 “performance measures” designed to improve the ADC health care system and reduce the harmful effects of prisoner isolation. Since the action settled, the parties have engaged in several disputes over defendants’ alleged non-compliance with the performance measures, which has required the assigned magistrate judge to issue various
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.