Parsons v. Ryan, No. 18-16358 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
These consolidated appeals arose from a class action brought by prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) against senior ADC officials, challenging ADC's provision of healthcare. At issue on appeal are eleven district court orders imposing contempt sanctions, awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiffs, appointing expert witnesses, and otherwise enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Contempt Order, the Termination Order, and the HNR-Box Order. The panel vacated the Attorneys' Fees Order and Judgment, remanding with instructions to (a) recalculate the fee award by determining the correct hourly rates for each year, (b) exclude from any fee award the 11 hours erroneously included; (c) modify the costs award down by $1,285.79 in light of the district court's failure to reflect the downward adjustments in its prior order; and (d) reweigh whether a fee enhancement was appropriate without double-counting the Kerr factors. The panel dismissed the remainder of the Medical Needs Appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Prisoner Class Action The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part, in consolidated appeals in a comeback case involving eleven district court orders, arising from a class action by Arizona state prisoners against Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) senior officials, challenging the ADC’s provision of healthcare. The parties entered into a Stipulation in which Defendants agreed to comply with Performance Measures designed to improve the healthcare system at ten ADC- operated prisons. The Stipulation provided the process by which the parties must resolve disputes over compliance. The panel affirmed the district court’s order holding the Defendants in contempt; affirmed in part and reversed in part the order awarding Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for work performed post-stipulation; affirmed the order partially granting and partially denying Defendants’ motion to terminate the monitoring of certain Performance Measures; affirmed the order requiring Defendants to reinstall Health Needs Request boxes for prisoners to submit forms requesting medical assistance; and dismissed the remainder of the medical needs appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Concerning the contempt order, the panel rejected Defendants’ contention that the district court lacked the 6 PARSONS V. RYAN power to hold them in contempt; and held that the district court acted within its authority in issuing the order to show cause, and thus Defendants’ noncompliance with that order properly served as the basis for the contempt order. The panel further held that because the contempt order was coercive and compensatory, it was civil in nature, and thus Defendants were not entitled to criminal due process protections. As a result, Defendants did not establish that the district court deprived them of due process. The panel also held that the contempt order was sufficiently detailed to justify the $1,000 sanction per violation, and therefore remand was not required. The panel also held that any error committed by the district court in interpreting the Stipulation to require 100% compliance had no impact on the contempt order, and would therefore not be grounds for reversing that order. Finally, the panel rejected Defendants’ contention that the district court improperly modified the Stipulation. Concerning the parties’ cross-appeals from the attorneys’ fees order, the panel held that Plaintiffs’ time entries were sufficient for the district court to make a reasonable attorneys’ fees award, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on them. The panel also held that the district court erroneously set Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ base hourly rate higher than the rate permitted by the Stipulation, but disagreed with the alternative rate proposed by Defendants. Specifically, the panel held that the hourly rate under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3) was the amount the Judicial Conference of the United States authorized and requested from Congress, and the district court did not err in consulting the Congressional Budget Summary to derive the rate. The panel vacated the attorneys’ fees order, and remanded to the district court to recalculate the fee award by determining the correct rates for each year and applying these rates to Plaintiffs’ time-entries. PARSONS V. RYAN 7 The panel rejected Defendants’ argument that the district court erred in applying San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C. paralegal market rates instead of the market rate in Phoenix. The panel held that the district court did not err in applying the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) maximum rate to the paralegal work performed in the San Francisco Bay Area, but the correct maximum rate was the amount the Judicial Conference authorized and requested from Congress. The panel reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to re-calculate the fees awarded for paralegal work in light of the correct rates. Finally, the panel rejected Defendants’ contentions that the Stipulation did not allow for a multiplier and the PLRA did not allow for a multiplier, but agreed that the district court abused its discretion by concluding a multiplier was appropriate here. The panel vacated the attorneys’ fees order, and remanded for the district court to reweigh whether an enhancement was appropriate. Concerning Plaintiffs’ contention on cross-appeal that the district court misinterpreted the law by denying Plaintiffs compensation for law clerk time, the panel held that compensation for unpaid law clerks was permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The panel held, however, that Plaintiffs incorrectly assumed that the district court ruled that it could not award compensation for unpaid law clerk time, when it actually ruled that it would not. The panel denied Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal. Concerning the medical needs appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s termination order, which denied Defendants’ request to terminate certain Performance Measures. The panel rejected Defendants’ argument that the district court erred in finding that ADC’s monitoring system was unreliable. The panel also rejected Defendants’ 8 PARSONS V. RYAN challenge to the district court’s legal interpretation of the Stipulation, and Defendants’ argument that the district court exceeded its authority in appointing a doctor to investigate ADC’s monitoring program. The panel affirmed the district court’s HNR-Box order, in which it ordered Defendants to reinstall HNR boxes in the same number and approximate locations as before the HNR-Box system was discontinued. The panel rejected Defendants’ three arguments challenging the HNR-Box order. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the district court’s seven expert orders because they were neither final orders nor appealable collateral orders. The panel dismissed the appeal to the extent it concerned those orders.
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.