9th Circuit Wants California to Pay for Latest Appeal in Prisons Dispute

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has slapped the state of California with sanctions after the attorney general filed a fifth meritless appeal in ongoing prison conditions litigation.

In a short, one-page decision (pdf) issued last month, Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Paez and Carlos Bea dismissed the state's appeal of an August 2009 district court order requiring the two sides in Plata v. Schwarzenegger to meet and confer over how much the prevailing plaintiffs lawyers are owed in fees and costs.

The panel also granted the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions "because this is the fifth time that the court has dismissed an appeal by these appellants related to this litigation for lack of jurisdiction."

The Prison Law Office, which represents the Plata class of inmates challenging the adequacy of prison medical care, filed paperwork Friday seeking penalties of $13,500.

Prison Law Office attorney Alison Hardy said that, despite frustration with the state's frequent appeals in this case, the plaintiffs attorneys have held off asking for penalties in the past because of the state's poor fiscal condition.

This time, however, "they were so clearly wrong," Hardy said. "They so clearly had no argument."

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Jerry Brown said Friday that state lawyers are reviewing the Prison Law Office sanctions filing and will submit a response by the Feb. 15 deadline.

The $13,500 in sanctions sought is minuscule compared to the millions of dollars the state has paid to defend class actions -- including an ongoing case first filed in 1990 -- brought by inmates challenging prison-provided medical and mental health care. But it's also indicative of state leaders' almost automatic inclination to challenge many of the prison-related orders handed down by federal courts and court-appointed receivers.

A separate three-judge panel last year ordered the state to reduce its inmate population by 40,000, citing overcrowding as the primary cause of unconstitutional prison conditions. The court stayed its own order, however, so the state can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.

Brown's office had asked the 9th Circuit to stay its own appeal of the district court's meet-and-confer order until the U.S. Supreme Court considers last year's prison population-cap order.

"Determination of this and other issues before the Supreme Court may have a material effect on the district court's August 26, 2009 fee entitlement order and instant appeal," Brown wrote in his filings with the 9th Circuit case. But the Prison Law Office argued successfully that the district court's August 2009 order is not final because the state was not ordered to pay anything; rather, its lawyers were told to negotiate with the plaintiffs' lawyers over reasonable fees and costs. Because the order is not final, it cannot be appealed, Hardy said.

Subscribe to The Recorder

Source link : law.com