Opinion
Case No. 5:20-cv-00974-MCS-KK
10-09-2020
Keiana ALDRICH, Plaintiff, v. Gerardi ROMO, Samuel Navarro, Ivan Ordaz, Molly Hill, Amy Miller, Shannon Stark, and Ralph Diaz, Defendants.
Carter C. White, UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic, Davis, CA, Jenny Chi-Chin Huang, Justice First LLP, Jessica T. Arena, Justice First LLP, Oakland, CA, Maggy Krell, DJR Health Law and Consulting, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff. Susan E. Coleman, Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gerardo Romo, Samuel Navarro. Gregory Lane Young, Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Ivan Ordaz. Eric Shannon, Jeremy C. Doernberger, Gregory Lane Young, Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Molly Hill, Amy Miller, Shannon Stark, Ralph Diaz.
Carter C. White, UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic, Davis, CA, Jenny Chi-Chin Huang, Justice First LLP, Jessica T. Arena, Justice First LLP, Oakland, CA, Maggy Krell, DJR Health Law and Consulting, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.
Susan E. Coleman, Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gerardo Romo, Samuel Navarro.
Gregory Lane Young, Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Ivan Ordaz.
Eric Shannon, Jeremy C. Doernberger, Gregory Lane Young, Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Molly Hill, Amy Miller, Shannon Stark, Ralph Diaz.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL PHONE CALLS [38]
MARK C. SCARSI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an Ex Parte Application for Confidential Legal Phone Calls ("Application") filed by plaintiff Keiana Aldrich. (See Application, ECF No. 38.) Defendants Amy Miller, Shanon Stark, Molly Hill, and Ralph Diaz (the "CDCR Defendants") opposed and Aldrich replied. (See Opposition, ECF No. 40; see also Reply, ECF No. 41.) The Court circulated its tentative ruling and held oral arguments on October 5, 2020. (ECF No. 54.) Following the hearing, the Court gave the CDCR Defendants until October 8, 2020 to file a stipulation allowing Plaintiff to communicate with her counsel. (Id. ) The parties filed no stipulation.
For the following reasons, the Application is GRANTED .
II. BACKGROUND
Aldrich is a sex trafficking survivor in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and housed at the California Institute for Women ("CIW"). (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) Aldrich filed a Complaint on May 5, 2020 alleging that she suffered sexual assault and other abuse at CIW. (See generally id. ) Aldrich sued several prison employees in their individual capacities for their alleged role in the abuse, but did not name CIW or CDCR as defendants. (See generally id. ) An account of Aldrich's abuse and her denial of access to legal recourse as alleged in her Complaint is necessary to evaluate the Application's requested relief.
The Court does not accept as true the Complaint's allegations, but details them here solely for purposes of ruling on the Application.
--------
Aldrich worked five days a week, eight hours a day as a janitor at CIW's Health Facility Management ("HFM") from June 2018 to January 2019. (Id. ¶ 15.) During this time, defendant Ivan Ordaz, the head supervisor of HFM, sexually abused Aldrich on several occasions. (Id. ¶¶ 16-20.) In July of 2018, Ordaz completed a "Work Supervisor's Report" recommending that Aldrich's pay be increased from 35 cents to 40 cents per hour, noting that Aldrich "follows instructions with good attitude." (Id. ¶ 19.) Aldrich told Adriana Gomez, a floor supervisor, about the abuse under the condition that "she would not be subject to retaliation or placement in administrative segregation before she formally reported Ordaz's misconduct." (Id. ¶ 21.) Aldrich then provided a tape-recorded statement to the Inmate Services Unit ("ISU"), who assured Aldrich that "everything will be OK or whatever." (Id. ¶¶ 22.) Ordaz was then transferred out of HFM. (Id. ¶ 23.)
Shortly thereafter, defendant Samuel Navarro, a line supervisor, sexually abused Aldrich on numerous occasions, wrote her love letters, and gave her goods from the prison store in exchange for coerced sexual acts. (Id. ¶¶ 26-28.) He told her "he could do whatever he wants to her" and falsely promised to give her jewelry for her silence. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.) Aldrich provided ISU the love letters which contain explicit warnings "not to tell the [ISU] about [Navarro's] sexual misconduct." (Id. ¶ 28.) Despite ISU receiving these letters, defendant Gerardo Romo, the new head supervisor at HFM, sexually abused Aldrich twice in the following days. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) Following the second assault, which involved coerced oral copulation, Aldrich provided ISU with a piece of Romo's pubic hair. (Id. ¶ 31.) Aldrich also reported Navarro and Romo to her new line supervisor and gave a tape-recorded statement to ISU, resulting in Navarro's termination and Romo's transfer. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) Ordaz returned to his job at HFM despite being removed for sexual misconduct. (Id. ¶ 36.)
The Office of International Affairs ("OIA") began investigating Navarro and Romo, and took Aldrich's recorded statement. (Id. ¶¶ 37-38.) The same day Aldrich gave this statement, an ISU official responsible for sexual assault matters "erroneously informed" Aldrich "that she could not file a CDCR 602 inmate appeal (grievance) or take any other action until OIA completed their investigation." (Id. ¶ 38.) She "also made no mention of filing a government claim" to Aldrich. (Id. ) Aldrich further expressed her desire to hire a lawyer "to stop the sexual abuse given the lack of assistance she was receiving inside the prison," but was "explicitly discouraged" from doing so. (Id. ¶ 39.) Instead, Aldrich received a rape crisis packet in the mail that "did not contain any information about filing a government claim, a 602 grievance" or a lawsuit against the prison. (Id. ¶ 40.) When Aldrich followed up concerning "the status of her case and the length of time it would take to obtain the results of the investigation," she was told "the Internal Affairs guys will let you know." (Id. ¶ 41.) In January of 2019, the Warden of CIW left a note in Plaintiff's "C-file" informing Aldrich that her job was terminated. (Id. ¶ 42.)
Aldrich's counsel, Maggy Krell, emailed CIW's litigation coordinator, Christina Alvarez, on August 31, 2020 to request a confidential call with Aldrich due to concerns surrounding Aldrich's mental health and to provide legal counsel. (See Decl. of Maggy Krell ("Krell Decl.") ¶ 11, ECF No. 38-1.) After additional requests to speak with Aldrich, Alvarez eventually "responded by directing" Krell "to supply confidential information about an ongoing case," explaining "that this information was required under CIW's measures in response to COVID-19." (Id. ¶¶ 12-14.) Krell "promptly responded by supplying the case number and indicated that [she] urgently needed to talk to" Aldrich. (Id. ¶ 15.) Krell's request was denied. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Krell later learned that Aldrich attempted suicide on August 28, 2020 and was on suicide watch under the care of mental health professionals. (Id. ¶ 20; see also Decl. of Christina Alvarez ("Alvarez Decl.") ¶ 7, ECF No. 40.) Krell and her co-counsel, Jenny Huang, continued to request contact with Aldrich, but were denied. (Krell Decl. ¶¶ 20-23.)
According to Alvarez, no inmate on suicide watch can access a phone under CDCR policy. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 2.) After Aldrich was removed from suicide watch, CIW "agreed to provide a legal call" between Aldrich and her counsel. (See Supp. Decl. of Jenny Huang ("Huang Supp. Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3.) However, "there has been no resolution of CIW's denial of weekly legal calls" despite significant meet and confer efforts. (Id. ¶ 4.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the All Writs Act, federal courts "may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). "The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice." United States v. New York Tel. Co. , 434 U.S. 159, 174, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted). "Use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants, allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner's ability to litigate his case." Espey v. Deuel Vocational Inst. , No. 2:13-CV-2147 TLN KJN, 2014 WL 2109949, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2014), report and recommendation adopted , No. 2:13-CV-2147-TLN-KJN, 2014 WL 2893207 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) (citations omitted); see also Lopez v. Cook , No. 2:03-CV-1605 KJM DAD, 2014 WL 1488518, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to provide plaintiff with two contact visits with his counsel). IV. DISCUSSION
Aldrich's Application seeks an order requiring non-party CIW to permit weekly calls between Aldrich and her counsel under the All Writs Act. (See generally Application.) The CDCR Defendants argue that they do not have authority to facilitate Aldrich's requested calls, and that she was unable to make any such calls while under suicide watch per CDCR policy. (See Opposition 1-2.) But Aldrich is no longer on suicide watch, and the All Writs Act permits federal courts to issue appropriate orders to non-parties, such as the Warden of CIW, who "are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice." New York Tel. Co. , 434 U.S. at 174, 98 S.Ct. 364. And the Ninth Circuit has recognized that an inmate's First Amendment right of access to the courts "includes contact visitation with his counsel." Ching v. Lewis , 895 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1990). Any prison official opposing such access must show "that such limitations are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Barnett v. Centoni , 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
The evidence before the Court does not meet this burden. The Alvarez Declaration states that CDCR policy instituted due to COVID-19 requires all legal counsel to provide specific, urgent justifications before they can call incarcerated clients. (See Alvarez Decl. ¶ 2.) The Court is mindful of these concerns, but Aldrich's counsel assures the Court that she will cooperate with prison officials to minimize risk and to limit calls to matters necessary to provide critical advocacy. (See, e.g. , Application 5 ("In light of the greater challenges facing prisons during the pandemic, [counsel] will refrain from scheduling confidential legal calls with Ms. Aldrich, unless necessary ... Plaintiff does not intend to interfere with prison operations that are understandably burdened in this unprecedented time.").) The CDCR Defendants do not explain how Aldrich can participate in discovery, let alone prosecute her case, if she cannot communicate with counsel. Vague reference to CDCR policy, without more, is insufficient to overcome Aldrich's constitutional right to contact counsel. Johnson v. Sullivan , No. 1:06-cv-01089 ALA (P), 2008 WL 5396614, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2008) ("Defendants have not made a compelling argument that allowing [the plaintiff inmate] access to a telephone on a weekly basis would create ‘any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.’ In sum, Defendants' counsel's proffered excuses for denying [the plaintiff inmate] access to reasonable contact with his attorneys by telephone are speculative, not persuasive, and insensitive to Defendants' constitutional responsibility to inmate litigants.")
Aldrich's access to counsel is essential as this case proceeds toward discovery and defenses premised on the CDCR Defendants' purported lack of participation in the alleged abuse. (See CDCR Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 27; see also Order Setting Scheduling Conference for Oct. 26, 2020, ECF No. 29.) This is especially true here, where Aldrich alleges a pattern of horrific abuse by multiple perpetrators and attempts to deny her legal recourse. As Aldrich notes, it is unclear why the CDCR Defendants would even oppose Aldrich's request to contact her counsel—a request they claim to have no authority over nor interest in. (See Reply 2-3.) At the hearing, the CDCR Defendants' counsel could not explain why his clients chose to oppose the Application and waste the Court's time, all while Plaintiff was denied access to counsel. The subsequent failure to cooperate with Plaintiff's counsel to facilitate a single weekly phone call is even more evidence that Plaintiff unfortunately requires Court intervention to secure a basic right.
Absent articulable reasons showing that Aldrich cannot safely communicate with her counsel once a week by phone when necessary, the Court determines that Aldrich's requested relief is appropriate. Aldrich's counsel is instructed to make every reasonable effort to accommodate CIW and CDCR's health-related concerns and to refrain from scheduling calls with Aldrich unless necessary.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Application is GRANTED . The Warden of CIW is ordered to arrange up to one weekly confidential phone call between Aldrich and her legal counsel at a day and time that is least burdensome to the operations of the prison until resolution of this case or further order of the Court. The parties need not file a joint status report by October 12, 2020 as previously instructed.