PositionBrief Article

U.S. Appeals Court


Armstrong v. Davis 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). Disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action against a governor, corrections secretary, and board of prison terms, alleging that policies and practices for parole and parole revocation proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that the defendants engaged in discrimination and entered a system-wide injunction requiring modification of policies and practices. The defendants appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the department's use of notification forms that were inadequate for prisoners and parolees who were visually impaired, deaf, illiterate, learning disabled, or retarded, and the reliance on untrained employees to determine which prisoners and parolees were disabled and what accommodations were reasonable, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The appeals court held that a system-wide inju nction against the board of prison terms was warranted because the board failed to provide effective communications during notification, hearings and appeals, failed to select facilities accessible to mobility-impaired persona, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court noted that the board failed to offer any justification for its failures at trial. (California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority, California Department of Corrections, California Board of Prison Terms)

U.S. District Court



Long v. Gaines. 167 F.Supp.2d 75 (D.D.C. 2001). A class of approximately 400 District of Columbia parolees brought a class action challenging the United States Parole Commission's regulations governing parole revocation procedures. The parolees moved for class certification and summary judgment and the district court granted the motions. The court held that the regulations governing the determination of probable cause were facially unconstitutional and regulations governing final parole revocation violated due process. (U.S. Parole Commission)

U.S. District Court


Long v. Gaines, 173 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2001). Parolees brought an action challenging the United States Parole Commission's regulation governing parole revocation procedures. The district court held that the revocation procedures were unconstitutional...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT