Liberty v. R.I. Dep't of Corr.

CHARLENE LIBERTY; JOHN DAPONTE; JOHN DAVIS; DUANE GOMES; ADAM HANRAHAN; and CHARLES KENNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and DISABILITY RIGHTS RHODE ISLAND, on behalf of its constituents, Plaintiffs, v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PATRICIA COYNE-FAGUE, in her official capacity as the Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections; MATTHEW KETTLE, in his official capacity as the Assistant Director of Institutions and Operations at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections; and BARRY WEINER, in his official capacity as the Assistant Director of Rehabilitation Services at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Defendants.

C. A. No. 19-573-JJM-PAS

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

December 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Filed on October 25, 2019, this putative class action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to ameliorate alleged violations of constitutional and federal statutory limitations on the use of restrictive housing by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“RIDOC”) to sanction and manage prisoners who have been identified as suffering from serious and persistent mental illness (“SPMI”). See ECF No. 1; Liberty v Rhode Island Dep't of Corr., C. A. No. 19-573JJM 2022 WL 1224448, at *1 (D.R.I. Apr. 26, 2022).

Now before the Court on referral to me for determination^[1] is RIDOC's motion to stay the matter pending “discussions about moving towards a resolution.” ECF No. 123. While the parties agree that there should be a stay, particularly in light of the Court's recent appointment of an independent mental-health expert pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 706 (“Rule 706 Expert”) to provide professional opinions to the Court in connection with “ongoing mediation proceedings,” they disagree vehemently on the scope of the stay. ECF No. 126; see also ECF Nos. 123; 128 129; 132. Except for certain outstanding discovery, which it has agreed to complete, RIDOC asks for a temporary (ninety days with the option for the Court to continue the stay on the motion of either party) buffer from all litigation proceedings, including discovery, during this critical phase. ECF Nos. 123; 123-1. By contrast, Plaintiffs state that they are willing to agree to a ninety-day stay only of “discovery” (except for the agreed-upon completion of outstanding discovery) renewable only with their consent, with the representation that they intend to use the stay period to file significant motions,^[2] most importantly their motion for class certification. ECF No. 128 at 1-2. Plaintiffs also argue that the stay is premature because of the outstanding discovery.^[3]

I. BACKGROUND

The Liberty complaint is narrowly focused on a “limited issue”: whether RIDOC has systemically placed inmates known to be suffering from SPMI in restrictive housing in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.^[4] Liberty, 2022 WL 1224448, at *1. As pertinent to the stay motion, this issue is also before the Court in three cases that preceded Liberty:

• Morris v. Travisono, 69-cv-4192-JJM (“Morris”);

• Paiva v. RIDOC, 17-mc-14-JJM (“Paiva”);^[5] and

• Diaz v. Wall, 17-cv-94-JJM (“Diaz”).

Because ongoing court-annexed mediation proceedings in these three cases is a critical part of the foundation underpinning the Court's exercise of its discretion to enter a time-limited stay of all proceedings in Liberty, and not just a limited discovery stay, some background regarding these cases is necessary.

A. Morris/Paiva

Morris is a 1969 class action in which the Court certified the class of all current and future inmates of the Adult Correction Institutions with a subclass of inmates at the Behavioral Correctional Unit. Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); Morris v. Travisono, 310 F.Supp. 857 (D.R.I. 1970). In 1972, the Morris Court entered an injunction that has come to be known as the Morris Rules, which broadly addressed, inter alia, inmate classification and the use and indicia of restrictive housing for all inmates, including those suffering from what has since come to be called SPMI, as well as any mental illness. See Morris v. Travisono, 499 F.Supp. 149, 151-53 & 151 n.1 (D.R.I. 1980).

The Morris Rules fell into disuse and the injunction was not enforced for many years until January 16, 2017, when Mr. Richard Paiva, proceeding pro se, initiated Paiva. Paiva, 17 mc-14-JJM, ECF No. 1 at 1. After protracted activity involving several appeals, on December 21, 2018, the First Circuit found that the injunction remained in full force and effect and vacated the District Court's rejection of Mr. Paiva's attempt to revive the Morris Rules. In re Paiva, No. 17-1511 (1st Cir. Dec. 21, 2018). Paiva was remanded for further proceedings. Id.

On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Paiva's motion to intervene in Morris and to be designated as successor class representative. Paiva, 17-mc-14-JJM, Text Order of Dec. 18, 2019. The Court appointed successor class counsel and, on February 7, 2020, ordered that all proceedings then pending in Morris be stayed pending further order of the Court. Morris, 69-cv-4192-JJM, ECF No. 4. On September 18, 2020, Morris/Paiva was referred to me for court-annexed mediation. After eight mediation sessions, and with substantial input from all parties, the Court appointed a Rule 706 expert to be paid for by RIDOC for the purpose of obtaining expert opinions for guidance in connection with the ongoing mediation proceedings. Morris, 69-cv-4192-JJM, ECF Nos. 18-20; Paiva, 17-mc-14-JJM, ECF Nos. 83-85. Since the appointment of this Rule 706 expert, all parties in Morris/Paiva have engaged in court-annexed mediation in good faith. There has been no need for court intervention arising from a breach by any party of the Order's mandate that each must cooperate with the Court's 706 expert. See Morris, 69-cv-4192-JJM, ECF No. 19 at 2-3; Paiva, 17-mc-14-JJM, ECF No. 84 at 2-3.

With the Liberty mediation ongoing, and mindful that the Morris/Paiva certified class includes individuals with mental illness (including SPMI), the Court sua sponte raised with the Morris/Paiva parties whether the Court should add a second court-appointed independent expert - one with expertise in mental health - to the court-appointed expert team. On December 8, 2022, in the interest of judicial efficiency, in furtherance of the Court's goal to facilitate RIDOC's good faith commitment to address all Morris/Paiva issues and following consultation with the Morris/Paiva parties and the previously appointed Morris/Paiva Rule 706 expert, the Court appointed the same independent mental health expert who had been vetted and chosen as the Rule 706 Expert in Liberty.

B. Diaz

On March 7, 2017, Mr. Samuel Diaz, proceeding pro se, filed a case with two loosely connected claims. As relevant here,^[6] Diaz is based on the allegation that Mr. Diaz, an individual allegedly known by RIDOC to be suffering from mental illness, potentially SPMI, was repeatedly placed in disciplinary restrictive housing in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Diaz, 17-cv-94-JJM, ECF Nos. 1; 58. After this claim survived a motion to dismiss, Diaz v. Wall, C. A. No. 17-94 WES, 2018 WL 1224457 (D.R.I. Mar. 8, 2018), the Court granted a motion to appoint counsel from its pro bono panel, with the appointment limited to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Mr. Diaz's alleged excessive placement in restrictive housing. Diaz, 17-94-JJM, ECF No. 47. On December 21, 2018, this aspect of Diaz was referred to me for court-annexed mediation. While no formal stay has entered, Diaz has not been actively litigated at all while the mediation has been pending. In total, I have conducted almost thirty mediation sessions; all parties in Diaz have engaged in this court-annexed mediation in good faith. The pace of the Diaz mediation slowed in 2021, after the Court and RIDOC had begun to invest substantial resources in the Morris/Paiva mediation. Mr. Diaz has been, and continues to be, a member of the Morris/Paiva class.

C. Liberty

With the Diaz mediation ongoing, and with Morris/Paiva reactivated as a class action by the First Circuit with a new class representative and newly court-appointed class counsel, Liberty was filed on October 25, 2019. ECF No. 1. Cast as a putative class action, Liberty seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. at 56-58. All of the putative class members in Liberty are members of the certified class in Morris/Paiva. The Liberty claims are narrower than, but substantially overlap with the injunctive relief claims in Diaz; further, they fall within the broad scope of what is in issue in Morris/Paiva.

Liberty names five^[7] individuals as putative class representatives; each claims to have been known by RIDOC to be suffering from SPMI while in its custody yet to have been placed in restrictive housing in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Liberty, 2022 WL 1224448, at *2. Also joined as a Liberty plaintiff is a not-for-profit Rhode Island corporation known as Disability Rights Rhode Island (“DRRI”). Id. DRRI's statutory authority to bring this legal action requires it to mediate before resorting to litigation and is therefore pertinent to the stay motion. See ECF No 1 ¶¶ 30-37; 42 U.S.C. § 10807(a). In that regard, while DRRI is designated by federal law to pursue legal remedies “to ensure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected,” 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b)(1), its authorization to pursue legal actions requires that, “[p]rior to instituting any legal action in a Federal or State court on behalf of a[n] individual with mental illness, an eligible system . . . shall exhaust in a timely...