Joseph Toussaint v. Daniel McCarthy Joseph Toussaint v. James Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections Daniel Vasquez Robert Borg

918 F.2d 752 Joseph TOUSSAINT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Daniel McCARTHY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Joseph TOUSSAINT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James ROWLAND, Director, California Department of Corrections; Daniel Vasquez; Robert Borg, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 87-2910, 89-15613. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 16, 1990. Decided Oct. 30, 1990. As Amended Jan. 2, 1991. Bruce M. Slavin, Peter J. Siggins and George D. Prince, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Sanford Jay Rosen, Andrea G. Asaro and Samuel R. Miller, Rosen & Associates, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before CHAMBERS, WIGGINS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 1 These consolidated appeals involve a class of prisoners, who, as a class, are the toughest for a prison to handle. They are at the bottom of the social heap. They have, nonetheless, a human dignity and certain rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The command of the Constitution has to be made concrete. At the same time prisons…

These consolidated appeals involve a class of prisoners, who, as a class, are the toughest for a prison to handle. They are at the bottom of the social heap. They have, nonetheless, a human dignity and certain rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The command of the Constitution has to be made concrete. At the same time prisons must be run by prison officials not judges. The tension between proper administrative discretion and necessary constitutional concreteness has produced this appeal, the fifth in this case.

The basic ease was begun 17 years ago, in 1973 as a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by inmates of four maximum security prisons administered by the State of California. The defendants were the administrators. The relevant principles and law of the case have been established in prior decisions, most notably and relevantly in Toussaint IV, Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2462 , 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987). It is not our Sisyphean task to revisit those decisions or revise their holdings. We apply them, determining here only those issues where their application has been challenged.

The appeal…

concurring and dissenting:

In 1973 inmates of four maximum security California state prisons brought this class action against officers of those prisons. The inmates’ complaints relevant to this appeal concerned San Quentin prison officials’ procedures for segregating allegedly gang-affiliated inmates and San Quentin’s and Folsom’s procedures for providing segregated inmates with access to the courts. Prison officials appeal the district court’s modification of its permanent injunction on these issues. I would affirm the judgment below. Accordingly, I dissent.

Our standard of review is important to an understanding of my views. The district court’s findings of fact are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.1986) [Toussaint IV], cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 2462 , 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987). We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions. Id. We review the scope of the district court’s order of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion, “scrutiniz[ing] the injunction closely to make sure that the remedy protects the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and does not require more of state officials than is necessary…