United States Ninth Circuit

In proceedings related to a November 2003 injunction based on a stipulation between plaintiff and a class of similarly situated California parolees, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California, prescribing procedures for parole revocation hearings in California, the district court's post-injunction order adopting the injunction-related recommendations of the court-appointed Special Master regarding the use of hearsay evidence in parole revocation hearings is affirmed, as required by United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the district court's order denying the state's motion to modify the injunction to conform to the voter promulgated statute, Cal. Penal Code section 3044, formerly California Proposition 9, is vacated where the order made no express determination that any aspect of the California parole revocation procedures, as modified by Proposition 9, violated federal constitutional rights, nor any determination that the injunction was necessary to remedy a constitutional violation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/25/2010
• Published 03/25/2010

Judges

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel