Richard Gilman v. Arnold Schwarzenegger , 382 F. App'x 544 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD M. GILMAN, No. 09-16087
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00830-LKK-
GGH
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, MEMORANDUM *
Governor of California and ROBERT
DOYLE, Chairman of the Board of Parole
Hearings,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not err in certifying the class, regardless of whether we
review its decision de novo or for abuse of discretion. Viewed as a whole, the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
complaint constitutes a challenge to “a system-wide practice or policy that affects
all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th
Cir. 2001). Because the claims of the named plaintiffs are coextensive with those
of the rest of the class with regard to the Board of Parole Hearings, the plaintiffs’
claims are sufficiently typical as well. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,
1020 (9th Cir. 1998). Finally, the plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), as they request
an injunction imposing standards for parole hearings that would apply across the
entire class. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998).
We express no view as to whether further sub-classifications may be
necessary or appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
2