## Facts

- Thirteen Arizona prisoners and a disability-rights organization brought a putative class action against senior Arizona prison officials in their official capacities.
- Plaintiffs alleged that statewide policies and practices governing medical, dental, and mental-health care, plus conditions in isolation units, exposed prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
- Alleged deficiencies included chronic understaffing, delays in access to care, inadequate monitoring and treatment of serious conditions, medication delays or denials, deficient mental-health care and suicide prevention, and restrictive isolation conditions (including limited exercise and social interaction).
- Plaintiffs sought only declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at changing allegedly unlawful statewide practices, not damages for individual injuries.
- After extensive discovery (including expert reports, internal documents, depositions, and inmate declarations), the district court certified (1) a Rule 23(b)(2) class of all Arizona prisoners challenging health-care policies and practices, and (2) a Rule 23(b)(2) subclass of prisoners in isolation units challenging isolation conditions.
- Defendants took an interlocutory appeal, arguing the district court erred on Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality and on Rule 23(b)(2) certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class and subclass satisfied Rule 23(a)(2) commonality under the standard articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.
2. Whether the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the class and subclass under Rule 23(a)(3) despite variation in prisoners’ medical and mental-health needs and isolation experiences.
3. Whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was proper where plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief directed at statewide prison policies and practices.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification of both the Rule 23(b)(2) class and the Rule 23(b)(2) subclass.
- Commonality was satisfied because plaintiffs identified shared, statewide policies and practices, and the central question—whether those policies created a substantial risk of serious harm and reflected deliberate indifference—could be resolved for the class “in one stroke.”
- Typicality was satisfied because the named plaintiffs, like absent class members, alleged exposure to the same systemic risks from the same challenged policies and sought the same prospective relief; differences in individual conditions and harms did not defeat typicality.
- Rule 23(b)(2) was satisfied because defendants allegedly acted (or failed to act) on grounds generally applicable to the class and subclass, and a single injunction and declaratory judgment could provide relief to all members.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering substantial evidentiary material at certification, where the analysis was directed to Rule 23 requirements even if it overlapped with merits-related questions.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(2) commonality is met when claims depend on a common contention whose truth or falsity will resolve a central issue for all class members at once; systemic “risk of harm” challenges to institution-wide policies can satisfy this standard.
- Wal-Mart requires a unifying contention capable of classwide resolution; it does not categorically bar class actions challenging uniform institutional policies that allegedly subject all class members to an unconstitutional risk.
- Rule 23(a)(3) typicality is satisfied when named plaintiffs’ claims are reasonably coextensive with those of the class; variation in individual circumstances does not defeat typicality when the same challenged practices and the same theory of liability drive the claims for prospective relief.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate where defendants’ conduct applies generally to the class and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief would operate on the challenged policies in a manner benefiting all class members.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld class and subclass certification for prisoners seeking institution-wide injunctive relief, holding that challenges to statewide prison health-care and isolation policies presented common, classwide questions and supported Rule 23(b)(2) treatment despite individualized differences among prisoners.


Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014)