Need letters requesting California Supreme Court review of Woods v. Shewry re inmate fathers

In the Woods vs. Shewry case, the California 3rd District Appellate Court ruled that state funding for domestic violence victims must not discriminate against grant applicants who would serve male DV victims. That case is now precedent.

But if that same case -- Woods vs. Shewry -- is used as the basis to pursue an appeal on behalf of imprisoned fathers, then it runs the risk of being depublished, and hence no longer a written precedent. Once the California Supreme Court grants review of the case on inmate fathers, the whole enchilada automatically becomes depublished. If the Supreme Court then rules against the inmate fathers, it's like the entire case becomes buried. Sure, the holdings of the ruling are still binding, but no future court cases can use Woods vs. Shewry as case law. If a male DV victim wanted to sue a women's shelter for turning him away, he would not be able to point to the Woods vs. Shewry case in order to support his case. If there was a case that sought equal protection under the law for both sexes, Woods vs. Shewry could not be invoked in support of that case.

Essentially, it's a huge gamble to piggyback the case for the inmate fathers on top of the Woods vs. Shewry case. We finally win a big case, and the next thing you know we're rolling the dice with it, gambling with our own precious gains.

Why not seek out litigants in the prison system who have standing to challenge existing law on their own, starting at the bottom of the legal ladder and working our way up? Must we jeopardize previous gains in order to make further gains in the short term?

The letter-writing effort is meant to support the gamble I have just described. It sounds well-intentioned, but tactically I think that it's just too big a risk. Instead of writing letters in support of a huge gamble, we should be finding inmates who have standing to challenge the law through a totally separate case.

John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
"Stopping False Allegations with Surveillance Technology"

If the California Supreme Court accepts review, then it's almost certain we'll win on the inmate parent part, and the court can either order the DV part published or can restate it in their own decision as they please. I don't believe the court will allow that part to go depublished. But even if that did happen, the case still can be cited whenever we sue the state, and in any case where we sue a shelter we will also sue the state. In fact IMO we can cite it even if we only sued the shelter, because it specifically involves that particular funding and thus would be res judicata.

It will otherwise takes years and years to go into the prisons and find the right plaintiffs for this. Over 85,000 inmate fathers are being denied their equal rights and I think that's important enough to challenge right now rather than waiting another 5 years. I think it's definitely work whatever risk there is.

What if we needed the precedent for something less explicit, such as case law for an equal protection claim that is unrelated to state-DV funding? For example, discrimination against males in the workplace or in elementary/secondary/higher education? In those cases, there would be far more men -- millions -- who would be in need of the case law from Woods than only the few thousand who compose the inmate population. Risking depublishing the Woods case could thus negatively affect far more men than just the inmate population over the long term.

Also, it sends a bad message to anyone who might ever want to join us in the future as plaintiffs. When David Woods comes forward, to eventually win at the appellate level only to have it all jeopardized by subsequent legal action, other potential plaintiffs might get the idea that they're risking a long, expensive and emotionally taxing public ordeal that may not last even if they win. Listen to the trepidation in Woods' voice, in this videotaped interview, where even in the glow of victory for his case he says, "...at least the way it seems right now at this moment..." Flush with victory, he still was uncertain about whether his case made a difference. Now it seems likely that his concerns were well-founded. If the Woods decision ends up being depublished, it might be harder to find plaintiffs like Woods to come forward and work with us in the future.

Of course, I hope that the case for inmate fathers gets its due. But it's still a risk to bump it up the chain as a part of Woods.

John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
"Stopping False Allegations with Surveillance Technology"

"What if we needed the precedent for something less explicit, such as case law for an equal protection claim that is unrelated to state-DV funding? For example, discrimination against males in the workplace or in elementary/secondary/higher education?"

The Woods case would not be all that directly helpful, only indirectly helpful, in such scenarios. Remember that the Woods case rested on other laws and cases that are well-established even if it so happened that Woods was depublished, i.e., the Connerly case which set very powerful precedent for equal protection based on gender including males. In fact, if we won the inmate parenting case it would be even more relevant to discrimination against men in the workplace or education than the DV case, and we would have it at the CA Supreme Court level rather than just the appellate level.

Also, again, if the CA Supreme accepts review, then we're almost certain to win, and it's very likely (IMO almost certain) they'll publish or re-state the DV part, which means we would also have the CA Supreme Court's blessing on the DV part.

To me, it's much more worth shooting for Supreme Court review than to allow this blatant violation of men's equal rights to go buried.

I do respect the view you take John and have spoken with others who feel the same. But I don't agree with it for the reasons stated. I recognize I could be wrong, but I just don't think so. Again, to summarize:

(1) If the court accepts review, we're likely to win, which is huge;
(2) If the court accepts review, they'll *probably* re-state the DV part as is, or order it published, and I'll specifically make the request that they do. That decision is far too important to go unpublished.
(3) If it so happened that the DV part became unpublished, we can still cite it whenever we sue the state and shelters. Meanwhile we would probably have a major victory for inmate fathers at the state Supreme Court level.

Review was just denied. So now we'll need to find individual inmate dads who qualify for the program, which could take years.

At least the internal conflict, dialogued above, is resolved. There is no risk at all anymore that our victory will be depublished.

Thank the lord that's over.

You guys were either college roommates, or present-day drinking buddies, right?

I think we had a beer once up in Sacramento, right John?

:-)

We were going to, right before the DV conference last February (for which DVDs are now available). But somehow it never worked out. But we did grab a bite after you argued the case before the appellate court.

Next time we're in the same neighborhood, it's Miller Time, bro!