In February 2007, plaintiff Barry Hazle Jr., 40, a computer repair business owner, was released from a California state prison after serving one year on a narcotics possession conviction. As a condition of his parole, Hazle had to participate in a 90-day residential drug treatment program. Despite alerting authorities that he was an atheist, Hazle was assigned to Empire Recovery Center, a facility that employed a 12-step program requiring participants to acknowledge the existence of a “higher power.” As a result, he complained to his parole officer and to the representatives of Westcare, an entity that contracts with the state of California to establish a network of treatment facilities for parolees. Based on Hazle’s objections to the program, parole officials determined he had violated the terms of his parole and returned him to prison for more than three months. Hazle was released from prison in July 2007. Hazle sued his parole officer, Mitch Crofoot; Parole Unit Supervisor Brenda Wilding; Associate Chief Deputy Commissioner Richard Jallings; a secretary of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Matthew Cate; CDCR’s chief deputy secretary of adult operations, Scott Kernan; the former director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations, Tom Hoffman; an employee of Mental Health Systems Inc., Marion Smith; Westcare; and a contractor with the CDCR relating to placement of parolees in residential treatment, Mental Health Systems Inc. Hazle alleged that the defendants violated his First Amendment civil rights. He also sought an injunction to prevent future constitutional violations. Defense counsel contended that Crofoot tried to locate another non-religious program in Northern California, but that none was available, and that Crofoot had Hazle fill out and file a grievance, which Crofoot expedited. Crofoot claimed that after contacting CDCR about its unique gate turn-in option to civil addicts, which involved Hazle turning himself into prison, and arguing his appeal while serving as an inmate, he advised Hazle to drive down to CDCR and plead his case to the Board of Prison Hearings, but Hazle rejected that. Defense counsel contended that, finally, the residential treatment program advised Crofoot that Hazle was no longer welcome there because he had been disruptive. Defense counsel presented evidence at trial showing that none of the defendants established the conditions of Hazle’s civil narcotic addict release, that the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority did, and that the defendants had no authority to modify or remove any of the conditions, which is why the defendants sent Hazle back to the Center for the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority to resolve the problem. In response, Hazle claimed that he did submit an appeal, at Crofoot’s urging suggestion, but that ultimately he received notice that it was denied while he was in prison, after his parole was revoked. Hazle’s counsel noted that two months after Hazle filed suit, the CDCR issued a directive stating that parole agents may not compel a parolee to take part in religious-themed programs and that a parolee who objects should be referred to non-religious treatment, citing federal case law. Prior to trial, Smith and Mental Health Systems were dismissed from the case, and Hoffman was also dismissed at the pretrial conference. On April 7, 2010, the district court granted Hazle a partial summary judgment against Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins, finding they were liable for violating Hazle’s constitutional rights. However, it entered summary judgment in favor of Westcare, and against Hazle, on Hazle’s claim for injunctive relief. Thus, Westcare was also dismissed by way of summary judgment. As a result, a jury trial was held on June 22, 2010, solely to determine the amount of damages, if any, as against Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins., At trial, Hazle testified that he suffered stress, anxiety and fear associated with the dangerous prison conditions and the frustration caused by his unconstitutional imprisonment. (The parties stipulated to the overcrowded and dangerous conditions at the Norco state prison, where Hazle was sent.) Thus, Hazle sought recovery of $650,000 in compensatory damages for his emotional distress and loss of freedom of movement (liberty). He also sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel argued at trial that there was no evidence of emotional distress, that Hazle’s 90-day incarceration at CRC followed a long line of incarcerations and, thus, his loss of liberty was negligible. Counsel also argued that Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins had no authority to do anything other than what they did, such that punitive damages were not warranted. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict on June 24, 2010, finding that Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins did not cause Hazle emotional distress damages, or loss of time or freedom of movement damages. It also found that none of the defendants should be assessed punitive damages. Accordingly, the jury awarded no damages as against Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins, thereby resolving the plaintiff’s 42 USC § 1983 claim. As a result of the jury’s finding, Hazel filed an appeal. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the jury had been erroneously instructed on the parole defendants’ joint-and-several liability and holding that as a victim of unconstitutional imprisonment, Hazle was entitled to compensatory damages as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also reversed the summary judgment in favor of Westcare and reversed the summary judgment on Hazle’s claim for an injunction. The matter was then remanded back to the district court for a new trial, and the district court judge was directed to instruct the jury that Hazle was entitled to compensatory damages and that the parole defendants — Crofoot, Wilding and Jallins — were jointly and severally liable. Thus, the matter case was scheduled for retrial in June 2015.