1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)
KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013) 2 PRISON LAW OFFICE
3 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2704 Fax: (510) 280-2704
5 MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522)
6 COOLEY LLP
Five Palo Alto Square 7 3000 El Camino Real
8 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Telephone: (650) 843-5000
9 MARY KATHRYN KELLY (SBN 170259)
10 COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall
11 San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: (858) 490-6000 12
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 13 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 QUENTIN HALL, ROBERT MERRYMAN,

DAWN SINGH, and CARLTON FIELDS, on 17 behalf of themselves and all others similarly

Case No.

18 situated,

CLASS ACTION

19

v.

Plaintiffs,

20 MARGARET MIMS, Sheriff, Fresno County;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

EDWARD MORENO, M.D., Director, Fresno 21 County Department of Public Health; GEORGE

22

LAIRD, Ph.D., Division Manager, Division of Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of

23 Public Health; PRATAP NARAYEN, M.D., Medical Director, Division of Correctional Health,
24 Fresno County Department of Public Health;

RICK HILL, Captain of Detention, Fresno County 25 Sheriff’s Office; MARILYNN WELDON, Captain

26 of Inmate Programs and Contracts, Fresno County Sheriff’s Office,

27

Defendants.

28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

RACHEL SCHERER (SBN 260538)

2

ANDREW BERK (SBN 248386)

3

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 902

4

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 427-8747 5

6

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON CAPTION PAGE]

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. This civil rights class action lawsuit se eks declaratory and injunctive relief to

3 remedy dangerous and unconstitutional conditi ons in the Fresno County Adult Detention

4 Facilities (“Jail”). Plaintiffs, who are four prisoners in the Jail, bring this ac tion on behalf of

5 themselves and all other prisoners (pretrial and convicted detainees) in the Jail, because they have

6 been and continue to be seriousl y injured as a result of Fresno C ounty officials’ systemic failure

7 to 1) provide m inimally adequate health care, including medical, mental health, and dental care;

8 and 2) protect prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners. This failure to provide

9 adequate care and saf ety in the J ail has caused widespread harm , including severe and

10 unnecessary pain and injury, and violates pr isoners’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

11 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

12

2. Defendant Sheriff Margaret Mims is ultimately responsible for the health care and

13 safety of prisoners in the Jail, but she has failed to meet this responsibility. Sheriff Mims and the

14 other Defendants have been deli berately indifferent to the u nreasonable risk of harm caused by

15 policies and practices th at result in an ineffective health care sc reening process, an ineffective

16 health care request an d referral system , delayed access to health care, under-qualified an d

17 insufficient numbers of health ca re staff, and the delivery of substandard health care. One

18 consequence of such policies and practices is that prisoners with serious mental health conditions

19 are housed in dungeon-like conditions of extrem e sensory deprivation where correctional officers

20 attempt to control th eir untreated mental sym ptoms with force. Another consequence is that

21 prisoners with serious and chronic m edical conditions have suffered from life-threatening

22 symptoms that could have been avoided if they had received timely and adequate medical care.

23

3. Sheriff Mims and the other Defendants have also been deliberately indifferent to

24 the level of violence among prisone rs that is caused, at least in part, by exceedingly low staff-to-

25 prisoner ratios, inadequate classification procedures, and dangerous jail construction design flaws.

26 As a result of this deliberate indifference, prisoners are frequen tly harmed by assaults or fights

27 with other prisoners in the Jail.

28

4. Because Defendants know that p risoners live under co nditions creating an

1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 unreasonable risk of harm but have not responded reasonably to this dire situation, Plaintiffs seek

2 an injunction compelling Defendants to imm ediately provide them and the c lass members they

3 represent with constitutionally adequate care and protection from violence and assault from other

4 prisoners.

5

JURISDICTION

6

5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331,

7 1343, and 1367. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Se ctions 1343,

8 2201, and 2202; 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.; and 29 U.S.C. Section

9 794.

10

VENUE

11

6. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section

12 1391(b) because Plaintiffs’ claim s for relief arose in this dist rict, and one or more of the

13 defendants reside in the district.

14

PARTIES

15

7. Plaintiff Quentin Hall is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Hall has

16 suffered from hallucinations, delusions, m anic and depressive episodes, a nd severe anxiety as a

17 result of Defendants’ failure to provide him with minimally adequate mental health care. After

18 five months of not receiving medically necessary anti-psychotic medications, Mr. Hall was found

19 incompetent to stand trial and sent to Atascader o State Hospital (ASH). Upon his return to the

20 Jail three months later, the ASH discharge summ ary notified Defendants that he suffered from

21 Schizoaffective Disorder and he n eeds an anti -psychotic medication to adequa tely treat his

22 symptoms. Defendants discontinued his anti-psychotic medication within the first 24 hours of his

23 arrival, and they continue to refuse to provide this medically necessary psychotropic medication.

24 As a result, Mr. Hall is suffering from recurring psychosis, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. He

25 has submitted several written requests and grievances for mental health treatment to no avail. Mr.

26 Hall has exhausted his administrative remedies.

27

8. Plaintiff Robert Merryman is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Merryman

28 suffers from serious and chronic diseases in cluding Chronic Obstructive Pulm onary Disease

2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 (COPD), and hypertension. Mr. Merrym an has desc ribed his untreated sym ptoms in several

2 written requests for medical care and grievances. Medical specialists hired by Defendants have

3 also notified Defendants that Mr. Merrym an requires medical care. Nonetheless , Defendants

4 have failed to provide him with even m inimally adequate medical care, including, but not limited

5 to, timely access to qu alified medical professionals, medically necessary diagnostic testing,

6 medically necessary specialty care, and essentia l medications. Mr. Merrym an was also attacked

7 and injured by another prisoner as a result of Defendants’ pattern and practice of understaffing

8 correctional officers and failing to provide ade quate supervision. Mr. Merrym an has exhausted

9 his administrative remedies.

10

9. Plaintiff Dawn Singh is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Prior to her

11 incarceration, Ms. Singh was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. Since her incarceration, Ms. Singh

12 has suffered from excruciating medical symptoms for two years as a result of Defendants’ failure

13 to adequately treat her Crohn’s Disease. Thes e symptoms include hemorrhaging, abdominal pain

14 and cramping, diarrhea, fevers, dehydration a nd fatigue. Ms. Singh has written dozens of

15 requests for health care and filed grievances de scribing these symptoms. Medical specialists

16 hired by Defendants have also notified Defenda nts that Ms. Singh requires m edical care.

17 Regardless, Defendants have failed to provide h er with timely access to qualified professionals,

18 medically necessary diagnostic testing, and m edically necessary specialty and follow-up care.

19 Ms. Singh has exhausted her administrative remedies.

20

10. Plaintiff Carlton Fields is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Fields suffered

21 from a sev erely painful, swollen, and infected tooth for at le ast two weeks as a resu lt of

22 Defendants’ failure to provide him with adequate dental care. During that two-week period, he

23 made several written requests for dental care, spoke with several correctional officers, and

24 submitted a grievance describing his symptoms. Although he belatedly received dental care for

25 his infection, he is still suffering from painful and bleeding gums, and he is at risk o f serious and

26 irreversible tooth decay as a result of Defendant s’ failure to provide hi m with adequate dental

27 hygiene tools. Mr. Fields has exhausted his administrative remedies.

28

11. Defendant Sheriff Margaret Mim s is the Sheriff of the County of Fresno. She is

3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 sued in her official capacity. In her capacity as Sheriff, she is ultim ately responsible for the

2 safekeeping of all prisoners in th e Jail. These responsibilities in clude, but are not lim ited to, the

3 operation and adm inistration of all of the Jail facilities. Sheriff Mims has contracted with the

4 Fresno County Department of Public Health to provide all health care services in the Jail, but by

5 statute retains the u ltimate county authority over the health care and treatm ent of the plaintif f

6 class.

7

12. Defendant Edward Moreno is the Director of the Department of Public Health. He

8 is sued in his official capacit y. He is responsible for the pr ovision of health care services,

9 including medical, dental, and m ental health care, to all prisoners in the Ja il. His responsibilities

10 include, but are not limited to, ap proving all policies and procedures for the delivery of health

11 care in the Jail.

12

13. Defendant George Laird is the Division Manager of the Division of Correctional

13 Health in the Fresno County Department of Public Health. He is sued in his official capacity. He

14 is responsible for supervising the operation and administration of health care services in the Jail.

15

14. Defendant Pratap Narayen is the Medical Director of the Divi sion of Correctional

16 Health in the Fresno County Department of Public Health. He is sued in his official capacity. He

17 is responsible for the delivery of health care services to all prisoners in the Jail.

18

15. Defendant Rick Hill is the Captain of Detention in the Ja il. He is sued in his

19 official capacity. His responsibil ities include, but are not lim ited to, custody operations, prisoner

20 classification, correctional officer training, security emergency response, and prisoner grievances.

21

16. Defendant Marilynn Weldon is the Captain of Inm ate Programs and Contracts.

22 She is sued in her official cap acity. Her responsibilities incl ude, but are not lim ited to, the

23 oversight of the contract with the Departm ent of Public Health for the delivery of health care in

24 the Jail.

25

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26

17. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1),

27 and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proc edure, on behalf of all adult m en and wom en

28 (“prisoners”) who are now, or w ill be in the future, in the cu stody of the Fresno County Sheriff

4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 and who ar e now, or will be in the f uture, subject to an unreasonable risk of harm due to the

2 following policies and practices:

3

(a) Denial of minimally adequate medical care,

4

(b) Denial of minimally adequate mental health care,

5

(c) Denial of minimally adequate dental care, and

6

(d) Denial of protection from injury and violence from other prisoners.

7

18. The class is so num erous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are

8 currently more than 2,3 00 prisoners in the Ja il, and the population is expect ed to grow to more

9 than 2,700 prisoners in April 2012 due to AB 109, which is a legislative m easure designed to

10 reduce the state prison population by housing m ore prisoners in county jails (“realignment”). All

11 prisoners are at risk of developi ng serious medical, dental, or m ental health conditions while in

12 the Jail, and while the exact number is unknown, plaintiffs believe there are hundreds of prisoners

13 at any given time who already have serious medical, dental, and/or mental health conditions. All

14 prisoners in the Jail are at risk of injury a nd violence from other prisoners. Finally, although the

15 exact number is unknown, plaintiffs believe there are scores of prisoners with disabilities who are

16 unable to receive reasonable accommodations.

17

19. There are questions of law and fact comm on to the class including 1) whether the

18 failure to provide m inimally adequate m edical, dental, and mental health care vio lates the Due

19 Process Clause of the Fourteen th Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishm ent Clause of

20 the Eighth Am endment to the United States C onstitution; and 2) whether the f ailure to pro tect

21 prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners violates the D ue Process Clause of the

22 Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment

23 to the United States Constitution.

24

20. Since the num ber of c lass members is m ore than 2,300, separate actions by

25 individuals would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and va rying decisions, which in turn

26 would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants.

27

21. Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final

28 injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

22. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the cla ims of the class and

2 subclasses, and the Nam ed Plaintiffs, through couns el, will fairly and ad equately protect the

3 interests of the class.

4

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5

23. Sheriff Mims is ultimately responsible for the care and safety of the approximately

6 2,300 prisoners in the Jail. In her role as Sheriff, she supervis es a team of seven managerial staff

7 that includes Captain Hill and Captain Weldon. Captain H ill is responsible for the correctional

8 operations of the Jail. Captain W eldon oversees the contract with the Departm ent of Public

9 Health for the delive ry of health ca re in the J ail. In this ro le, she work s directly with Edward

10 Moreno, George Laird, and Pratap Narayan, who are the Departm ent of Public Health

11 administrators responsible for th e delivery of health care at the Jail. All of these parties are

12 intimately familiar with the po licies and pr actices described herein that create an u nreasonable

13 risk of harm to prisoners at the Jail.

14

24. Sheriff Mims, in her role as supervisor and executive administrator of the Jail, has

15 knowledge of the policies and practi ces described herein that create an unreasonable risk of harm

16 to prisoners caused by inadequate health care and violence from other prisoners, but she has

17 disregarded this risk. P laintiffs’ counsel notified Sheriff Mims of the u nreasonable risk of h arm

18 described in this com plaint in a 12 -page letter dated Octob er 4, 2011. Sheriff Mim s initially

19 responded by requesting a delay of two m onths to the end of November to investigate these

20 issues. As of this date, Sherriff Mim s has not provided any substantive response to the issues

21 raised in the letter, and Defendants have failed to take reasonable measures to abate the excessive

22 risk of harm.

23 I.
24

HEALTH CARE 25. Prisoners are entirely dependent on De

fendants for basic health care, but

25 Defendants are f ailing in their cons titutional obligation to provide suc h care. The m edical,

26 dental, and m ental health care (“ health care”) provided by Defe ndants in the Ja il is woef ully

27 inadequate and subjects prisoners to an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. Defendants

28 have a policy and practice of failing to e mploy qualified health care professionals, to properly or

6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 conscientiously train and supervis e the conduct of such persons after their em ployment, and to

2 provide timely access to minimally adequate care. Defendants’ conduct demonstrates deliberate

3 indifference and a reckless disregard for prisoners’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

4 A. Defendants Maintain I nsufficient Health Care Staffing to Provide Adequate

5

Health Care to Prisoners.

6

26. Defendants’ have a policy and practice of maintaining fewer health care positions

7 than are necessary to adequately treat the number of prisoners in the jail. Th ere are insufficient

8 medical, dental, and mental health clinician s (i.e., physicians, psychi atrists, psychologists,

9 therapists, social workers, and registered nurses) to provide adequate care to over 2,300 prisoners.

10 This is a m ajor contributing factor in the woefully inadequate health c are delivery system in the

11 Jail. For exam ple, there are no t enough staff to tim ely respond to prisoners’ requests for health

12 care, or to adequately screen, m onitor, and provide follow-up care to prisoners who are sufferin g

13 from serious and chronic illnesses. This problem is exacerbated between the hours of 11 p.m. and

14 7 a.m. when the m ost prisoners are booked into the Jail and the only medical providers serving

15 2,300 prisoners located in three diffe rent buildings (North Jail, S outh Annex Jail, and Main Jail)

16 are four nurses.

17

27. The Jail has not always been so severely understaffed. Over the last few years, in

18 response to Fresno County budget cuts, Defendants have systematically eliminated staffing

19 positions for health care providers in the Jail, including physicians, nurse practitioners, registered

20 nurses, and psychiatric technicians. They have elim inated these positions in the face of dire

21 warnings from health care providers during budget hearing testimony that prisoner-patients would

22 suffer serious harm or death from delayed access to care, delayed respo nse time to emergencies,

23 poor medication management practices, and entry-le vel providers practicing outside the scope of

24 their licensure. Defendants ignored these warnin gs, and prisoner-patients are now suffering from

25 inadequate health care as a result of their deliberate indifference.

26

28. As a resu lt of these staffing shortag es, Licensed Vocational Nurses (L VNs) and

27 Psychiatric Technicians (LPTs) make sole determinations about whether prisoners should be seen

28 by clinicians in response to requests or referrals for health care. But, according to th e California

7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Board of Vocational Nurses and Psychiatric Techni cians, LVNs and LPTs are entry level health

2 care providers who m ust only practice under the di rect supervision of physicians, psychologists,

3 registered nurses, social workers, or other qualified professionals, and are not qualified to do their

4 own patient evaluations or assessm ents. Noneth eless, the LVNs and LPTs are tasked with

5 independently assessing and responding to pris oners’ health care requests and correctional

6 officers’ referrals for h ealth care, and theref ore serve as de facto gatekeepers for further

7 treatment.

8

29. For example, Defendants rely upon thes e entry-level provi ders to act as

9 gatekeepers for m ental health treatm ent. In many instances, LPTs erroneously d etermine that

10 prisoners with documented histories of m ental illness and serious ongoing m ental health

11 conditions do not warrant treatment by mental health clinicians. These same low-level employees

12 also make unsupervised decisions about whethe r and where m entally ill prisoners who are

13 potentially a danger to them selves or others should be housed in the Jail, decisions that can have

14 serious or even life-threatening consequences.

15 B. The Screening and Intake Pro cess for Serious Illnesses, Mental Health

16

Conditions, and Communicable Diseases Is Inadequate.

17

30. Defendants have a po licy and pra ctice of failing to adequ ately identify and treat

18 the health care problems of newly arriving prisoners during the screening and intake process. As

19 prisoners are booked into the Jail, they are placed in an open holding cell with other prisoners. A

20 nurse, sitting on the other side of a glass window, asks the prisone rs a series of questions about

21 any medical symptoms or treatm ent. In front of other prisoners, the newly arriving prisoners

22 must divulge personal and privat e information about their health loudly enough so that the nurse

23 can hear them through the window. Not only is this process humiliating and demeaning, it is

24 dangerous because many prisoners reasonab ly do not want other priso ners to kno w about their

25 private health care, especially their mental health histories, and ther efore fail to divulge all of the

26 information needed to house them safely and provide adequate health care.

27

31. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to id entify prisoners with

28 communicable diseases and seriou s illnesses during the screen ing and intake process. For

8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 example, medical staff do not adequately screen for tuberculosis. Although tuberculosis is highly

2 contagious and potentia lly deadly, prisoners do not receive testing f or this d isease until sever al

3 weeks or even sometimes several months after they arrive, if they are ever tested at all.

4

32. Defendants have a policy and practice of fa iling to adequate ly identify prisoners

5 who are experiencing mental health symptoms and who are at risk of suicide during the screening

6 and intake process. T he form used during a ll screenings does not even prom pt the nurse

7 conducting the admission interview to ask any questions about current mental health symptoms or

8 past mental health treatment. Instead, the form onl y asks two questions rela ted to mental health:

9 “Have you ever tried to commit suicide?” and “Are you currently taking any prescription drugs?”

10 These questions fall far short of eliciting the re quisite screening inform ation about whether the

11 prisoner has serious mental health needs.

12 C. The Process for Prisoners to Request Health Care Is Inadequate.

13

33. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to p rovide a reliable way for

14 prisoners to alert health care staff of their need for evaluation of medical, mental health, or dental

15 problems. To request health care, prisoners are instructed to use the Medical Request for Services

16 form, which is a green for m commonly called a “g reen slip.” If pris oners tell he alth care

17 providers who happen to be in th eir housing units about their sym ptoms, they are told to “fill out

18 a green slip.” After filling out green slips, prisoners must give them to correctional officers, who

19 do not always forward those com pleted green slips to the appropriate health care providers. In

20 some instances, correctional officers refuse to give prisoners green slips to fill out when prisoners

21 request them, or they mock prisoners for their sy mptoms, whether written on a green slip or told

22 to them directly.

23

34. When and if health care providers receive green slips from prisoners, they often do

24 not provide a tim ely response. For exam ple, Plaintiff Dawn Singh never received a response to

25 seven green slips she submitted from September through December 2009 complaining of rectal

26 bleeding, abdominal cramping, and frequent bowel movements. In June 2011, health care

27 providers failed to evaluate anot her prisoner in response to her gr een slips describing symptoms

28 related to uncontrolled high bloo d pressure, including blurre d vision, arm pain, and heart

9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 palpitations.

2

35. The failure to tim ely respond to green s lips is caused, at least in part, by

3 Defendants’ failure to create an effective tr acking and scheduling system for health care

4 appointments. Another contributin g factor is there are no standard ized protocols dictating when

5 prisoners should receive a face-to -face appointment with a nurse or other m edical, dental, or

6 mental health care clinician. Consequently, hea lth care providers arbitrarily determine whether

7 the content of a green slip, ofte n written by a prisoner who can bare ly read or write, warrants an

8 examination.

9

36. In some instances, medical staff members respond to green slips solely in writing.

10 For example, in response to green slips from one prisoner dated January 3 and 6, 2011, describing

11 headaches and dizziness after a head inju ry, the sole response from medical staff was a written

12 note telling him to buy Motrin and Tylenol from the canteen. In another example, medical staff

13 failed to respond to a prisoner’s green slips de scribing alarming and serious high blood pressure

14 symptoms, and instead admonished her in a written response to take medications she had already

15 explained were not helping and may have been worsening her symptoms.

16 D. Prisoners Suffer from Unreasonably Delayed Access to Health Care.

17

37. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide timely access to health

18 care. If p risoners are s een by h ealth care prov iders at all, they often experien ce unreasonable

19 delays in receiving those appointm ents. Pris oners commonly wait several weeks, som etimes

20 several months, before they are evaluated by clinicians for m edical, mental health, or dental

21 symptoms. For exam ple, one prisoner waited at least six months before he was evaluated by a

22 physician in response to at least nine green

slips and a grievance de scribing debilitating

23 migraines. While he w aited, he spent days at a time curled up in a fetal position on his bed with

24 his head under the blan kets trying to m anage the pain. Another priso ner is still waiting to be

25 evaluated by a physician in res ponse to green s lips requesting asthm a and seizure m edications

26 that he submitted over five months ago. In fact, since he arrived in April 2011, he has never been

27 examined by a health care provide r even though Jail m edical staff verified four months after

28 admission that he has been provided seizure a nd psychiatric m edications by the state prison

10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 system.

2

38. Plaintiff Carlton Fields waited two weeks in agony fr om an infected and swollen

3 tooth before he was seen by a dentist. Mr. Fields began seeking dental care for a severe toothache

4 shortly after his arrival in August 20 11. In his first two weeks at the Jail, he subm itted several

5 green slips. He begged several correction al officers to help him receive care. He went cell by

6 cell asking other prisoners if they had any pain m edications to spare. He approached a nurse in

7 his pod and showed her his tooth. Despite all of these efforts, Defendants failed to respond to Mr.

8 Field’s pleas for treatment. Out of sheer desper ation after days of b linding pain, he told a

9 correctional officer that he was experien cing chest pain in an attempt to be seen in the m edical

10 clinic for treatment of his tooth. He was seen by a nurse, but was not provided with dental care.

11 In another act of desperation, he told a correctional officer that he was in so much pain he would

12 hurt someone if not pro vided with dental care. In response, he was p laced in a “safety cell, ”

13 which is a stark, rubber-walled cell with nothing but a hole in the fl oor to use as a toilet. After

14 several hours and m ore begging for de ntal care, he was finally taken out of the safety cell to the

15 dental clinic where he was diagnosed with an acu te infection. But even then, his tooth was not

16 pulled until severa l days later, a tota l of three weeks af ter he began subm itting green slips and

17 asking for care.

18 E. Even When Prisoners See Hea lth Care Providers, T hey Do Not Receive

19

Adequate Care.

20

Substandard Medical Care

21

39. None of the Jail’s physicians are board certified in any areas of m edical

22 specialization. Board c ertification is obtained through a rigor ous process of testing and peer

23 evaluation. Board certification is important in a jail setting because prisoners tend to have higher

24 levels of illness than the ge neral population, and the range and acuity of those illnesses is

25 particularly complex. Even though physicians in the Jail have not gone th rough this certification

26 process, they are called upon to diagnose and treat prisoners with serious and chronic diseases

27 such as HIV, diabetes, cirrhosis, and seizure d isorders. T he standard of care in the profess ion

28 requires these types of conditions to be ref erred to a b oard certified specialist in interna l

11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 medicine, but Defendants do not consistently follow that standard of care.

2

40. Defendants have a policy and practice of making treatment decisions without

3 examining prisoners. In som e instances, they rely solely on brief notes or reports from nurses or

4 medical assistants. Fo r example, instead of exam ining Plaintiff Merrym an after a nu rse

5 documented that he was complaining of chest and abdominal pain, his physician simply ordered a

6 refill of his pain m edications and an EKG. Due to Mr. Merryman’s co-existing and serio us

7 medical conditions, the minimum standard of care would have been for the physician to exam ine

8 him to ensure that the abdominal pain he experienced was not the result of an infection.

9

41. In other instances, physicians m ake treatment decisions even though there is no

10 recent medical information whatsoever in a prisone r’s medical records. For example, Plaintiff

11 Merryman’s physician prescribed a certain medication on Ma y 23, 2011 without taking or

12 checking any laboratory tests, which is contrary to the standard practice when prescribing such

13 medication and put him at risk of conditions incl uding cardiac arrhythm ia. In som e instances,

14 physicians prescribe m edication based solely on correctional officers’ de scription of prisoners’

15 symptoms. For exam ple, a physician increase d a prisoner’s blood pressure m edications on

16 January 26, 2011, based solely on a correctional officer’s report that his legs were swollen.

17

42. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide complete examinations,

18 including after significant illnesses have been identif ied and/or documented. For exam ple, even

19 though Plaintiff Singh consistently com plained of abdominal cram ping, weight loss, watery

20 stools, and had a docum ented history of s mall bowel surgery, she d id not receive a rectal

21 examination, which is the standard of care, for at least a year and a half after she began requesting

22 treatment. Also, although her physician did not co mplete a rectal exam ination or consult with a

23 gastrointestinal specialist, he prescribed a dangerous and aggressi ve course of steroid treatm ent

24 on October 18, 2010. Once Ms. Singh was finally seen by a specialist alm ost four months after

25 she was belatedly referred by the Jail physician, the m edication regimen was immediately

26 discontinued.

27

43. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to order diagnostic testing or refer

28 prisoners to specialists when medically necessary. For example, after a prison er injured his head

12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 in a fall on or around January 1, 2011, his physician failed to test for infection until his wound

2 was emitting a foul odor one m onth after the injury, even though it was showing signs of

3 infection for over two weeks. This prisoner has a compromised immune system due to cirrhosis,

4 and his physician should have known that he was at high risk of infection. After the delayed test

5 came back positiv e for a staph inf ection, the phys ician failed to refer him to a s pecialist to

6 determine the extent of the infection. His phys ician failed to m ake this referral even though the

7 infection was poten tially life-threatening due to his comprom ised immune system and the

8 infection’s proximity to his brain.

9

44. Plaintiff Dawn Singh was not referred to a specialist for her Crohn’s disease for

10 over a year even though she had ongoing sym ptoms of severe abdom inal pain, diarrhea,

11 dehydration, and fatigue. After she was referred on September 16, 2011, Jail medical staff failed

12 to follow-through and contact the specialist to schedule an appoint ment. The Jail physician did

13 not discover this failure until two months later in Nove mber 2011 when he evaluated Ms. Singh

14 for bloody diarrhea, a common symp tom of a Crohn’s Disease flare-up, and re-referred her to the

15 specialist. Ms. Singh was forced to wait alm ost two more months until she was finally seen b y

16 the specialist on January 6, 2011.

17

45. Another prisoner told the screening nurse upon her arrival in May, 2011 that she

18 had a history of kidney failure. Co ntrary to the standard of care, Defendants failed to obtain her

19 community records or perform laboratory tests to determ ine the seve rity of her kidney disease.

20 Defendants failed to evaluate her in response to her repeated green slips describing blurred vision,

21 headaches, swelling in her extrem ities, difficulty urinating, nausea, vo miting, and high blood

22 pressure. Also contrary to the standard of care, Defendants failed to order urgent diagnostic tests

23 in response to these symptom s to determine whether her kidneys were functioning properly.

24 Blood tests were finally ta ken for the first tim e three months after her arrival on July 29, 2011.

25 These tests showed that she was at risk of de ath from kidney failure and a dangerously high

26 potassium level, but a physician did not review her blood test resu lts until sev en days later o n

27 August 4, 2011, at which tim e she was hospitalized. She remained hospitalized until August 12,

28 2011, and put on dialysis three tim es a week. If Defendants had provided treatment according to

13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 the standard of care, her wors ening kidney failure would have been caught m onths earlier,

2 certainly delaying, if not averting the need for dialysis.

3

46. If physicians prescribe treatm ent, or when prisoners return from the hospital, or

4 when they are discharged from the Jail infirmary, Defendants have a policy and practice of failing

5 to monitor symptoms and provide follow-up treat ment. For exam ple, Plaintiff Dawn Singh

6 received a colonoscopy on July 20, 2011. Although her colonoscopy results were not normal, and

7 her specialist subsequently recomm ended additional diagnostic tests to rule out fungal infections

8 and tuberculosis, the Jail physician failed to or der this follow-up care, and she was not re-

9 evaluated by a physician until her ne xt specialty appointm ent two m onths later. The specialist

10 again ordered the same diagnostic tests because they are necessary before she can begin receiving

11 treatment for her active Crohn’s Disease.

12

47. Plaintiff Bob Merrym an was hospitalized for three days in July 2011, where he

13 was diagnosed with m oderate to severely high blood pressure in his lungs, cirrhosis, and large

14 swollen blood vessels in his esophagus. Th e discharge summary recomm ended follow-up

15 appointments with a gastro intestinal (GI) sp ecialist and pulmonary specia list in one week. Mr.

16 Merryman was not seen by the GI specialis t until five months later on December 1, 2011, and he

17 has not been seen by the pulm onary specialist, despite the f act that more than five months have

18 elapsed since it was prescribed.

19

48. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to prescribe medically necessary

20 medications, including for serious and chronic diseases such as Chronic Obstructive Pulm onary

21 Disease (COPD), hypertension, asthma, seizure diso rders, and cirrhosis. Physicians fail to

22 prescribe these medications even after prisoners and their families have notified medical staff of

23 valid prescriptions written prior to the prisoner’s arrival at the Jail, either in the community before

24 incarceration, in the s tate prison system, or during previous incarcera tions in the Jail. Prison ers

25 are often labeled as “drug-seeking” even when they are requesting medications that have no street

26 value or intoxication effects.

27

49. For example, Plaintiff Robert Merry man’s physician labeled him as “drug-

28 seeking,” even though he had not fully evaluated him for his complaints and the medications Mr.

14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Merryman sought were to treat his COPD, cirr hosis, and high blood pressure. His physician

2 inexplicably delayed for two m onths prescribing medications to control the swelling in his legs,

3 which is a clear departure from the standard of care. Another prisoner did not receive his

4 cirrhosis medications until he was hospitalized for internal bleeding and vomiting on March 26,

5 2011, despite the fact that Defendants were notifie d of a pre-existing prescription for cirrhosis

6 medications over two months earlier, on January 13, 2011.

7

Substandard Mental Health Care

8

50. Defendants have a polic y and practice of failing to provide m edically necessary

9 psychotropic medications to prisoners with serious mental health conditions. They fail to provide

10 these medications even when provided with valid prescriptions from the California Department of

11 Mental Health, community providers, fam ily members, or the C alifornia Department of

12 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

13

51. Prisoners with serious m ental health conditions who have l ong and docum ented

14 histories of receiving anti-psyc hotic or mood-stabilizing medications are often labeled as “drug-

15 seeking” or “malingering” by mental health staff when they seek these medications in the Jail. In

16 some instances, they are prescribed m edications which are known not to be effective in treating

17 their psychosis or mood disorders.

18

52. As a resu lt of Defendants’ pattern and pr actice of failing to p rovide medically

19 necessary psychotropic medications, prisoners with psychotic and mood disorders suffer from the

20 following: 1) withdrawal symptoms when the medications they were prescribed before admission

21 to the Jail are abruptly terminated; 2) recurrence of debilitating symptoms such as ha llucinations

22 and suicidality; and 3) in som e cases, decompensation to the point of being found incom petent to

23 stand trial and/or being sent to the State Hospital until they are stable enough to return to the Jail.

24

53. For example, after five m onths in the Jail, Plaintiff Quentin Hall was sent to

25 Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) to receive m ental health treatm ent after two court-appo inted

26 psychologists found hi m to be incom petent to st and trial due to untreated mental health

27 symptoms. W hile at ASH, Plaintiff Quen tin Hall was diagnosed as suffering from

28 Schizoaffective Disorder. They also worked with him to find the right anti-psychotic medication

15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 to effectively m anage both the m ood and psycho tic symptoms he experienced and that are

2 commonly associated with this diagnosis. Despite these efforts, the Jail psychiatrist discontinued

3 this medication within 24 hours of Mr. Hall’s discharge from ASH to the Jail.

4

54. The Jail psychiatrist claimed he discontinued Mr. Hall’s anti-psychotic medication

5 at least in part because he believed that the treatment providers at ASH had not ruled out that M r.

6 Hall was faking his symptoms. The psychiatrist made this determination even though the ASH

7 mental health providers had observed and eval uated Mr. Hall f ar more extensively than any

8 treatment providers had ever done in the Jail. H e also made this determination in the face of two

9 independent findings from court-appointed psychologists th at Mr. Hall was t oo mentally ill to

10 understand his crim inal proceedings and/or to assist his atto rneys with his d efense. After

11 discontinuing the anti-psychotic m edication that had proven effective in treating Mr. Hall’s

12 rapidly alternating manic a nd depressive moods, persecutory delusions, and auditory

13 hallucinations, the Jail psychiatri st prescribed him the same class of anti-depressant medications

14 that had led to his decompensation in the Jail before he was sent to ASH.

15

55. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to ev aluate prisoners before

16 making treatment decisions, including whether to prescribe psychotrop ic medications. For

17 example, in May 2011, a prisoner’s psychiatrist pres cribed an anti-depressant based solely on an

18 LVN’s note stating that the prisone r wished to start an anti-dep ressant and a m ood stabilizer.

19 Also, Plaintiff Hall’s psychiatri st has repeatedly increas ed and decreased his anti-depres sants

20 without evaluating him.

21

56. Defendants also have a policy and pract ice of failing to monitor and provide

22 follow-up treatment, even after they have prescribed anti-depressant medications. In fact, after a

23 Jail psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressan t, it is common prac tice for psychiatrists to rely

24 solely on nurses’ and LPTs’ treatm ent notes, as opposed to personally eval uating prisoners, to

25 monitor for side effects, effectiveness, and/ or to determ ine whether m edications should be

26 adjusted, renewed, or discontinu ed. This practi ce is dangerous because nurses and LPTs are no t

27 qualified to adequate ly identify, assess, and diagnosis com plications, side effects, or sym ptoms

28 that may be caused by anti-depressant medications.

16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

Substandard Dental Care

2

57. Defendants have a polic y and practice of failing to provide m edically necessary

3 dental services. As a general rule (with only very limited exceptions), the only dental service

4 available in the Jail is to oth extraction, even if a much less invasive procedure m ay be medically

5 appropriate and necessary. Most prisoners a re not even permitted to see a dentist u ntil after they

6 tell a dental assistant they are willing to have a tooth extraction.

7

58. Prisoners are therefore f aced with a horrible dilemma–they can either los e a tooth

8 that might otherwise be saved, or suffer unbearable pain and discomfort. Som e prisoners deal

9 with this d ilemma by initially ref using to have minor conditions such as cavities treated with

10 extractions, but then eventually acquiescing after they suffer from long periods of tim e without

11 treatment. In som e instances, after prisoners refuse to have m inor conditions treated with

12 extractions, their conditions worsen until ex tractions become the only treatment option available.

13 Many prisoners are so terrified of having their teet h pulled that they refuse to seek any dental

14 services and instead s uffer in pain, which p uts them at risk of serious complications and

15 additional health risks from infection.

16

59. The failure to provide m edically necessary dental care is agg ravated by

17 Defendants’ pattern and practice of failing to provide adequate tool s to prisone rs to clean their

18 teeth. For those prisoners who are incarcerated for long periods of time, it is inevitable that their

19 teeth deteriorate given the inadequate dental hygiene tools and lack of dental care provided. One

20 prisoner has had six teeth pulled over the seven cons ecutive years he has been in the Jail, and he

21 is currently experiencing pain in two more untreated teeth. This prisoner is only 44 years old and

22 never had any problems with his teeth before he was arrested.

23 F. Defendants Fail to Keep Complete and Adequate Health Care Records.

24

60. Defendants have a polic y and practice of failing to m aintain adequate, a ccurate,

25 and complete health care reco rds. For exam ple, physicians and psychiatrists often change

26 prisoners’ medications without do cumenting any explanations. Ps ychiatrists fail to docum ent

27 adequate justification and reasoning for changing the diagnoses a nd treatment plans for prisoners

28 returning to the Jail from psychiatric hospitals. Dental providers fail to keep x-ray results in

17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 prisoners’ health care files. Defendants also fail to maintain prisoners’ written requests for health

2 care (“green slips”) in their health care files. As a result of Defenda nts’ failure to m aintain

3 adequate health care records, prisoners suffe r from an unreasonable risk of m isdiagnosis,

4 dangerous mistakes, and unnecessary delays in care.

5 G. Defendants’ Failure to Provide Minima lly Adequate Health Car e Directly

6

Causes Other Unconstitutionally Harmful Policies and Practices.

7

61. Defendants’ policy and practice of denying minimally adequate health care give s

8 rise to othe r policies and practices that re sult in significant harm and injury to prisoners, in

9 violation of their Constitutional rights.

10

Solitary Confinement for Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Conditions

11

62. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of denying m edically necessary

12 psychotropic medications, many prisoners with serious m ental conditions are unable to conform

13 to Jail rules or be safely housed in cells with ot her prisoners. In respons e, rather than provide

14 them with the m edications they need, Defenda nts have a policy and practice of housing these

15 prisoners in isolation in the FF units of the Ma in Jail and Unit 2D of the South Annex Jail.

16 Prisoners in these m aximum security housing un its experience conditions of extrem e isolation

17 and reduced environm ental stimulation. Defenda nts are deliberately indi fferent to how these

18 conditions exacerbate mental health symptoms.

19

63. In Unit 2D of the South Annex Jail, pr isoners with serious m ental health

20 conditions are housed by them selves in small cells at least 23 hours a day. There is no natural

21 light in the cells, and they do not have clocks. T hus, prisoners lose track of time and often have

22 no idea whether it is day or night, or how m uch time has passed. The inability to k eep track of

23 time exacerbates these prisoners' already existing mental health symptoms.

24

64. The only type of huma n contact the pris oners on Unit 2D have on m ost days is

25 when they are given their food thro ugh a slot in the door, or when they hear other prisoners (who

26 may be psychotic, incoherent, and distressed themselves) yelling from their cells. They are not

27 touched by another human being unless they are being shackled. The single window they have to

28 the corridor outside is covered so no one can see in or out of the cells. The conditions in Unit 2D

18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 are so bleak that staff and prisoners commonly refer to it as “t he dungeon.” These conditions are

2 traumatic for all prisoners, but especially for thos e who are already sufferi ng from mental health

3 symptoms.

4

65. Many of the prisoners with serious mental health conditions are placed in isolation

5 in Unit 2D and the FF pods as punishm ent for an inability to follow Jail rules. But m any of these

6 prisoners would not have violated Jail rules h ad they been receiv ing adequate m ental health

7 treatment, especially psychiatric medications. For example, one prisoner requested mental health

8 treatment and anti-psy chotic medications to help control his psychotic sym ptoms and im pulses

9 for several weeks in July a nd August of 2010 without any res ponse. On Septem ber 3, 2011, he

10 could no longer control his im pulses, and he th rew his food tray and responded violently to

11 correctional officers’ attempts to restrain him. He was subsequently moved to Unit 2D where he

12 has been housed ever since.

13

66. Defendants exacerbate the psycholo gical trauma experienced by priso ners with

14 serious mental health conditions who are housed in isolation by failing to provide them with

15 necessary mental health care. These prison ers do not receive regular contact with mental health

16 providers (if they receive m ental health care at all), nor do they receive the group therapy that is

17 periodically provided to prisoners in other hous ing locations. As a re sult, their nonconfor ming

18 behaviors escalate and they are forced to stay in isolation even longe r with very little prospect of

19 release to the general population.

20

Force Used on Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Conditions

21

67. As a result of De fendants’ policy and pr actice of failing to prescr ibe medically

22 necessary psychotropic m edications, some prisoners with serious m ental conditions exhibit

23 nonconforming and erratic behaviors that correctional officers attem pt to control with force.

24 They use force without regard to the traum atic impact of such m easures, and without first

25 attempting clinical intervention.

26

68. Correctional officers fire nonl ethal bullets at close ra nge at prisoners who are

27 obviously in psychiatric distress. They aim their nonlethal rifles and weapons at prisoners with

28 mental health conditions even when it is not necessary and results in psychological trauma.

19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

69. Defendants have a policy and practice of placing prisoners with serious m ental

2 health conditions in “restraint ch airs” as punishm ent instead of as a last resort to prevent self -

3 harm or har m to others. Restraint chairs are chairs on wheels with belts and cuffs that prev ent

4 prisoners’ legs, arm s, and torso from moving. Stra pping a prisoner into a restraint chair is an

5 extreme measure that should only be used when a supervisor exercises his or her professional

6 judgment to determ ine that no other m easure will prevent harm to the pris oner or others. In

7 contrast, Defendants commonly use this device as an au tomatic response to punish difficult and

8 non-violent prisoner behaviors such as loudness, disruptiveness, or non-com pliance, although

9 these behaviors often could have been prevented had Defendants provided adequate mental health

10 care.

11

70. Defendants commonly restrain prisoners with serious mental health conditions in

12 restraint chairs for at least four hours while denying them any opportunity to use a toilet or stretch

13 their limbs. Jail medical providers often fail to properly m onitor and evaluate prisoners while in

14 the restraint chair, even though they are at risk of developing life-threatening blood clots or other

15 serious physical injuries due to be ing held immobile for such long periods of time. Despite their

16 serious mental health conditions, Jail m ental health providers also fail to properly m onitor and

17 evaluate prisoners for psychiatric complications before, during, or after restraint chair placements.

18

Inadequate Suicide Precautions

19

71. Defendants have a policy and practice of housing prisoners with serious m ental

20 health conditions in unsafe condition s that heighten their risk of suicide in the Jail. For example,

21 they house suicidal prisoners in isolation without providing adequate supervision or observation.

22 A report from the U.S. Departm ent of Justice wa rned Defendants in 2006 that the bars around

23 each cell in the South Annex Jail provide easy noose tie-off points for prisoners to attempt suicide

24 by hanging. But despite this warnin g, dozens of pr isoners with serious m ental health conditions

25 are intentionally segregated in certain housing units in the South Annex Jail. And also despite

26 this warning, these priso ners are g iven coffee pots with long electrical cords that c an easily be

27 tied to the bars for suicide attempts.

28

72. One prisoner who was not receiving medically necessary psychotropic medications

20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 cut his arm with a razor in May, 2011. Just before he cut his arm , correctional officers in his unit

2 notified Jail m ental health provi ders that he was making suicidal comments. A Licensed

3 Psychiatric Technician, who is not licensed or qualified to diagnos e or treat prisoners, evaluated

4 him in response and determ ined he was not suicid al. He was taken to the emergency room 40

5 minutes later with de ep, self-inflicted cuts to his arm . From the emergency room, he was

6 admitted directly into in a psychiatric facility for five days where he was given the psychotropic

7 medications he required. Upon hi s return from the hospital, De fendants failed to continue his

8 psychotropic medications and did not provide follow-up treatment. They also gave him access to

9 another razor.

10

73. About a week later, this prisoner cut his arm and leg with a razor, except this tim e

11 the cuts were so deep he required 19 staples

in his wounds to help them heal. He was

12 hospitalized again, this time for four days, where he received m edically necessary psychotropic

13 medications. Upon his second return to the ja il, Defendants again fa iled to continue his

14 psychotropic medications and housed him in maximum security isolation for four weeks, where

15 correctional officers could not pr ovide direct supervision due to the window to his cell being

16 covered. After he was rem oved from isolation, he was housed in the South Annex Jail where he

17 had access to razors an d tools to h ang himself on the bars . He has finally been prescribed a

18 psychotropic medication in the Jail, although it is a different m edication than he had been

19 prescribed at the psy chiatric facility and has pr oved ineffective in treating his sym ptoms. He

20 then cut h is arm with a razor an d had to b e emergently hospitalized for the third tim e in

21 November, 2011.

22

74. Due to the construction design of the Sout h Annex Jail and the inadequate custody

23 staffing patterns discussed in detail in Section II below, it is nearly impossible for custody staff to

24 witness a suicide attempt unless they happen to be walking down the line at the r ight moment.

25 And since there are o nly two officers on each floor with m any custodial responsibilities

26 supervising over 200 prisoners, the chances are slim that they will be able to prevent a suicide.

27 Defendants are deliberately indifferent to how the failure to provide m inimally adequate health

28 care heightens the already existi ng risk of suicide caused by inadequate staffing patterns and

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 construction design flaws in the Jail.

2

Substandard Housing Conditions

3

75. Defendants have a pattern and practice of housing and segregating prisoners with

4 serious mental health conditions in the facility with the worst living conditions, the South Annex

5 Jail. This facility has been deemed unfit for housing prisoners (see para graph 84 below) and is

6 especially traumatic for prisoners with serious mental he alth conditions. It is extraordinarily hot

7 with poor circulation in the summer and so frigid on cold winter days that prisoners spend most of

8 their time shivering under their bl ankets in bed because they are not perm itted extra clo thing.

9 There is very little access to natural light thro ughout this facility. There are serio us problems

10 with the plumbing, and the water is often shut off. Nonetheless, Defendants have chosen to locate

11 the “psychiatric housing” on the third floor of th is dilapidated facility without regard for how

12 these conditions especially traumatize prisoners with serious mental health conditions.

13

Inadequate Pre-Release Planning

14

76. Defendants have a policy and practice of re leasing prisoners w ith serious health

15 care conditions from the Jail without providing them with any services to ensure that their health

16 care is not disrupted. For those prisoners who ar e prescribed m edications in the Jail, th ey are

17 released without either a suppl y or a prescription for th em to fill those m edications at a

18 community pharmacy. Defendants do not schedul e follow-up appointm ents in the community,

19 nor are prisoners provided with any referrals or information about where they may receive health

20 care services or medications.

21

77. Defendants have knowledge of the un reasonable risk of harm caused by

22 inadequate health care in the Jail and the deri vative harmful policies and practices including, but

23 not limited to, in adequate suicide precautions, and hou sing prisoners with se rious mental

24 conditions in isolation. De fendants have failed to ta ke steps to prevent, or even to dim inish, the

25 harmful effects of these unlawful policies and practices.

26 II.
27

FAILURE TO PROTECT PRISONERS FROM VIOLENCE 78. Prisoners face an unreasonable risk of har m from violence at the h ands of other

28 prisoners due to Defendants’ po licy and pr actice of understaffing the Jail an d failing t o

22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 adequately classify prisoners. In all of the Jail facilities, large group fights between prisoners

2 break out regularly and sm aller fights between prisoners occur dail y. Prisoners regularly assault

3 and victimize vulnerable prisoners . De fendants are deliberately indifferent to the danger of

4 assault faced by prisoners in the Jail.

5

79. The Fresno County Adult Detention Facilitie s include three jails–the Main Jail,

6 North Jail, and South Annex Jail.

7

Main Jail

8

80. In the Main Jail, m ost prisoners are housed on the third through sixth floors. The

9 second floor houses 37 prisoners who are medically infirm. The third through sixth floors consist

10 of six “pods,”each containing sixteen small cells. Each cell houses at least three prisoners. There

11 is a common dayroom in each of the pods. The doors to each cell in the pods are left open for

12 most of the day, and prisoners are free to go in a nd out of the dayroom and other prisoners’ cells.

13 In addition to the six pods, there are ten adm inistrative segregation ce lls arranged in a line ar

14 fashion.

15

81. There is on e officer on each floo r who s its in an upraised and enclo sed viewing

16 station. He or she has no direct contact with prisoners. This officer can see into all of the

17 dayrooms, but cannot see into all of the prisoners’ cells.

18

82. There are only two officers on the floor (“floor officers”) providing supervision to

19 over 200 prisoners in the six pods. These offi cers cannot and do not provide line of sight

20 supervision to m ore than two pods at any one time, leaving a m inimum of over 130 prisoners

21 without direct supervision at any given time. To reach pris oners in a part icular pod or

22 administrative segregation cell, the floor officer s must typically go thro ugh at least two locked

23 doors.

24

North Jail

25

83. In the North Jail, prisoners are housed on the second through fifth floors. Each

26 floor consists of six p ods of dorm itories with 72 beds (triple bunk s), although each pod is

27 designed to house only 48 prisoners. There is one officer on each floor who sits in an upraised

28 and enclosed viewing station. He or she has no direct contact wi th prisoners. This officer has

23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 limited visibility between and aroun d the triple bunks and in certain corners of the dorm s. There

2 are only four floor officers prov iding direct supervision to ove r 400 prisoners. These officers

3 cannot and do not provide line of sight supervision to m ore than four pods at any one tim e,

4 leaving at least 140 prisoners without direct supervision at any given time.

5

South Annex Jail

6

84. The South Annex Jail was built in 1947 and is the oldes t facility in the Jail.

7 According to a Fresno County Jail Needs Asse ssment and Master Plan, dated Septem ber 24,

8 2008, “this facility is no longer f unctional for the housing of inm ates.” Nonetheless, there are

9 over 200 prisoners housed on each of the upper three floors of this jail, and there are only two

10 floor officers providing direct supervision on each floor.

11

85. Each floor is broken up into separate housing units that contain cells and adjoining

12 dayrooms. Each cell houses four prisoners. The doors to the ce lls are left ope n periodically

13 during the daytime, and prisoners are free to go in and out of the dayroom when the cell doors are

14 open. However, when the cell doo rs are closed, before officers can en ter a cell, they m ust first

15 operate an antiquated system of door controls.

16

86. The housing units in the South A nnex Jail are located off long corridors. The

17 “control rooms” on each floor, where one officer sits and watches monitors showing limited areas

18 of the jail, have no visibility into the housing units. Officers m ust walk down the corridors to

19 observe the prisoners in the housing units, and it is easy for prisoners to ceas e illegal activity

20 before officers can see them . Also, visibility into the cells is severely limited due to the use of

21 steel bars to separate the cells from the dayroom s and corri dors. All of the conditions in the

22 South Annex Jail described above m ake it extremely difficult for officers to prevent and quickly

23 respond to fights or emergencies, and to transport injured or combative prisoners.

24

87. In all of the facilities, b esides providing general safety and security for 200-400

25 prisoners, the floor officers m ust supervise and c oordinate all prisoner movement to the yard,

26 infirmary, legal visits, and court dates. T hey must shackle and escort any prisoners in

27 administrative segregation who are rem oved from or brought back to th eir cells. They m ust

28 provide security for nursing sta ff when priso ners receive their m edications. Th ey must also

24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 provide security when m eal trays, canteen items, and laundry are distributed. These officers are

2 unable to perform all these duties and also protect prisoners from violence.

3

88. In all of the facilities, there are blind s pots or places ou t of view of correctional

4 officers for prisoners to hide ille gal activity, including assa ults. In the Main Jail, to stay out of

5 view, prisoners assault other pris oners in their cells. In the No rth Jail, prisoners go into dark

6 corners of the dorm s, or between the triple bunks . In the South Annex Jail, prisoners in the

7 dayrooms wait until there no officers present in the corridors or they go in to cells to f ight or

8 assault others. They also fight or assault each other in the showers.

9

89. Indeed, each day prisoners are assaulted by other prisoners, whether it stems from

10 a large drawn-out group fight in the dayroom or the yard, or a quick a nd vicious assault in a

11 hidden pocket of the Jail. Prisoners know they can fight and engage in violent behaviors in the

12 Jail with impunity because ther e are not enough correctional officers to supervise and prevent

13 such violence.

14

90. Defendants have knowledge of these c onditions. A report from the U.S.

15 Department of Justice (“DOJ Report”) warned th at the construction design and crowding in the

16 South Annex and North Jails creates a risk of harm to prisoners. It described the risk due to

17 visibility problems, the antiquated door control system s, and th e small doorframes in the South

18 Annex Jail. It s tated that the “obso lete ‘linear type’ construction” of the South Annex Jail is

19 “very staff intensive and unsafe.” It also warned about the risk of trip le bunking 72 prisoners i n

20 the North Jail dorms designed to house only 48 prisoners. Finally, the DOJ Report also warned of

21 a risk of harm to prisoners from the bunk beds in the North Jail that are not “correctional grade”

22 fixtures. Thus, prisoners can tamper with the beds to create and hide weapons.

23

91. Despite the warnings in the DOJ Repor t, Defendants have assigned only one

24 officer to provide direct supervision for every 1 00 (or more) prisoners. This staffing pattern is

25 woefully inadequate to keep prisoners safe.

26

92. Defendants have a policy and practice of fa iling to adequately classify and assign

27 prisoners to housing locations in the Jail where they will be safe from injury and violence. Before

28 prisoners are assigned to certain housing locations in the Jail, they are “classified” based on a

25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 number of factors including their criminal charges, gang affiliation, race, and history of violence.

2 These classification procedures are ineffective, however, and prisoners who are incom patible for

3 various reasons, including rival gang m emberships and/or histories of assa ultive behaviors, are

4 housed together in the Jail. Defendants are de liberately indifferent to how their inadequate

5 classification procedures create a risk of injury from assault.

6

93. As a result of Defendants’ pattern and practice of understaffing the Jail an d failing

7 to assign prisoners to safe housing locations, Plai ntiff Merryman was attacked in a dayroom of

8 the Main Jail on June 30, 2011. Mr. Merrym an is an older m an who is frail due to Defendants’

9 failure to provide him with adequate medical care. The prisoner who attacked Mr. Merryman was

10 obviously experiencing acute m ental health symptom s. For two days before the attack, Mr.

11 Merryman observed this prisoner talking to hims elf, randomly unplugging cords from electrical

12 outlets, and wearing garbage bags over his m outh. On the morning of June 30, 2011, while Mr.

13 Merryman was watching television, this prisoner attacked Mr. Merryman from behind and sliced

14 him two times in the face with a razor. There were no correctional officers inside or near the pod

15 before or during the attack.

16

94. After Mr. Merryman was attacked, a group of prisoners began beating the prisoner

17 who sliced his face. C orrectional officers did not arrive in the day room until se veral minutes

18 later. M r. Merryman went into h is cell to st op the bleeding and stay out of the way of the

19 fighting. Before correctional officers cam e to hi s cell, he had filled u p his jum psuit and two

20 towels with blood. He subsequently received sutures to treat his wounds and he now has a

21 prominent scar on his cheek. This injury, and the beating of the pris oner with a psychiatric

22 disability who attacked Mr. Me rryman, could have been preven ted if Defendants had provided

23 adequate supervision and classification procedures in the Jail.

24

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

25

First Cause of Action

26

(Eighth Amendment)

27

95. By their policies and practices described in paragraphs 23 - 94, Defendants subject

28 Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class to an unreasonable risk of harm and injury from inadequate health

26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 care and violence. Th ese policies and prac tices have and continue to be im plemented by

2 Defendants and their agents or employees in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause

3 of Plaintiffs’ and the Plainti ff class’s ongoing deprivation of ri ghts secured by the United States

4 Constitution under the Eighth Amendment.

5

96. Defendants have been and are aw are of a ll of the depriv ations complained of

6 herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

7

Second Cause of Action

8

(Fourteenth Amendment)

9

97. By their policies and practices described in paragraphs 23 - 94, Defendants subject

10 Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class to an unreasonable risk of harm and injury from inadequate health

11 care and violence. Th ese policies and prac tices have and continue to be im plemented by

12 Defendants and their agents or employees in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause

13 of Plaintiffs’ and the Plainti ff class’s ongoing deprivation of ri ghts secured by the United States

14 Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

15

98. Defendants have been and are aw are of a ll of the depriv ations complained of

16 herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

99. Plaintiffs and the class they represent ha ve no adequate rem edy at law to redress

19 the wrongs suffered as set forth in this com plaint. Plaintiffs have suffe red and will continue t o

20 suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlaw ful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the

21 Defendants as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are gran ted the relief they request. The need for

22 relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the Constitu tion of the United

23 States,

24

100. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of the mselves and the class they repres ent,

25 request that this Court grant them the following relief:

26

A. Declare the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27 procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

28

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices of

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Defendants and their agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs

2 and the class they represent under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution;

3

C. Order Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

4 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate health

5 care to prisoners, and to protect prisoners from an unreasonable risk of harm.

6

D. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

7 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, from continuing the unlawful acts,

8 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint, and from failing to provide minimally

9 adequate health care and protection to prisoners from an unreasonable risk of harm;

10

E. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1988 and 12205, the costs of this

11 suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;

12

F. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

13 orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply

14 in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

15

G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

16

17

18 19 Dated: December 13, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

20

21

PRISON LAW OFFICE

22

23

By: /s/ Kelly Knapp

24

DONALD SPECTER

KELLY KNAPP

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28

28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

2

3

COOLEY LLP

4

5

By: /s/ Maureen Alger

6

MAUREEN P. ALGER

MARY KATHRYN KELLY

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

9 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
10

11 By: /s/ Rachel Scherer
12

13

MELINDA BIRD

14

RACHEL SCHERER

ANDREW BERK

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 39

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2704
4 Fax: (510) 280-2704

5 MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522) COOLEY LLP
6 Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real
7 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Telephone: (650) 843-5000
8 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
9 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]
10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM

SHARON CHAVEZ, ROBERT MERRYMAN,

14 DAWN SINGH, CARLTON FIELDS, and

CLASS ACTION

BRIAN MURPHY on behalf of themselves and all

15 others similarly situated,

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

16

Plaintiffs,

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

17

v.

18 MARGARET MIMS, Sheriff, Fresno County; EDWARD MORENO, M.D., Director, Fresno
19 County Department of Public Health; GEORGE LAIRD, Ph.D., Division Manager, Division of
20 Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of Public Health; PRATAP NARAYEN, M.D.,
21 Medical Director, Division of Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of Public Health;
22 RICK HILL, Captain of Detention, Fresno County Sheriff’s Office; MARILYNN WELDON, Captain
23 of Inmate Programs and Contracts, Fresno County Sheriff’s Office,
24 Defendants.
25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 39

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLY (SBN 170259)

COOLEY LLP

2

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

3

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

4

MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

RACHEL SCHERER (SBN 260538)

5

ANDREW BERK (SBN 248386)

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

6

3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 902

Los Angeles, CA 90010

7

Telephone: (213) 427-8747

8

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 3 of 39

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. This civil rights class action lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to

3 remedy dangerous and unconstitutional conditions in the Fresno County Adult Detention

4 Facilities (“Jail”). Plaintiffs, who are seven prisoners in the Jail, bring this action on behalf of

5 themselves and all other prisoners (pretrial and convicted detainees) in the Jail, because they have

6 been and continue to be seriously injured as a result of Fresno County officials’ systemic failure

7 to 1) provide minimally adequate health care, including medical, mental health, and dental care;

8 2) protect prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners; and 3) provide reasonable

9 accommodations to prisoners with disabilities. This failure to provide adequate care, safety, and

10 reasonable accommodations in the Jail has caused widespread harm, including severe and

11 unnecessary pain and injury, and violates prisoners’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

12 Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and

13 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

14

2. Defendant Sheriff Margaret Mims is ultimately responsible for the health care and

15 safety of prisoners in the Jail, but she has failed to meet this responsibility. Sheriff Mims and the

16 other Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm caused by

17 policies and practices that result in an ineffective health care screening process, an ineffective

18 health care request and referral system, delayed access to health care, under-qualified and

19 insufficient numbers of health care staff, and the delivery of substandard health care. One

20 consequence of such policies and practices is that prisoners with serious mental health conditions

21 are housed in dungeon-like conditions of extreme sensory deprivation where correctional officers

22 attempt to control their untreated mental symptoms with force. Another consequence is that

23 prisoners with serious and chronic medical conditions have suffered from life-threatening

24 symptoms that could have been avoided if they had received timely and adequate medical care.

25

3. Sheriff Mims and the other Defendants have also been deliberately indifferent to

26 the level of violence among prisoners that is caused, at least in part, by exceedingly low staff-to-

27 prisoner ratios, inadequate classification procedures, and dangerous jail construction design flaws.

28 As a result of this deliberate indifference, prisoners are frequently harmed by assaults or fights 1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 4 of 39

1 with other prisoners in the Jail.

2

4. Defendants do not have adequate policies and procedures that enable them to

3 identify, assess, or reasonably accommodate prisoners with disabilities so they can participate in

4 and access the activities, programs, and services that they are otherwise qualified for. Thus,

5 prisoners with disabilities suffer from pervasive discrimination in the conditions of their

6 confinement. Plaintiffs therefore seek an injunction compelling Defendants to provide reasonable

7 accommodations to prisoners with disabilities.

8

5. Finally, because Defendants know that prisoners live under conditions creating a

9 substantial risk of harm but have not responded reasonably to this dire situation, Plaintiffs seek an

10 injunction compelling Defendants to immediately provide them and the class members they

11 represent with constitutionally adequate care and protection from violence and assault from other

12 prisoners.

13

JURISDICTION

14

6. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331,

15 1343, and 1367. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343,

16 2201, and 2202; 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.; and 29 U.S.C. Section

17 794.

18

VENUE

19

7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section

20 1391(b) because Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arose in this district, and one or more of the

21 defendants reside in the district.

22

PARTIES

23

8. Plaintiff Quentin Hall is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Hall has

24 suffered from hallucinations, delusions, manic and depressive episodes, and severe anxiety as a

25 result of Defendants’ failure to provide him with minimally adequate mental health care. After

26 five months of not receiving medically necessary anti-psychotic medications, Mr. Hall was found

27 incompetent to stand trial and sent to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH). Upon his return to the

28 Jail three months later, the ASH discharge summary notified Defendants that he suffered from

2
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 5 of 39

1 Schizoaffective Disorder and he needs an anti-psychotic medication to adequately treat his

2 symptoms. Defendants discontinued his anti-psychotic medication within the first 24 hours of his

3 arrival, and they continue to refuse to provide this medically necessary psychotropic medication.

4 As a result, Mr. Hall is suffering from recurring psychosis, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. He

5 has submitted several written requests and grievances for mental health treatment to no avail. Mr.

6 Hall has exhausted his administrative remedies.

7

9. Plaintiff Shawn Gonzales is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Gonzales

8 suffers from severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts as a result of Defendants’ failure to

9 provide him with minimally adequate mental health care. Beginning in July 2011, Mr. Gonzales

10 told Defendants at least three times that he was suicidal. On November 9, 2011, he told

11 Defendants he was going to kill himself and that he had been banging his head on the wall of the

12 cell. That same day, Defendants erroneously determined he was not a danger to himself and

13 returned him to his cell where he was not directly observed by correctional officers or mental

14 health providers. Within a few hours, Mr. Gonzales hung himself with a bed sheet, but was

15 rescued by his cellmate, who initiated CPR. Mr. Gonzales has subsequently submitted at least

16 five written requests and a grievance requesting mental health treatment for anxiety, depression,

17 and suicidal thoughts, but Defendants continue to fail to provide him with adequate mental health

18 treatment.

19

10. Plaintiff Sharon Chavez is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. She suffers from

20 severe anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and manic episodes as a result of Defendants’

21 failure to provide her with minimally adequate mental health care. Ms. Chavez was restrained in

22 a restraint chair for several hours in November 2011 and January 2012 due to disruptive

23 behaviors associated with her untreated mental health symptoms. Defendants placed her in the

24 restraint chair without first attempting to control her behaviors with less extreme measures, and

25 without consulting with mental health providers. Defendants also failed to properly evaluate her

26 for any medical or psychiatric complications during or after the restraint chair placements. Due

27 to Defendants’ failure to adequately treat her symptoms, and their policy and practice of using the

28 restraint chair as an automatic response to the types of behaviors she exhibits related to her

3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 6 of 39

1 mental health condition, Ms. Chavez continues to be at risk for future restraint chair placements.

2

11. Plaintiff Robert Merryman was a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail from March

3 12, 2011 until December 28, 2011. Mr. Merryman suffers from serious and chronic diseases

4 including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and hypertension. Mr. Merryman

5 described his untreated symptoms in several written requests for medical care and grievances.

6 Medical specialists hired by Defendants notified Defendants that Mr. Merryman requires medical

7 care. Nonetheless, Defendants failed to provide him with even minimally adequate medical care,

8 including, but not limited to, timely access to qualified medical professionals, medically

9 necessary diagnostic testing, medically necessary specialty care, and essential medications. Mr.

10 Merryman was also attacked and injured by another prisoner as a result of Defendants’ pattern

11 and practice of understaffing correctional officers and failing to provide adequate supervision.

12 Mr. Merryman has exhausted his administrative remedies.

13

12. Plaintiff Dawn Singh is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Prior to her

14 incarceration, Ms. Singh was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. Since her incarceration, Ms. Singh

15 has suffered from excruciating medical symptoms for two years as a result of Defendants’ failure

16 to adequately treat her Crohn’s Disease. These symptoms include hemorrhaging, abdominal pain

17 and cramping, diarrhea, fevers, dehydration and fatigue. Ms. Singh has written dozens of

18 requests for health care and filed grievances describing these symptoms. Medical specialists

19 hired by Defendants have also notified Defendants that Ms. Singh requires medical care.

20 Regardless, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide her with timely access to

21 qualified professionals, medically necessary diagnostic testing, and medically necessary specialty

22 and follow-up care. Defendants have also failed to provide her with adequate dental care. Ms.

23 Singh has exhausted her administrative remedies.

24

13. Plaintiff Carlton Fields is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Fields suffered

25 from a severely painful, swollen, and infected tooth for at least two weeks as a result of

26 Defendants’ failure to provide him with adequate dental care. During that two-week period, he

27 made several written requests for dental care, spoke with several correctional officers, and

28 submitted a grievance describing his symptoms. Although he belatedly received dental care for

4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 7 of 39

1 his infection, he is still suffering from painful and bleeding gums, and he is at risk of serious and

2 irreversible tooth decay as a result of Defendants’ failure to provide him with adequate dental

3 care and dental hygiene tools. Defendants have also failed to prescribe the anti-psychotic

4 medication he needs to adequately treat his auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and insomnia. Mr.

5 Fields has exhausted his administrative remedies.

6

14. Plaintiff Brian Murphy is a prisoner in the Fresno County Jail. Mr. Murphy

7 severely injured his knees and back while serving in the United States Marine Corps, and was

8 honorably discharged due to his now permanent disability. He requires the use of a cane to

9 alleviate pain and prevent falls when he walks. He has difficulty standing for long periods of

10 time, walking long distances, and navigating stairs. Defendants have refused to provide him with

11 a cane despite his grievance requesting this accommodation. Defendants have also housed him

12 on the second tier of his housing unit in the North Jail despite his written request and grievance

13 requesting to be housed on a lower tier. He must therefore slowly, unstably, and painfully hobble

14 up and down the stairs to receive his medications, attend court, visit with an attorney or his

15 family, use the shower, go to the yard or gym, socialize in the dayroom, or participate in other

16 basic daily life activities. He has already fallen once going up the stairs in his housing unit. Mr.

17 Murphy avoids leaving his cell unless absolutely necessary, even if it means skipping meals and

18 showers, because it is too painful and dangerous. In addition, Defendants refuse to provide Mr.

19 Murphy with adequate pain medication to treat the chronic and debilitating pain he experiences in

20 his knees and back. Mr. Murphy has exhausted his administrative remedies.

21

15. Defendant Sheriff Margaret Mims is the Sheriff of the County of Fresno. She is

22 sued in her official capacity. In her capacity as Sheriff, she is ultimately responsible for the

23 safekeeping of all prisoners in the Jail. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the

24 operation and administration of all of the Jail facilities. Sheriff Mims has contracted with the

25 Fresno County Department of Public Health to provide all health care services in the Jail, but by

26 statute retains the ultimate county authority over the health care and treatment of the plaintiff

27 class.

28

16. Defendant Edward Moreno is the Director of the Department of Public Health. He

5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 8 of 39

1 is sued in his official capacity. He is responsible for the provision of health care services,

2 including medical, dental, and mental health care, to all prisoners in the Jail. His responsibilities

3 include, but are not limited to, approving all policies and procedures for the delivery of health

4 care in the Jail.

5

17. Defendant George Laird is the Division Manager of the Division of Correctional

6 Health in the Fresno County Department of Public Health. He is sued in his official capacity. He

7 is responsible for supervising the operation and administration of health care services in the Jail.

8

18. Defendant Pratap Narayen is the Medical Director of the Division of Correctional

9 Health in the Fresno County Department of Public Health. He is sued in his official capacity. He

10 is responsible for the delivery of health care services to all prisoners in the Jail.

11

19. Defendant Rick Hill is the Captain of Detention in the Jail. He is sued in his

12 official capacity. His responsibilities include, but are not limited to, custody operations, prisoner

13 classification, correctional officer training, security emergency response, and prisoner grievances.

14

20. Defendant Marilynn Weldon is the Captain of Inmate Programs and Contracts.

15 She is sued in her official capacity. Her responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the

16 oversight of the contract with the Department of Public Health for the delivery of health care in

17 the Jail.

18

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

19

21. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1),

20 and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all adult men and women

21 (“prisoners”) who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. All

22 prisoners are at risk of substantial harm due to the following policies and practices:

23

(a) Denial of minimally adequate medical care,

24

(b) Denial of minimally adequate mental health care,

25

(c) Denial of minimally adequate dental care, and

26

(d) Denial of protection from injury and violence from other prisoners.

27 Prisoners with disabilities also face the additional risk of disability discrimination due to

28 Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to provide reasonable accommodations.

6
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 9 of 39

1

22. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are

2 currently more than 2,300 prisoners in the Jail, and the population is expected to grow to more

3 than 2,700 prisoners in April 2012 due to AB 109, which is a legislative measure designed to

4 reduce the state prison population by housing more prisoners in county jails (“realignment”). All

5 prisoners are at risk of developing serious medical, dental, or mental health conditions while in

6 the Jail, and while the exact number is unknown, plaintiffs believe there are hundreds of prisoners

7 at any given time who already have serious medical, dental, and/or mental health conditions. All

8 prisoners in the Jail are at risk of injury and violence from other prisoners. Finally, although the

9 exact number is unknown, plaintiffs believe there are scores of prisoners with disabilities who are

10 unable to receive reasonable accommodations.

11

23. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including 1) whether the

12 failure to provide minimally adequate medical, dental, and mental health care violates the Due

13 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of

14 the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2) whether the failure to protect

15 prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners violates the Due Process Clause of the

16 Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment

17 to the United States Constitution; and 3) whether the failure to reasonably accommodate prisoners

18 with disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

19

24. Since the number of class members is more than 2,300, separate actions by

20 individuals would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in turn

21 would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants.

22

25. Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final

23 injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

24

26. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class and

25 subclass, and the Named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the

26 interests of the class.

27

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

28

27. Sheriff Mims is ultimately responsible for the care and safety of the approximately

7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 10 of 39

1 2,300 prisoners in the Jail. In her role as Sheriff, she supervises a team of seven managerial staff

2 that includes Captain Hill and Captain Weldon. Captain Hill is responsible for the correctional

3 operations of the Jail. Captain Weldon oversees the contract with the Department of Public

4 Health for the delivery of health care in the Jail. In this role, she works directly with Edward

5 Moreno, George Laird, and Pratap Narayan, who are the Department of Public Health

6 administrators responsible for the delivery of health care at the Jail. All of these parties are

7 intimately familiar with the policies and practices described herein that create a substantial risk of

8 harm to prisoners at the Jail.

9

28. Sheriff Mims, in her role as supervisor and executive administrator of the Jail, has

10 knowledge of the policies and practices described herein that create a substantial risk of harm to

11 prisoners caused by inadequate health care and violence from other prisoners, but she has

12 disregarded this risk. Plaintiffs’ counsel notified Sheriff Mims of the substantial risk of harm

13 described in this complaint in a 12-page letter dated October 4, 2011. Sheriff Mims initially

14 responded by requesting a delay of two months to the end of November to investigate these

15 issues. As of this date, Sherriff Mims has not provided any substantive response to the issues

16 raised in the letter, and Defendants have failed to take reasonable measures to abate the

17 substantial risk of harm.

18 I. HEALTH CARE

19

29. Prisoners are entirely dependent on Defendants for basic health care, but

20 Defendants are failing in their constitutional obligation to provide such care. The medical,

21 dental, and mental health care (“health care”) provided by Defendants in the Jail is woefully

22 inadequate and subjects prisoners to a substantial risk of serious injury or death. Defendants

23 have a policy and practice of failing to employ qualified health care professionals, to properly or

24 conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and to

25 provide timely access to minimally adequate care. Defendants’ conduct demonstrates deliberate

26 indifference and a reckless disregard for prisoners’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

27

28
8
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 11 of 39

1

A. Defendants Maintain Insufficient Health Care Staffing to Provide Adequate

2

Health Care to Prisoners.

3

30. Defendants have a policy and practice of maintaining fewer health care positions

4 than are necessary to adequately treat the number of prisoners in the jail. There are insufficient

5 medical, dental, and mental health clinicians (i.e., physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists,

6 therapists, social workers, and registered nurses) to provide adequate care to over 2,300 prisoners.

7 This is a major contributing factor in the woefully inadequate health care delivery system in the

8 Jail. For example, there are not enough staff to timely respond to prisoners’ requests for health

9 care, or to adequately screen, monitor, and provide follow-up care to prisoners who are suffering

10 from serious and chronic illnesses. This problem is exacerbated between the hours of 11 p.m. and

11 7 a.m. when the most prisoners are booked into the Jail and the only medical providers serving

12 2,300 prisoners located in three different buildings (North Jail, South Annex Jail, and Main Jail)

13 are four nurses.

14

31. The Jail has not always been so severely understaffed. Over the last few years, in

15 response to Fresno County budget cuts, Defendants have systematically eliminated staffing

16 positions for health care providers in the Jail, including physicians, nurse practitioners, registered

17 nurses, and psychiatric technicians. They have eliminated these positions in the face of dire

18 warnings from health care providers during budget hearing testimony that prisoner-patients would

19 suffer serious harm or death from delayed access to care, delayed response time to emergencies,

20 poor medication management practices, and entry-level providers practicing outside the scope of

21 their licensure. Defendants ignored these warnings, and prisoner-patients are now suffering from

22 inadequate health care as a result of their deliberate indifference.

23

32. As a result of these staffing shortages, Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) and

24 Psychiatric Technicians (LPTs) make sole determinations about whether prisoners should be seen

25 by clinicians in response to requests or referrals for health care. But, according to the California

26 Board of Vocational Nurses and Psychiatric Technicians, LVNs and LPTs are entry level health

27 care providers who must only practice under the direct supervision of physicians, psychologists,

28 registered nurses, social workers, or other qualified professionals, and are not qualified to do their

9
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 12 of 39

1 own patient evaluations or assessments. Nonetheless, the LVNs and LPTs are tasked with

2 independently assessing and responding to prisoners’ health care requests and correctional

3 officers’ referrals for health care, and therefore serve as de facto gatekeepers for further

4 treatment.

5

33. For example, Defendants rely upon these entry-level providers to act as

6 gatekeepers for mental health treatment. In many instances, LVNs and LPTs erroneously

7 determine that prisoners with documented histories of mental illness and serious ongoing mental

8 health conditions do not warrant treatment by mental health clinicians. These same low-level

9 employees also make unsupervised decisions about whether and where mentally ill prisoners who

10 are potentially a danger to themselves or others should be housed in the Jail, decisions that can

11 have serious or even life-threatening consequences.

12

34. On July 20 and August 10, 2011, Plaintiff Shawn Gonzales stated he was suicidal.

13 In response, even though they were not qualified to do so, LPTs evaluated Mr. Gonzales.

14 Without conferring with a qualified mental health professional, the LPTs determined both times

15 that Mr. Gonzales was not suicidal. Also without supervision, the LPTs determined both times

16 that Mr. Gonzales was safely housed in his current housing unit and refused to refer Mr. Gonzales

17 to a clinician for mental health treatment. Three months later, Mr. Gonzales hung himself in his

18 cell. Since that time LPTs have twice more determined that Mr. Gonzales is not suicidal and

19 refused to refer him to a mental health clinician.

20 B. The Screening and Intake Process for Serious Illnesses, Mental Health Conditions,

21

and Communicable Diseases Is Inadequate.

22

35. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to adequately identify and treat

23 the health care problems of newly arriving prisoners during the screening and intake process. As

24 prisoners are booked into the Jail, they are placed in an open holding cell with other prisoners. A

25 nurse, sitting on the other side of a glass window, asks the prisoners a series of questions about

26 any medical symptoms or treatment. In front of other prisoners, the newly arriving prisoners

27 must divulge personal and private information about their health loudly enough so that the nurse

28 can hear them through the window. Not only is this process humiliating and demeaning, it is

10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 13 of 39

1 dangerous because many prisoners reasonably do not want other prisoners to know about their

2 private health care, especially their mental health histories, and therefore fail to divulge all of the

3 information needed to house them safely and provide adequate health care.

4

36. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to identify prisoners with

5 communicable diseases and serious illnesses during the screening and intake process. For

6 example, medical staff do not adequately screen for tuberculosis. Although tuberculosis is highly

7 contagious and potentially deadly, prisoners do not receive testing for this disease until several

8 weeks or even sometimes several months after they arrive, if they are ever tested at all. Plaintiffs

9 Shawn Gonzales and Sharon Chavez, for example, have not been tested for tuberculosis.

10

37. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to adequately identify prisoners

11 who are experiencing mental health symptoms and who are at risk of suicide during the screening

12 and intake process.

13 C. The Process for Prisoners to Request Health Care Is Inadequate.

14

38. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide a reliable way for

15 prisoners to alert health care staff of their need for evaluation of medical, mental health, or dental

16 problems. To request health care, prisoners are instructed to use the Medical Request for Services

17 form, which is a green form commonly called a “green slip.” If prisoners tell health care

18 providers who happen to be in their housing units about their symptoms, they are told to “fill out

19 a green slip.” After filling out green slips, prisoners must give them to correctional officers, who

20 do not always forward those completed green slips to the appropriate health care providers. In

21 some instances, correctional officers refuse to give prisoners green slips to fill out when prisoners

22 request them, or they mock prisoners for their symptoms, whether written on a green slip or told

23 to them directly.

24

39. When and if health care providers receive green slips from prisoners, they often do

25 not provide a timely response. For example, Plaintiff Dawn Singh never received a response to

26 seven green slips she submitted from September through December 2009 complaining of rectal

27 bleeding, abdominal cramping, and frequent bowel movements. In June 2011, health care

28 providers failed to evaluate another prisoner in response to her green slips describing symptoms

11
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 14 of 39

1 related to uncontrolled high blood pressure, including blurred vision, arm pain, and heart

2 palpitations.

3

40. The failure to timely respond to green slips is caused, at least in part, by

4 Defendants’ failure to create an effective tracking and scheduling system for health care

5 appointments. Another contributing factor is there are no standardized protocols dictating when

6 prisoners should receive a face-to-face appointment with a nurse or other medical, dental, or

7 mental health care clinician. Consequently, health care providers arbitrarily determine whether

8 the content of a green slip, often written by a prisoner who can barely read or write, warrants an

9 examination.

10

41. In some instances, medical staff members respond to green slips solely in writing.

11 For example, in response to green slips from one prisoner dated January 3 and 6, 2011, describing

12 headaches and dizziness after a head injury, the sole response from medical staff was a written

13 note telling him to buy Motrin and Tylenol from the canteen. In another example, medical staff

14 failed to respond to a prisoner’s green slips describing alarming and serious high blood pressure

15 symptoms, and instead admonished her in a written response to take medications she had already

16 explained were not helping and may have been worsening her symptoms.

17 D. Prisoners Suffer from Unreasonably Delayed Access to Health Care.

18

42. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide timely access to health

19 care. If prisoners are seen by health care providers at all, they often experience substantial delays

20 in receiving those appointments. Prisoners commonly wait several weeks, sometimes several

21 months, before they are evaluated by clinicians for medical, mental health, or dental symptoms.

22 For example, one prisoner waited at least six months before he was evaluated by a physician in

23 response to at least nine green slips and a grievance describing debilitating migraines. While he

24 waited, he spent days at a time curled up in a fetal position on his bed with his head under the

25 blankets trying to manage the pain. Another prisoner is still waiting to be evaluated by a

26 physician in response to green slips requesting asthma and seizure medications that he submitted

27 over five months ago. In fact, since he arrived in April 2011, he has never been examined by a

28 health care provider even though Jail medical staff verified four months after admission that he

12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 15 of 39

1 has been provided seizure and psychiatric medications by the state prison system.

2

43. Plaintiff Carlton Fields waited two weeks in agony from an infected and swollen

3 tooth before he was seen by a dentist. Mr. Fields began seeking dental care for a severe toothache

4 shortly after his arrival in August 2011. In his first two weeks at the Jail, he submitted several

5 green slips. He begged several correctional officers to help him receive care. He went cell by

6 cell asking other prisoners if they had any pain medications to spare. He approached a nurse in

7 his pod and showed her his tooth. Despite all of these efforts, Defendants failed to respond to Mr.

8 Field’s pleas for treatment. Out of sheer desperation after days of blinding pain, he told a

9 correctional officer that he was experiencing chest pain in an attempt to be seen in the medical

10 clinic for treatment of his tooth. He was seen by a nurse, but was not provided with dental care.

11 In another act of desperation, he told a correctional officer that he was in so much pain he would

12 hurt someone if not provided with dental care. In response, he was placed in a “safety cell,”

13 which is a stark, rubber-walled cell with nothing but a hole in the floor to use as a toilet. After

14 several hours and more begging for dental care, he was finally taken out of the safety cell to the

15 dental clinic where he was diagnosed with an acute infection. But even then, his tooth was not

16 pulled until twelve days later, a total of at least four weeks after he began submitting green slips

17 and asking for care.

18 E. Even When Prisoners See Health Care Providers, They Do Not Receive Adequate

19

Care.

20

Substandard Medical Care

21

44. None of the Jail’s physicians are board certified in any areas of medical

22 specialization. Board certification is obtained through a rigorous process of testing and peer

23 evaluation. Board certification is important in a jail setting because prisoners tend to have higher

24 levels of illness than the general population, and the range and acuity of those illnesses is

25 particularly complex. Even though physicians in the Jail have not gone through this certification

26 process, they are called upon to diagnose and treat prisoners with serious and chronic diseases

27 such as HIV, diabetes, cirrhosis, and seizure disorders. The standard of care in the profession

28 requires these types of conditions to be referred to a board certified specialist in internal

13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 16 of 39

1 medicine, but Defendants do not consistently follow that standard of care.

2

45. Defendants have a policy and practice of making treatment decisions without

3 examining prisoners. In some instances, they rely solely on brief notes or reports from nurses or

4 medical assistants. For example, instead of examining Plaintiff Merryman after a nurse

5 documented that he was complaining of chest and abdominal pain, his physician simply ordered a

6 refill of his pain medications and an EKG. Due to Mr. Merryman’s co-existing and serious

7 medical conditions, the minimum standard of care would have been for the physician to examine

8 him to ensure that the abdominal pain he experienced was not the result of an infection.

9

46. In other instances, physicians make treatment decisions even though there is no

10 recent medical information whatsoever in a prisoner’s medical records. For example, Plaintiff

11 Merryman’s physician prescribed a certain medication on May 23, 2011 without taking or

12 checking any laboratory tests, which is contrary to the standard practice when prescribing such

13 medication and put him at risk of conditions including cardiac arrhythmia. In some instances,

14 physicians prescribe medication based solely on correctional officers’ description of prisoners’

15 symptoms. For example, a physician increased a prisoner’s blood pressure medications on

16 January 26, 2011, based solely on a correctional officer’s report that his legs were swollen.

17

47. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide complete examinations,

18 including after significant illnesses have been identified and/or documented. For example, even

19 though Plaintiff Singh consistently complained of abdominal cramping, weight loss, watery

20 stools, and had a documented history of small bowel surgery, she did not receive a rectal

21 examination, which is the standard of care, for at least a year and a half after she began requesting

22 treatment. Also, although her physician did not complete a rectal examination or consult with a

23 gastrointestinal specialist, he prescribed a dangerous and aggressive course of steroid treatment

24 on October 18, 2010. Once Ms. Singh was finally seen by a specialist almost four months after

25 she was belatedly referred by the Jail physician, the medication regimen was immediately

26 discontinued.

27

48. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to order diagnostic testing or refer

28 prisoners to specialists when medically necessary. For example, after a prisoner injured his head

14
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 17 of 39

1 in a fall on or around January 1, 2011, his physician failed to test for infection until his wound

2 was emitting a foul odor one month after the injury, even though it was showing signs of

3 infection for over two weeks. This prisoner has a compromised immune system due to cirrhosis,

4 and his physician should have known that he was at high risk of infection. After the delayed test

5 came back positive for a staph infection, the physician failed to refer him to a specialist to

6 determine the extent of the infection. His physician failed to make this referral even though the

7 infection was potentially life-threatening due to his compromised immune system and the

8 infection’s proximity to his brain.

9

49. Plaintiff Dawn Singh was not referred to a specialist for her Crohn’s disease for

10 over a year even though she had ongoing symptoms of severe abdominal pain, diarrhea,

11 dehydration, and fatigue. After she was referred on September 16, 2011, Jail medical staff failed

12 to follow-through and contact the specialist to schedule an appointment. The Jail physician did

13 not discover this failure until two months later in November 2011 when he evaluated Ms. Singh

14 for bloody diarrhea, a common symptom of a Crohn’s Disease flare-up, and re-referred her to the

15 specialist. Ms. Singh was forced to wait almost two more months until she was finally seen by

16 the specialist on January 6, 2011.

17

50. Another prisoner told the screening nurse upon her arrival in May, 2011 that she

18 had a history of kidney failure. Contrary to the standard of care, Defendants failed to obtain her

19 community records or perform laboratory tests to determine the severity of her kidney disease.

20 Defendants failed to evaluate her in response to her repeated green slips describing blurred vision,

21 headaches, swelling in her extremities, difficulty urinating, nausea, vomiting, and high blood

22 pressure. Also contrary to the standard of care, Defendants failed to order urgent diagnostic tests

23 in response to these symptoms to determine whether her kidneys were functioning properly.

24 Blood tests were finally taken for the first time three months after her arrival on July 29, 2011.

25 These tests showed that she was at risk of death from kidney failure and a dangerously high

26 potassium level, but a physician did not review her blood test results until seven days later on

27 August 4, 2011, at which time she was hospitalized. She remained hospitalized until August 12,

28 2011, and put on dialysis three times a week. If Defendants had provided treatment according to

15
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 18 of 39

1 the standard of care, her worsening kidney failure would have been caught months earlier,

2 certainly delaying, if not averting the need for dialysis.

3

51. If physicians prescribe treatment, or when prisoners return from the hospital, or

4 when they are discharged from the Jail infirmary, Defendants have a policy and practice of failing

5 to monitor symptoms and provide follow-up treatment. For example, Plaintiff Dawn Singh

6 received a colonoscopy on July 20, 2011. Although her colonoscopy results were not normal, and

7 her specialist subsequently recommended additional diagnostic tests to rule out fungal infections

8 and tuberculosis, the Jail physician failed to order this follow-up care, and she was not re-

9 evaluated by a physician until her next specialty appointment two months later. The specialist

10 again ordered the same diagnostic tests because they are necessary before she can begin receiving

11 treatment for her active Crohn’s Disease.

12

52. Plaintiff Bob Merryman was hospitalized for three days in July 2011, where he

13 was diagnosed with moderate to severely high blood pressure in his lungs, cirrhosis, and large

14 swollen blood vessels in his esophagus. The discharge summary recommended follow-up

15 appointments with a gastrointestinal (GI) specialist and pulmonary specialist in one week. Mr.

16 Merryman was not seen by the GI specialist until five months later on December 1, 2011, and he

17 was not seen by the pulmonary specialist before he was released from the Jail over five months

18 after the referral was made.

19

53. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to prescribe medically necessary

20 medications, including for serious and chronic diseases such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary

21 Disease (COPD), hypertension, asthma, seizure disorders, and cirrhosis. Physicians fail to

22 prescribe these medications even after prisoners and their families have notified medical staff of

23 valid prescriptions written prior to the prisoner’s arrival at the Jail, either in the community before

24 incarceration, in the state prison system, or during previous incarcerations in the Jail. Prisoners

25 are often labeled as “drug-seeking” even when they are requesting medications that have no street

26 value or intoxication effects.

27

54. For example, Plaintiff Robert Merryman’s physician labeled him as “drug-

28 seeking,” even though he had not fully evaluated him for his complaints and the medications Mr.

16
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 19 of 39

1 Merryman sought were to treat his COPD, cirrhosis, and high blood pressure. His physician

2 inexplicably delayed for two months prescribing medications to control the swelling in his legs,

3 which is a clear departure from the standard of care. Another prisoner did not receive his

4 cirrhosis medications until he was hospitalized for internal bleeding and vomiting on March 26,

5 2011, despite the fact that Defendants were notified of a pre-existing prescription for cirrhosis

6 medications over two months earlier, on January 13, 2011.

7

Substandard Mental Health Care

8

55. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide medically necessary

9 psychotropic medications to prisoners with serious mental health conditions. They fail to provide

10 these medications even when provided with valid prescriptions from the California Department of

11 Mental Health, community providers, family members, or the California Department of

12 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

13

56. Prisoners with serious mental health conditions who have long and documented

14 histories of receiving anti-psychotic or mood-stabilizing medications are often labeled as “drug-

15 seeking” or “malingering” by mental health staff when they seek these medications in the Jail. In

16 some instances, they are prescribed medications which are known not to be effective in treating

17 their psychosis or mood disorders.

18

57. As a result of Defendants’ pattern and practice of failing to provide medically

19 necessary psychotropic medications, prisoners with psychotic and mood disorders suffer from the

20 following: 1) withdrawal symptoms when the medications they were prescribed before admission

21 to the Jail are abruptly terminated; 2) recurrence of debilitating symptoms such as hallucinations

22 and suicidality; and 3) in some cases, decompensation to the point of being found incompetent to

23 stand trial and/or being sent to the State Hospital until they are stable enough to return to the Jail.

24

58. For example, after five months in the Jail, Plaintiff Quentin Hall was sent to

25 Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) to receive mental health treatment after two court-appointed

26 psychologists found him to be incompetent to stand trial due to untreated mental health

27 symptoms. While at ASH, Plaintiff Quentin Hall was diagnosed as suffering from

28 Schizoaffective Disorder. They also worked with him to find the right anti-psychotic medication

17
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 20 of 39

1 to effectively manage both the mood and psychotic symptoms he experienced and that are

2 commonly associated with this diagnosis. Despite these efforts, the Jail psychiatrist discontinued

3 this medication within 24 hours of Mr. Hall’s discharge from ASH to the Jail.

4

59. The Jail psychiatrist claimed he discontinued Mr. Hall’s anti-psychotic medication

5 at least in part because he believed that the treatment providers at ASH had not ruled out that Mr.

6 Hall was faking his symptoms. The psychiatrist made this determination even though the ASH

7 mental health providers had observed and evaluated Mr. Hall far more extensively than any

8 treatment providers had ever done in the Jail. He also made this determination in the face of two

9 independent findings from court-appointed psychologists that Mr. Hall was too mentally ill to

10 understand his criminal proceedings and/or to assist his attorneys with his defense. After

11 discontinuing the anti-psychotic medication that had proven effective in treating Mr. Hall’s

12 rapidly alternating manic and depressive moods, persecutory delusions, and auditory

13 hallucinations, the Jail psychiatrist prescribed him the same class of anti-depressant medications

14 that had led to his decompensation in the Jail before he was sent to ASH.

15

60. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to evaluate prisoners before

16 making treatment decisions, including whether to prescribe psychotropic medications. For

17 example, in May 2011, a prisoner’s psychiatrist prescribed an anti-depressant based solely on an

18 LVN’s note stating that the prisoner wished to start an anti-depressant and a mood stabilizer.

19 Also, Plaintiff Hall’s psychiatrist has repeatedly increased and decreased his anti-depressants

20 without evaluating him.

21

61. Defendants also have a policy and practice of failing to monitor and provide

22 follow-up treatment, even after they have prescribed anti-depressant medications. For example,

23 contrary to the standard of care which requires a follow-up appointment within 30 days, Plaintiff

24 Hall’s psychiatrist waited three months to evaluate him again even though the anti-depressant he

25 prescribed creates a risk of dangerous side effects such as seizures and hypoglycemia. In fact,

26 after a Jail psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant, it is common practice for psychiatrists to

27 rely solely on nurses’ and LPTs’ treatment notes, as opposed to personally evaluating prisoners,

28 to monitor for side effects, effectiveness, and/or to determine whether medications should be

18
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 21 of 39

1 adjusted, renewed, or discontinued. This practice is dangerous because nurses and LPTs are not

2 qualified to adequately identify, assess, and diagnosis complications, side effects, or symptoms

3 that may be caused by anti-depressant medications.

4

Substandard Dental Care

5

62. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide medically necessary

6 dental services. As a general rule (with only very limited exceptions), the only dental service

7 available in the Jail is tooth extraction, even if a much less invasive procedure may be medically

8 appropriate and necessary. Most prisoners are not even permitted to see a dentist until after they

9 tell a dental assistant they are willing to have a tooth extraction.

10

63. Prisoners are therefore faced with a horrible dilemma–they can either lose a tooth

11 that might otherwise be saved, or suffer unbearable pain and discomfort. Some prisoners deal

12 with this dilemma by initially refusing to have minor conditions such as cavities treated with

13 extractions, but then eventually acquiescing after they suffer from long periods of time without

14 treatment. In some instances, after prisoners refuse to have minor conditions treated with

15 extractions, their conditions worsen until extractions become the only treatment option available.

16 Many prisoners are so terrified of having their teeth pulled that they refuse to seek any dental

17 services and instead suffer in pain, which puts them at risk of serious complications and

18 additional health risks from infection.

19

64. For example, Plaintiff Dawn Singh began suffering from a toothache in early

20 2011. Ms. Singh was aware of Defendants’ policy and practice of only providing tooth

21 extractions, and avoided seeking dental care for at least nine months because she did not want to

22 have her tooth pulled for what she hoped was only a minor condition. Finally, when the pain

23 progressed to an intolerable level, Ms. Singh turned in a green slip requesting dental care in

24 September 2011. The dentist diagnosed her with an infection and tooth decay, and informed her

25 that her only treatment options were to wait until she was released from Jail to receive a root

26 canal or have the tooth extracted in Jail. He also informed her that she was at risk of further

27 complications if she did not receive treatment for her tooth. Ms. Singh believed she had no

28 choice but to have the tooth extracted because she does not expect to be released from custody for

19
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 22 of 39

1 at least another year.

2

65. The failure to provide medically necessary dental care is aggravated by

3 Defendants’ pattern and practice of failing to provide adequate tools to prisoners to clean their

4 teeth. For those prisoners who are incarcerated for long periods of time, it is inevitable that their

5 teeth deteriorate given the inadequate dental hygiene tools and lack of dental care provided.

6 F. Defendants Fail to Keep Complete and Adequate Health Care Records.

7

66. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to maintain adequate, accurate,

8 and complete health care records. For example, physicians and psychiatrists often change

9 prisoners’ medications without documenting any explanations. Psychiatrists fail to document

10 adequate justification and reasoning for changing the diagnoses and treatment plans for prisoners

11 returning to the Jail from psychiatric hospitals. For example, Plaintiff Hall’s psychiatrist did not

12 adequately document why he discontinued the anti-psychotic medication that had proven

13 effective in the State Hospital and prescribed an anti-depressant that had already proven

14 ineffective both in the State Hospital and the Jail. Dental providers fail to keep x-ray results in

15 prisoners’ health care files, including in Plaintiff Singh’s and Plaintiff Fields’s files. Defendants

16 also fail to maintain prisoners’ written requests for health care (“green slips”) in their health care

17 files. For example, Plaintiff Singh’s health care file is missing dozens of green slips she

18 submitted about symptoms related to her Crohn’s Disease, and Plaintiff Fields’s health care file is

19 missing several green slips he submitted about his infected tooth. As a result of Defendants’

20 failure to maintain adequate health care records, prisoners suffer from a substantial risk of

21 misdiagnosis, dangerous mistakes, and unnecessary delays in care.

22 G. Defendants’ Failure to Provide Minimally Adequate Health Care Directly Causes

23

Other Unconstitutionally Harmful Policies and Practices.

24

67. Defendants’ policy and practice of denying minimally adequate health care gives

25 rise to other policies and practices that result in significant harm and injury to prisoners, in

26 violation of their Constitutional rights.

27

Solitary Confinement for Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Conditions

28

68. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of denying medically necessary

20
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 23 of 39

1 psychotropic medications, many prisoners with serious mental conditions are unable to conform

2 to Jail rules or be safely housed in cells with other prisoners. In response, rather than provide

3 them with the medications they need, Defendants have a policy and practice of housing these

4 prisoners in isolation in the FF units of the Main Jail and Unit 2D of the South Annex Jail.

5 Prisoners in these maximum security housing units experience conditions of extreme isolation

6 and reduced environmental stimulation. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to how these

7 conditions exacerbate mental health symptoms.

8

69. In Unit 2D of the South Annex Jail, prisoners with serious mental health

9 conditions are housed by themselves in small cells at least 23 hours a day. There is no natural

10 light in the cells, and they do not have clocks. Thus, prisoners lose track of time and often have

11 no idea whether it is day or night, or how much time has passed. The inability to keep track of

12 time exacerbates these prisoners' already existing mental health symptoms.

13

70. The only type of human contact the prisoners on Unit 2D have on most days is

14 when they are given their food through a slot in the door, or when they hear other prisoners (who

15 may be psychotic, incoherent, and distressed themselves) yelling from their cells. They are not

16 touched by another human being unless they are being shackled. The single window they have to

17 the corridor outside is covered so no one can see in or out of the cells. The conditions in Unit 2D

18 are so bleak that staff and prisoners commonly refer to it as “the dungeon.” Several prisoners

19 with serious mental health conditions have been housed in these conditions for lengthy periods of

20 time, such as six months to one year. These conditions are traumatic for all prisoners, but

21 especially for those who are already suffering from mental health symptoms.

22

71. Many of the prisoners with serious mental health conditions are placed in isolation

23 in Unit 2D and the FF pods as punishment for an inability to follow Jail rules. But many of these

24 prisoners would not have violated Jail rules had they been receiving adequate mental health

25 treatment, especially psychiatric medications. For example, one prisoner requested mental health

26 treatment and anti-psychotic medications to help control his psychotic symptoms and impulses

27 for several weeks in July and August of 2010 without any response. On September 3, 2011, he

28 could no longer control his impulses, and he threw his food tray and responded violently to

21
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 24 of 39

1 correctional officers’ attempts to restrain him. He was subsequently moved to Unit 2D where he

2 has been housed ever since.

3

72. Defendants exacerbate the psychological trauma experienced by prisoners with

4 serious mental health conditions who are housed in isolation by failing to provide them with

5 necessary mental health care. These prisoners do not receive regular contact with mental health

6 providers (if they receive mental health care at all), nor do they receive the group therapy that is

7 periodically provided to prisoners in other housing locations. As a result, their nonconforming

8 behaviors escalate and they are forced to stay in isolation even longer with very little prospect of

9 release to the general population.

10

Force Used on Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Conditions

11

73. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to prescribe medically

12 necessary psychotropic medications, some prisoners with serious mental conditions exhibit

13 nonconforming and erratic behaviors that correctional officers attempt to control with force.

14 They use force without regard to the traumatic impact of such measures, and without first

15 attempting clinical intervention.

16

74. Correctional officers fire nonlethal bullets at close range at prisoners who are

17 obviously in psychiatric distress. They aim their nonlethal rifles and weapons at prisoners with

18 mental health conditions even when it is not necessary and results in psychological trauma.

19

75. Defendants have a policy and practice of placing prisoners with serious mental

20 health conditions in “restraint chairs” as punishment instead of as a last resort to prevent self-

21 harm or harm to others. Restraint chairs are chairs on wheels with belts and cuffs that prevent

22 prisoners’ legs, arms, and torso from moving. Strapping a prisoner into a restraint chair is an

23 extreme measure that should only be used when a supervisor exercises his or her professional

24 judgment to determine that no other measure will prevent harm to the prisoner or others. In

25 contrast, Defendants commonly use this device as an automatic response to punish difficult and

26 non-violent prisoner behaviors such as loudness, disruptiveness, or non-compliance, although

27 these behaviors often could have been prevented had Defendants provided adequate mental health

28 care.

22
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 25 of 39

1

76. Defendants commonly restrain prisoners with serious mental health conditions in

2 restraint chairs for at least four hours while denying them any opportunity to use a toilet or stretch

3 their limbs. Jail medical providers often fail to properly monitor and evaluate prisoners while in

4 the restraint chair, even though they are at risk of developing life-threatening blood clots or other

5 serious physical injuries due to being held immobile for such long periods of time. Despite their

6 serious mental health conditions, Jail mental health providers also fail to properly monitor and

7 evaluate prisoners for psychiatric complications before, during, or after restraint chair placements.

8

77. For example, Plaintiff Sharon Chavez was restrained in a restraint chair on

9 November 17, 2011, and January 8, 2012. Before she was placed in the restraint chair on both

10 occasions, Ms. Chavez was being loud and disruptive in her cell as a result of her untreated

11 mental health symptoms, but she was not a danger to herself or others. On both occasions,

12 Defendants failed to try less extreme measures before placing her in the restraint chair. They also

13 failed to consult with mental health providers about whether this was an appropriate response

14 given her mental health symptoms. Ms. Chavez was held immobile in the restraint chair for

15 several hours each time, which aggravated her already fragile mental state.

16

78. On November 17, 2011, Ms. Chavez was not evaluated by medical or mental

17 health providers during the restraint chair placement, and she was only evaluated by an LPT after

18 she was removed. On January 8, 2012, medical providers failed to take her vital signs while she

19 was in the restraint chair, which is contrary to the standard of care. Ms. Chavez was not

20 evaluated by any mental health providers during or after the January 8, 2012, restraint chair

21 placement even though she was suffering from aggravated mental health symptoms.

22

Inadequate Suicide Precautions

23

79. Defendants have a policy and practice of housing prisoners with serious mental

24 health conditions in unsafe conditions that heighten their risk of suicide in the Jail. For example,

25 they house suicidal prisoners in isolation without providing adequate supervision or observation.

26 A report from the U.S. Department of Justice warned Defendants in 2006 that the bars around

27 each cell in the South Annex Jail provide easy noose tie-off points for prisoners to attempt suicide

28 by hanging. But despite this warning, dozens of prisoners with serious mental health conditions

23
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 26 of 39

1 are intentionally segregated in certain housing units in the South Annex Jail. And also despite

2 this warning, these prisoners are given coffee pots with long electrical cords that can easily be

3 tied to the bars for suicide attempts.

4

80. One prisoner who was not receiving medically necessary psychotropic medications

5 cut his arm with a razor in May, 2011. Just before he cut his arm, correctional officers in his unit

6 notified Jail mental health providers that he was making suicidal comments. A Licensed

7 Psychiatric Technician, who is not licensed or qualified to diagnose or treat prisoners, evaluated

8 him in response and determined he was not suicidal. He was taken to the emergency room 40

9 minutes later with deep, self-inflicted cuts to his arm. From the emergency room, he was

10 admitted directly into in a psychiatric facility for five days where he was given the psychotropic

11 medications he required. Upon his return from the hospital, Defendants failed to continue his

12 psychotropic medications and did not provide follow-up treatment. They also gave him access to

13 another razor.

14

81. About a week later, this prisoner cut his arm and leg with a razor, except this time

15 the cuts were so deep he required 19 staples in his wounds to help them heal. He was

16 hospitalized again, this time for four days, where he received medically necessary psychotropic

17 medications. Upon his second return to the jail, Defendants again failed to continue his

18 psychotropic medications and housed him in isolation for four weeks. After he was removed

19 from isolation, he was housed in the South Annex Jail where he had access to razors and tools to

20 hang himself on the bars. He has finally been prescribed a psychotropic medication in the Jail,

21 although it is a different medication than he had been prescribed at the psychiatric facility and has

22 proved ineffective in treating his symptoms. He then cut his arm with a razor and had to be

23 emergently hospitalized for the third time in November, 2011.

24

82. Due to the construction design of the South Annex Jail and the inadequate custody

25 staffing patterns discussed in detail in Section II below, it is nearly impossible for custody staff to

26 witness a suicide attempt unless they happen to be walking down the line at the right moment.

27 And since there are only two officers on each floor with many custodial responsibilities

28 supervising over 200 prisoners, the chances are slim that they will be able to prevent a suicide.

24
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 27 of 39

1 Defendants are deliberately indifferent to how the failure to provide minimally adequate health

2 care heightens the already existing risk of suicide caused by inadequate staffing patterns and

3 construction design flaws in the Jail.

4

83. Defendants have a pattern and practice of failing to adequately identify, assess,

5 and manage prisoners who are suicidal. For example, Plaintiff Shawn Gonzales notified Jail staff

6 in July and August 2011 that he was suicidal. In response, Mr. Gonzales was evaluated each time

7 by LPTs, who were not qualified to assess and treat him for suicidality, and who did not refer him

8 to a clinician for evaluation and treatment.

9

84. On November 9, 2011, correctional officers placed Mr. Gonzales in a safety cell

10 because he stated he wanted to hang himself. When a social worker evaluated Mr. Gonzales in

11 response, he said, “If you put me back in the cell, I will be suicidal.” He also told the social

12 worker that he had been banging his head on the walls of his cell, and the social worker

13 documented “a straight line of scratch” on his forehead. However, the social worker erroneously

14 determined that he was not suicidal and returned him to his cell.

15

85. Later on November 9, 2011, Mr. Gonzales hung himself with a bed sheet. Mr.

16 Gonzales’s cellmate pushed the emergency button in their cell and untied the bed sheet. He then

17 began performing CPR on Mr. Gonzales. Several minutes later, when correctional officers finally

18 arrived, Mr. Gonzales regained consciousness. Defendants did not hospitalize him in a

19 psychiatric facility, and he was not evaluated by a Jail psychiatrist until over a week later on

20 November 18, 2011.

21

86. Since he attempted to kill himself, Mr. Gonzales has submitted at least five green

22 slips and a grievance describing anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. In response, on

23 December 7, 2011, without evaluating him, a psychiatrist prescribed an anti-depressant

24 medication. After starting the anti-depressant, Mr. Gonzales continued to report suicidal

25 thoughts, submitting green slips on December 22 and 31, 2011. He was evaluated in response to

26 these green slips by LPTs who again determined that he was not suicidal or experiencing

27 symptoms of mental illness. He is currently housed in the South Annex Jail, where he has access

28 to bed sheets and electrical cords to hang himself on the bars, and razors to cut himself. Mr.

25
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 28 of 39

1 Gonzales continues to be at risk of suicide due to Defendants’ failure to provide minimally

2 adequate mental health care and reasonable suicide precautions.

3

Substandard Housing Conditions

4

87. Defendants have a pattern and practice of housing and segregating prisoners with

5 serious mental health conditions in the facility with the worst living conditions, the South Annex

6 Jail. This facility has been deemed unfit for housing prisoners (see paragraph 97 below) and is

7 especially traumatic for prisoners with serious mental health conditions. It is extraordinarily hot

8 with poor circulation in the summer and so frigid on cold winter days that prisoners spend most of

9 their time shivering under their blankets in bed because they are not permitted extra clothing.

10 There is very little access to natural light throughout this facility. There are serious problems

11 with the plumbing, and the water is often shut off. Nonetheless, Defendants have chosen to locate

12 the “psychiatric housing” on the third floor of this dilapidated facility without regard for how

13 these conditions especially traumatize prisoners with serious mental health conditions.

14

Inadequate Pre-Release Planning

15

88. Defendants have a policy and practice of releasing prisoners with serious health

16 conditions from the Jail without providing them with any services to ensure that their health care

17 is not disrupted. For those prisoners who are prescribed medications in the Jail, they are released

18 without either a supply or a prescription for them to fill those medications at a community

19 pharmacy. Defendants do not schedule follow-up appointments in the community, nor are

20 prisoners provided with any referrals or information about where they may receive health care

21 services or medications.

22

89. Defendants have knowledge of the substantial risk of harm caused by inadequate

23 health care in the Jail and the derivative harmful policies and practices including, but not limited

24 to, inadequate suicide precautions, and housing prisoners with serious mental conditions in

25 isolation. Defendants have failed to take steps to prevent, or even to diminish, the harmful effects

26 of these unlawful policies and practices.

27 II. FAILURE TO PROTECT PRISONERS FROM VIOLENCE

28

90. Prisoners face a substantial risk of harm from violence at the hands of other

26
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 29 of 39

1 prisoners due to Defendants’ policy and practice of understaffing the Jail and failing to

2 adequately classify prisoners. In all of the Jail facilities, large group fights between prisoners

3 break out regularly and smaller fights between prisoners occur daily. Prisoners regularly assault

4 and victimize vulnerable prisoners. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the danger of

5 assault faced by prisoners in the Jail.

6

91. The Fresno County Adult Detention Facilities include three jails–the Main Jail,

7 North Jail, and South Annex Jail.

8

Main Jail

9

92. In the Main Jail, most prisoners are housed on the third through sixth floors. The

10 second floor houses 37 prisoners who are medically infirm. The third through sixth floors consist

11 of six “pods,”each containing sixteen small cells. Each cell houses at least three prisoners. There

12 is a common dayroom in each of the pods. The doors to each cell in the pods are left open for

13 most of the day, and prisoners are free to go in and out of the dayroom and other prisoners’ cells.

14 In addition to the six pods, there are ten administrative segregation cells arranged in a linear

15 fashion.

16

93. There is one officer on each floor who sits in an upraised and enclosed viewing

17 station. He or she has no direct contact with prisoners. This officer can see into all of the

18 dayrooms, but cannot see into all of the prisoners’ cells.

19

94. There are only two officers on the floor (“floor officers”) providing supervision to

20 over 200 prisoners in the six pods. These officers cannot and do not provide line of sight

21 supervision to more than two pods at any one time, leaving a minimum of over 130 prisoners

22 without direct supervision at any given time. To reach prisoners in a particular pod or

23 administrative segregation cell, the floor officers must typically go through at least two locked

24 doors.

25

North Jail

26

95. In the North Jail, prisoners are housed on the second through fifth floors. Each

27 floor consists of six pods of dormitories with 72 beds (triple bunks), although each pod is

28 designed to house only 48 prisoners. There is one officer on each floor who sits in an upraised

27
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 30 of 39

1 and enclosed viewing station. He or she has no direct contact with prisoners. This officer has

2 limited visibility between and around the triple bunks and in certain corners of the dorms. There

3 are only four floor officers providing direct supervision to over 400 prisoners. These officers

4 cannot and do not provide line of sight supervision to more than four pods at any one time,

5 leaving at least 140 prisoners without direct supervision at any given time.

6

South Annex Jail

7

96. The South Annex Jail was built in 1947 and is the oldest facility in the Jail.

8 According to a Fresno County Jail Needs Assessment and Master Plan, dated September 24,

9 2008, “this facility is no longer functional for the housing of inmates.” Nonetheless, there are

10 over 200 prisoners housed on each of the upper three floors of this jail, and there are only two

11 floor officers providing direct supervision on each floor.

12

97. Each floor is broken up into separate housing units that contain cells and adjoining

13 dayrooms. Each cell houses four prisoners. The doors to the cells are left open periodically

14 during the daytime, and prisoners are free to go in and out of the dayroom when the cell doors are

15 open. However, when the cell doors are closed, before officers can enter a cell, they must first

16 operate an antiquated system of door controls.

17

98. The housing units in the South Annex Jail are located off long corridors. The

18 “control rooms” on each floor, where one officer sits and watches monitors showing limited areas

19 of the jail, have no visibility into the housing units. Officers must walk down the corridors to

20 observe the prisoners in the housing units, and it is easy for prisoners to cease illegal activity

21 before officers can see them. Also, visibility into the cells is severely limited due to the use of

22 steel bars to separate the cells from the dayrooms and corridors. All of the conditions in the

23 South Annex Jail described above make it extremely difficult for officers to prevent and quickly

24 respond to fights or emergencies, and to transport injured or combative prisoners.

25

99. In all of the facilities, besides providing general safety and security for 200-400

26 prisoners, the floor officers must supervise and coordinate all prisoner movement to the yard,

27 infirmary, legal visits, and court dates. They must shackle and escort any prisoners in

28 administrative segregation who are removed from or brought back to their cells. They must

28
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 31 of 39

1 provide security for nursing staff when prisoners receive their medications. They must also

2 provide security when meal trays, canteen items, and laundry are distributed. These officers are

3 unable to perform all these duties and also protect prisoners from violence.

4

100. In all of the facilities, there are blind spots or places out of view of correctional

5 officers for prisoners to hide illegal activity, including assaults. In the Main Jail, to stay out of

6 view, prisoners assault other prisoners in their cells. In the North Jail, prisoners go into dark

7 corners of the dorms, or between the triple bunks. In the South Annex Jail, prisoners in the

8 dayrooms wait until there no officers present in the corridors or they go into cells to fight or

9 assault others. They also fight or assault each other in the showers.

10

101. Indeed, each day prisoners are assaulted by other prisoners, whether it stems from

11 a large drawn-out group fight in the dayroom or the yard, or a quick and vicious assault in a

12 hidden pocket of the Jail. Prisoners know they can fight and engage in violent behaviors in the

13 Jail with impunity because there are not enough correctional officers to supervise and prevent

14 such violence.

15

102. Defendants have knowledge of these conditions. A report from the U.S.

16 Department of Justice (“DOJ Report”) warned that the construction design and crowding in the

17 South Annex and North Jails creates a risk of harm to prisoners. It described the risk due to

18 visibility problems, the antiquated door control systems, and the small doorframes in the South

19 Annex Jail. It stated that the “obsolete ‘linear type’ construction” of the South Annex Jail is

20 “very staff intensive and unsafe.” It also warned about the risk of triple bunking 72 prisoners in

21 the North Jail dorms designed to house only 48 prisoners. Finally, the DOJ Report also warned of

22 a risk of harm to prisoners from the bunk beds in the North Jail that are not “correctional grade”

23 fixtures. Thus, prisoners can tamper with the beds to create and hide weapons.

24

103. Despite the warnings in the DOJ Report, Defendants have assigned only one

25 officer to provide direct supervision for every 100 (or more) prisoners. This staffing pattern is

26 woefully inadequate to keep prisoners safe.

27

104. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to adequately classify and assign

28 prisoners to housing locations in the Jail where they will be safe from injury and violence. Before

29
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 32 of 39

1 prisoners are assigned to certain housing locations in the Jail, they are “classified” based on a

2 number of factors including their criminal charges, gang affiliation, race, and history of violence.

3 These classification procedures are ineffective, however, and prisoners who are incompatible for

4 various reasons, including rival gang memberships and/or histories of assaultive behaviors, are

5 housed together in the Jail. Defendants are deliberately indifferent to how their inadequate

6 classification procedures create a substantial risk of injury from assault.

7

105. As a result of Defendants’ pattern and practice of understaffing the Jail and failing

8 to assign prisoners to safe housing locations, Plaintiff Merryman was attacked in a dayroom of

9 the Main Jail on June 30, 2011. Mr. Merryman is an older man who is frail due to Defendants’

10 failure to provide him with adequate medical care. The prisoner who attacked Mr. Merryman was

11 obviously experiencing acute mental health symptoms. For two days before the attack, Mr.

12 Merryman observed this prisoner talking to himself, randomly unplugging cords from electrical

13 outlets, and wearing garbage bags over his mouth. On the morning of June 30, 2011, while Mr.

14 Merryman was watching television, this prisoner attacked Mr. Merryman from behind and sliced

15 him two times in the face with a razor. There were no correctional officers inside or near the pod

16 before or during the attack.

17

106. After Mr. Merryman was attacked, a group of prisoners began beating the prisoner

18 who sliced his face. Correctional officers did not arrive in the dayroom until several minutes

19 later. Mr. Merryman went into his cell to stop the bleeding and stay out of the way of the

20 fighting. Before correctional officers came to his cell, he had filled up his jumpsuit and two

21 towels with blood. He subsequently received sutures to treat his wounds and he now has a

22 prominent scar on his cheek. This injury, and the beating of the prisoner with a psychiatric

23 disability who attacked Mr. Merryman, could have been prevented if Defendants had provided

24 adequate supervision and classification procedures in the Jail.

25 III. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

26

107. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to reasonably accommodate

27 prisoners with disabilities. For example, Defendants have refused to provide Plaintiff Brian

28 Murphy with a cane or to house him in a bottom tier cell despite his inability to walk or go up and

30
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 33 of 39

1 down stairs without falling or experiencing tremendous pain. In his current housing assignment,

2 he must slowly, unstably, and painfully hobble up and down the stairs to receive his medications,

3 attend court, visit with an attorney or his family, use the shower, go to the yard or gym, socialize

4 in the dayroom, or participate in other basic daily life activities. He has already fallen once going

5 up the stairs in his housing unit. Mr. Murphy avoids leaving his cell unless absolutely necessary,

6 even if it means skipping meals and showers, because it is too painful and dangerous. Defendants

7 have failed to respond to his Inmate Request Form and grievances requesting to be housed on a

8 lower tier and provided with a cane. Defendants have also failed to provide a prisoner, who has a

9 hearing impairment, with the TDD machine he requested to effectively communicate by phone

10 with his attorney and family members.

11

108. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide prisoners notice of how

12 to request reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. In fact, the only accommodation

13 addressed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook is a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

14 (TDD) machine. Besides this machine, there is nothing in the Handbook that advises prisoners

15 about what accommodations or services are available for prisoners with disabilities, nor are there

16 any instructions about how to request them. A prisoner, who has a hearing impairment, asked at

17 least eight correctional officers in August 2011 to help him get his hearing aids that were left at

18 the police station he was taken to before he was booked into the Jail. All of these officers told

19 him they could not help him, and they failed to provide with him any instructions about how he

20 should go about getting his hearing aids. Consequently, this prisoner believed it was not possible

21 for him to retrieve his hearing aids from the police station, and stopped pursuing the matter. Also

22 as a result of not receiving his hearing aids, he was not able to fully participate in his court

23 hearings or religious services in the Jail.

24

109. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide prisoners with

25 disabilities the opportunity to request accommodations and/or assistive devices. In fact,

26 Defendants do not provide any forms designed for this purpose. In addition, there are no policies

27 and procedures instructing health care or correctional officers how to respond if prisoners request

28 these accommodations through some other means.

31
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 34 of 39

1

110. Defendants have not designated an employee to coordinate responses to requests

2 from prisoners with disabilities for reasonable accommodations as required by the ADA, 28

3 C.F.R. Section 35.107(a). As a result, Defendants often fail to timely respond to prisoners’

4 requests for accommodations, if they respond at all. In the few instances when Defendants

5 respond to requests, they fail to engage in an interactive process with those prisoners and their

6 responses are typically arbitrary and counterproductive. For example, when Plaintiff Brian

7 Murphy filled out an “Inmate Request Form” on October 12, 2011, asking to be assigned to a first

8 floor unit and a middle bunk to accommodate his mobility impairment, a correctional officer only

9 wrote in response, “You have a low bunk restriction.” When another prisoner with a vision

10 impairment asked a nurse in his housing unit for help receiving dental care, the nurse told him to

11 fill out a green slip even after he explained that he could not fill out a green slip without

12 assistance. This prisoner had to give items he purchased from the canteen to other prisoner in

13 exchange for filling out green slips on his behalf.

14

111. Defendants have failed to provide an effective grievance system for prisoners with

15 disabilities as required by the ADA, 28 C.F.R. Section 35.107(b). First, disability

16 accommodations are not listed as a grievable issue in the Inmate Orientation Handbook and the

17 Sheriff’s Department Grievance Policies and Procedures. Second, the grievance forms fail to

18 provide prisoners with a specific section or instructions for requesting reasonable

19 accommodations. Third, even if prisoners use the current grievance forms to request disability

20 accommodations, there are no policies and procedures directing health care or correctional staff

21 how to respond.

22

112. As a result, prisoners who file disability related grievances do not receive

23 responses or they are told they are receiving adequate medical care without having their disability

24 concerns addressed or accommodated through any type of interactive process. For example, one

25 prisoner filed a grievance because he was not receiving gloves to use for manual evacuation of his

26 bowels. In the grievance response, he was told that he was receiving all medically necessary care.

27 His request for gloves was not addressed and he was not provided with any gloves. Plaintiff

28 Brian Murphy has not received a response to his grievance dated December 9, 2011, requesting a

32
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 35 of 39

1 cane and transfer to another cell to accommodate his mobility impairment, even though

2 Defendants’ policies and procedures state they “usually” will respond within 14 days.

3

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4

First Cause of Action

5

(Eighth Amendment)

6

113. By their policies and practices described in paragraphs 28 - 107, Defendants

7 subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class to a substantial risk of harm and injury from inadequate

8 health care and violence. These policies and practices have and continue to be implemented by

9 Defendants and their agents or employees in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause

10 of Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States

11 Constitution under the Eighth Amendment.

12

114. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of

13 herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

14

Second Cause of Action

15

(Fourteenth Amendment)

16

115. By their policies and practices described in paragraphs 28 - 107, Defendants

17 subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class to a substantial risk of harm and injury from inadequate

18 health care and violence. These policies and practices have and continue to be implemented by

19 Defendants and their agents or employees in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause

20 of Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States

21 Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

22

116. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of

23 herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

24

25

Third Cause of Action

26

(Americans with Disabilities Act)

27

42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.

28

117. By their policy and practice of failing to reasonably accommodate prisoners with

33
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 36 of 39

1 disabilities as described in paragraphs 108 - 113, Defendants violate the Americans with

2 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 and 28 C.F.R. Section 35.152(b)(1).

3

118. Plaintiff Murphy, and the subclass of prisoners with disabilities he represents, are

4 qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

5

119. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide plaintiffs with

6 reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities. See generally 28

7 C.F.R. Section 35.130. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to make “reasonable

8 modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid

9 discrimination on the basis of disability . . . .” 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(7).

10

120. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to make available information to

11 prisoners about their rights under the ADA while detained in its Jail. 28 C.F.R. Section 35.106.

12

121. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing “to designate at least one employee

13 to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out is responsibilities under . . . [the ADA],

14 including any investigation of any complaint communicated to it alleging its noncompliance. . . .”

15 28 C.F.R. Section 35.107(a).

16

122. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to “adopt and publish grievance

17 procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that

18 would be prohibited by . . . [the ADA].” 28 C.F.R. Section 35.107(b).

19

123. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids

20 and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to

21 participate in . . . a service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. Section

22 35.160(b)(1).

23

124. Defendants have violated the ADA by failing to “ensure that inmates or detainees

24 with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the

25 individuals.” 28 C.F.R. Section 35.152(b)(2).

26

125. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to provide reasonable

27 accommodations, Plaintiff Murphy, and the subclass of prisoners with disabilities he represents,

28 do not have equal access to Jail activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise

34
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 37 of 39

1 qualified.

2

Fourth Cause of Action

3

(Rehabilitation Act)

4

29 U.S.C. Section 794

5

126. By their policy and practice of failing to reasonably accommodate prisoners with

6 disabilities as described in paragraphs 108 - 113, Defendants violate Section 504 of the

7 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794.

8

127. Plaintiff Murphy, and the subclass of prisoners with disabilities he represents, are

9 qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

10

128. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were recipients of federal funding

11 within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. As recipients of federal funds, they are required to

12 reasonably accommodate inmates with disabilities in their facilities, program activities, and

13 services.

14

129. As a result of Defendants’ policy and practice of failing to provide reasonable

15 accommodations, Plaintiff Murphy, and the subclass of prisoners with disabilities he represents,

16 do not have equal access to Jail activities, programs, and services for which they are otherwise

17 qualified.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

130. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to redress

20 the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to

21 suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the

22 Defendants as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief they request. The need for

23 relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the Constitution of the United

24 States,

25

131. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class they represent,

26 request that this Court grant them the following relief:

27

A. Declare the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

28 procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

35
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 38 of 39

1

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices of

2 Defendants and their agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs

3 and the class they represent under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the

4 ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

5

C. Order Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

6 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate health

7 care to prisoners, to protect prisoners from a substantial risk of harm, and to provide reasonable

8 accommodations to prisoners with disabilities.

9

D. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

10 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, from continuing the unlawful acts,

11 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint, and from failing to provide equal access to

12 programs, services, and activities to prisoners with disabilities, and minimally adequate health

13 care and protection to prisoners from a substantial risk of harm;

14

E. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), 42 U.S.C. Sections 1988,

15 12205 and 12133, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;

16

F. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

17 orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply

18 in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

19

G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

20 Dated: January 25, 2012
21
22

Respectfully submitted, PRISON LAW OFFICE

23

By: /s/ Kelly Knapp

24

DONALD SPECTER

25

KELLY KNAPP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28
36
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/25/12 Page 39 of 39

1

COOLEY LLP

2

By: /s/ Maureen Alger

3

MAUREEN P. ALGER

4

MARY KATHRYN KELLY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 6

7

By: /s/ Rachel Scherer

8

MELINDA BIRD

RACHEL SCHERER

9

ANDREW BERK

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
37
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 3 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
Fax: (510) 280-2704 5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522) 6 MONIQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square 8 3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, SHARON CHAVEZ, ROBERT MERRYMAN,
15 DAWN SINGH, CARLTON FIELDS, and

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM CLASS ACTION

BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and 16 all others similarly situated,

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS

17

Plaintiffs,

v. 18
MARGARET MIMS, Sheriff, Fresno County;

19 EDWARD MORENO, M.D., Director, Fresno

County Department of Public Health; GEORGE 20 LAIRD, Ph.D., Division Manager, Division of

MARGARET MIMS, SHERIFF, FRESNO COUNTY; EDWARD MORENO, M.D., DIRECTOR, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; GEORGE LAIRD, PH.D., DIVISION MANAGER, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

21 Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of HEALTH; PRATAP NARAYEN, M.D.,

Public Health; PRATAP NARAYEN, M.D.,

MEDICAL DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF

22 Medical Director, Division of Correctional Health, CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, FRESNO

23

Fresno County Department of Public Health; RICK HILL, Captain of Detention, Fresno County

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; RICK HILL, CAPTAIN OF DETENTION, FRESNO COUNTY

24

Sheriff’s Office; MARILYNN WELDON, Captain SHERIFF’S OFFICE; MARILYNN of Inmate Programs and Contracts, Fresno County WELDON, CAPTAIN OF INMATE

25 Sheriff’s Office, 26

Defendants.

PROGRAMS AND CONTRACTS AND SUBSTITUTE THE COUNTY OF FRESNO AS DEFENDANT AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

27

SHARON CHAVEZ AND CARLTON

FIELDS AS NAMED PLAINTIFFS

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)

SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)

2

COOLEY LLP

3

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

4

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

5

MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

6

MONISHA COELHO (SBN 219233) AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN 143532)

7

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

8

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

11

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE] 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2

IT IS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, AND

3 ORDERED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS:

4

A. The Parties Stipulate to Substitute the County of Fresno as Defendant.

5

Plaintiffs filed this action against Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, George Laird, Pratap

6 Narayen, Rick Hill, and Marilynn Weldon, employees of the County of Fresno, in their official

7 capacities on December 13, 2011.

8

The County of Fresno is the proper party in this action and should be substituted for the

9 named defendants in this matter. Accordingly, the named defendants should be dismissed

10 without prejudice and the County of Fresno should be substituted as the Defendant. See Kentucky

11 v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-166 (1985); Luke v. Abbott, 954 F.Supp. 202, 203 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

12 (“If only the official-capacity officer is named, it would be proper for the Court upon request to

13 dismiss the officer and substitute instead the local government entity as the correct defendant.”)

14

B. The Parties Stipulate to Dismiss Carlton Fields and Sharon Chavez as Named

15

Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs in this action are Quentin Hall, Shawn Gonzales, Sharon Chavez, Robert 16

Merryman, Dawn Singh, Carlton Fields, and Brian Murphy. Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate 17

to dismiss without prejudice Sharon Chavez and Carlton Fields as named plaintiffs in this action. 18

No parties shall be entitled to costs as a result of this dismissal. 19

20 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
21

22 23 Dated: November 15, 2012

PRISON LAW OFFICE

24

25

By:

/s/ Donald Specter

26

Donald Specter Kelly Knapp

27

Attorneys for Plaitniffs

28 [SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE]

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 2 Dated: November 15, 2012 3 4 5 6 7 Dated: November 15, 2012 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dated: November 15, 2012 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

COOLEY LLP

By:

/s/ Maureen Alger

Maureen P. Alger

Mary Kathryn Kelley

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

By:

/s/ Melinda Bird

Melinda Bird

Monisha Coelho

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
/s/ Adam Stirrup By: (as authorized on November 15, 2012)
Michael G. Woods Adam B. Stirrup Attorneys for Defendants

STIPULATION AND2[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2

[PROPOSED]ORDER

3

Good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED:

4

1. The County of Fresno is substituted in place of Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno,

5

George Laird, Pratap Narayen, Rick Hill, and Marilynn Weldon in this action.

6

2. Margarent Mims, Edward Moreno, George Laird, Pratap Narayen, Rick Hill, and

7

Marilynn Weldon are dismissed without prejudice as named defendants.

8

3. Sharon Chavez and Carlton Fields are dismissed without prejudice as named plaintiffs.

9

No parties shall be entitled to costs as a result of this dismissal.

10

4. The case caption in this action will hereby reflect the substitution of the County of

11

Fresno and the dismissal of Sharon Chavez and Carlton Fields.

12

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

15

Dated: November 16, 2012

16 17

DEAC_Sig nature-END:
66h44d

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND3[PROPOSED] ORDER

 
 Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 10

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 8392s)

KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013) 2 PRISON LAV/ OFFICE

J

1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA947I0

4 Telephone : (5 l0) 280 -2621 Fax: (510)280-2104

5

MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522) 6 MONTQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)

7 COOLEY LLP Five Palo Alto Square

8 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155

9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 fAdditional Counsel Listed on Next Page]

I2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13

r4

FRESNO DIVISION

t5

t6 QUENTIN HALL, et al.,
T7

18

v

t9

20 couNTY oF FRESNO,

2I

22

Case No.: 1 : 1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
Plaintiffs,
JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND NOTICE TO THE CLASS
Defendant. Date: July 10,2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 8 Judge: Hon. Barbara McAuliffe

23

24

25

26

27

28
1
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (l) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 10
1 MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259) SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)
2 COOLEY LLP J 4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909 4 Telephone: (858) 490-6000
5 MELTNDA BrRD (SBN 102236) DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
6 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (21 3) 21 3-8000 8 Fax: (213) 213-8001
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 MTCHAEL G. WOODS (s8683) 11 MoCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
T2 5 River Park Place East Fresno, CA93720
13 Telephone: (559) 433-1 300
t4 Fax: (559) 433-2300
15 Attorneys for Defendant
t6
T7
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (1) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (1: I 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 10

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2

Ja

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 10,, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8, located at

4 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, Plaintiffs and Defendant will jointly move for preliminary

5 approval of a Consent Decree agreed to by the parties that will, if ultimately approved by the

6 Court, settle all claims for injunctive relief in this class-action lawsuit. The parties also move the

7 Court for an order approving notice to the class of the proposed settlement and fairness hearing,

8 and an order setting a schedule for the fairness hearing. This joint motion is based on this notice,

9 the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Donald Specter and all

10 documents and pleadings in the record of this case.

11

Rule 23 does not require a hearing on a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class-

12 action settlement, and the parties agree to forego a hearing unless the Court concludes that a

13 hearing is necessary.

I4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

15

INTRODUCTION

t6

After engaging in extensive discovery and protracted settlement negotiations, the parties

t7 entered into a Consent Decree to settle the injunctive-relief claims in this class-action suit 18 concerning the conditions in the Fresno County Jail without any admission of liability. The t9 Consent Decree, if approved by the Court, would dispose of all claims in the case. The parties 20 now jointly seek preliminary approval of the Consent decree. Additionally, the parties seek an

2l order approving notice to the class of a fairness hearing concerning the Consent Decree and an

22 order setting a schedule for the fairness hearing.

23

The Court should grant preliminary approval of the Consent Decree because it is the

24 product of arm's-length, serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced

25 and knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.
26 Additionally, the notice and fairness-hearing schedule proposed by the parties will allow an

27 adequate opportunity for the class to review and comment on the Consent Decree, and is
28 consistent with the parties' desire for prompt implementation of the terms of the Consent Decree.
aJ
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (l) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 10

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs are prisoners who are or have been incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail and a

Jâ class consisting of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, incarcerated in the Fresno

4 County Jail (Jail). Defendant is the County of Fresno, which is responsible for the operation of

5 the Jail.

6

This action was filed on December 13, 2011. The First Amended Complaint was f,rled on

7 January 25,2012. The First Amended Complaint alleged that the conditions in the Jail violated 8 the constitutional and statutory rights of all prisoners who were or will be housed in the Jail. 9 Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Jail does not provide prisoners with access to

10 adequate medical, mental health and dental care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 11 Amendments; prisoners are not reasonably protected from injury and violence from other t2 prisoners in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and that prisoners are not

13 provided with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities in violation of the Americans with
I4 Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. ECF. No. 8

15

On June 1,2012, Defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint denying the

16 material allegations and asserting aff,rrmative defenses. The parties thereafter began class
I7 certification discovery. The parties subsequently agreed to suspend discovery for the purpose of

18 settlement negotiations. On February 21,2013, the parties agreed to a process whereby experts

I9 agreeable to both parties would inspect the Jail and issue reports and recommendations. Pursuant 20 to that agreement, experts inspected the jail and provided the parties with their reports and 2t recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the parties engaged in extensive settlement

22 negotiations. In May 2015 the parties executed the proposed Consent Decree. (Decl. Specter fl 3,

23 Ex. 1.) Defendant continues to deny plaintiffs allegations but have entered into this Consent

24 Decree, without admitting liability, as a compromise resolution of the issues described in the

25 amended complaint and the Consent Decree.

26

27

28 4
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (l) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 10

1

SUMMARY OF KEY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TERMS

2

A complete copy of the proposed Consent Decree is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration

J of Donald Specter, which is filed with this joint motion. The following aÍe some of the key terms

4 of the Consent Decree:

5

1. Based on the reports of the subject matter experts, the parties have agreed on a

6 detailed Remedial Plan that Defendant will be responsible for implementing. The Remedial Plan

7 provisions cover all the substantive areas in dispute: health care, personal safety, and disability

8 discrimination. The twenty-two page Remedial Plan is attached to the Consent Decree as
9 Appendix A. Among many other things, it requires the County to ensure that (1) prisoners with
10 chronic illnesses continue to receive necessary medications, (2) pregnant inmates receive timely

11 and appropriate prenatal care, postpartum care, counseling, and specialized obstetrical services
t2 when indicated, (3) sufficient numbers of dental staff to provide timely access to adequate dental 13 care, (4) mental health clinical decisions, diagnoses, and treatment plans shall only be made by t4 licensed mental health clinicians, (5) continuity of mental health care will be provided from 15 admission to transfer or discharge from the facility, (6) psychiatric medications, including but not 16 limited to antipsychotic medications, shall be prescribed to prisoners with mental illness in accord T7 with nationally accepted professional standards for the treatment of serious mental illness, (7) 18 mental health clinicians shall complete a comprehensive suicide risk assessment form for all t9 prisoners who display signs of suicide risk to determine if the inmate presents a low, moderate, or 20 high risk of suicide, (8) for prisoners with serious mental illness who are housed in unit 2D, 2I correctional and mental health staff will ensure those inmates are offered to be taken out of their 22 cells for recreation a minimum of 7 hours per week and mental health treatment will be offered 3

23 times per week, (9) prisoners with disabilities will be housed in the most integrated and 24 appropriate housing possible, based on their disabilities, (10) a staffing plan will be designed to 25 reduce inmate-on-inmate violence in the Jail, which includes the hiring of 127 new correctional

26 offrcers.

27

2. Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the Consent

28 Decree and the Remedial Plan. Plaintiffs' counsel will be able to inspect the Jail twice per year

5

Notice Mot. & Joint Mot, (1) Prelim, Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 10

1 and the subject matter experts will prepare a report during the first year of monitoring and upon

2 request after the f,rrst year. In the event of a dispute, the parties have agreed on an informal J dispute resolution process, and the Court will retain jurisdiction to entertain motions to enforce

4 compliance if the dispute resolution process fails.

5

3. The County has agreed to pay Plaintiffs' Counsel $900,000 for merits fees and

6 expenses and $40,000 per year for monitoring fees and expenses.

7

4. The County does not admit liability and continues to deny the allegations in

I Plaintiffs' complaint. Nothing in the Consent Decree shall constitute or be used as evidence of

9 any admission or wrongdoing or liability of County, its agents or employees.

10

PROPOSED NOTICE

11

The parties have agreed to a proposed notice to the class, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to

T2 the Declaration of Donald Specter. This form of notice is adequate to provide the class with

13 notice of the proposed Consent Decree and fairness hearing, and complies with the due-process

t4 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

15

V/ithin seven days of the Court granting preliminary approval of the settlement and the

16 notice to the class attached as Exhibit 2, Defendant will: (1) post the notice to the class in English
I] and Spanish in housing units at the Jail in such a manner as to make the notice visible to all

18 general population prisoners, (2) hand deliver a copy of the notice to all prisoners in units 2D, FF

t9 cells, A pods and any other housing unit on lockdown; and (3) provide to prisoners upon request a 20 copy of the Consent Decree with the Remedial Plan and a copy of Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'

2l fees.

22

ANALYSß

23 I. TUB Counr sHouLD pRELIMTNARILy AppRovE THE Srrpur,¡,rno SnrtlnunNr.

24

The Ninth Circuit maintains a "strong judicial policy" that favors the settlement of class

25 actions. Class Plaintffiv. Cityof Seattle,955F.2d1268,1276 (9thCir.1992). Inreviewing

26 proposed class-action settlement agreements, a court first "conducts a preliminary approval or

27 pre-notif,rcation hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement is 'within the

28 range of possible approval' or, in other words, whether there is 'probable cause' to notify the
6
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (1) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (1:l 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 10

1 class of the proposed Settlement Agreement ." Horton v. Merrill Lynch,855 F. Supp. 825,827

2 (E.D.N.C. 1994) (citing Armstrongv. Board of School Directors,616F.2d 305,312(7thCir.

J 19S0); see also In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation,4S4 F. Supp. 2d 1078,1079-80 Q'J.D. Cal.

4 2007); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) ç 21.632 (2004) (explaining that courts 5 "must make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the

6 settlement terms and must direct the preparation of notice of the certification, proposed

7 settlement, and date of the final fairness hearing."). "Second, assuming that the court grants

8 preliminary approval and notice is sent to the class, the court conducts a 'fairness' hearing, at

9 which all interested parties are afforded an opportunity to be heard on the proposed settlement."

10 Horton,855 F. Supp. at827.

11

Preliminary approval entails an initial assessment of the fairness of the proposed

T2 settlement made by a court on the basis of written submissions and presentations from the settling

13 parties. Newberg on Class Actions summarizes the preliminary approval criteria as follows:

t4

If the preliminary evaluation of the proposed settlement does not disclose grounds to

doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies, such as unduly preferential treatment of

15

class representatives or of segments of the class, or excessive compensation for attorneys,

I6

and appears to fall within the range of possible approval, the court should direct that

notice under Rule 23(e) be given to the class members of a formal fairness hearing, at

17

which arguments and evidence may be presented in support of and in opposition to the

settlement.
18

19 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions $ 1 1:25 (4th Ed. 2002)

20 ("Preliminary Court Approval").

2l

The purpose of the preliminary approval process is to determine whether the proposed

22 settlement is within the range of reasonableness and thus whether notice to the class of the terms

23 and conditions and the scheduling of a formal fairness hearing is worthwhile. Id.; see also Young 24 v. Polo Retail, LLC,2006 WL 3050861,at *5 CN.D.Cal. Oct. 25,2006). There is an "initial 25 presumption of fairness when a proposed class settlement was negotiated at arm's length by

26 counsel forthe class." Murillov. Texas A&M(Jniv. Sys.,92IF. Supp. 443,445 (S.D. Tex. 1996).

27

Other factors courts consider in making a final assessment of whether the settlement

28 should be approved include: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense,
7
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (1) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 8 of 10

1 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class-action status

2 throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed

J and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a

4 government participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
5 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d I0ll, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); see also In re Oracle Sec, Litig,,

6 829 F. Supp. I176,1 179 (1.{.D. Cal. 1993). The district court must explore these factors

7 comprehensively to satisfy appellate review, but "the decision to approve or reject a settlement is

8 committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge," Hanlon,150 F.3d at 1026.

9

Furthermore, courts must give "proper deference to the private consensual decision of the

10 parties." Id. at 1027. Settlement is the preferred means of dispute resolution, particularly in

11 complex class litigation. Officers þr Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F .2d 615, 625 (9th Cir'
t2 1982) (class action suit challenging allegedly discriminatory employment practices by a police

13 department). "[T]he court's intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement

14 negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a

15 reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overeaching by, or collusion

T6 between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and
I7 adequate to all concerned." Hanlon,150 F.3d at 1027 . Thus, a district court's decision to

18 approve a class-action settlement may be reversed "only upon a strong showing that the district

t9 court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion." Id.

20

Here, a preliminary review of the relevant considerations demonstrates a solid basis for

2l granting the conditional approval requested by this motion. The Consent Decree is fair and

22 adequate in that Defendant has agreed to detailed terms that directly address the class claims in

23 this case, including the hiring of additional custodial and mental health staff and provisions to

24 provide out-of-cell time for prisoners in segregation. The settlement was reached after almost

25 two years of negotiations between the parties, who were zealously represented by their

26 experienced counsel throughout this litigation. (Decl. Specter TT 2, 3.)

27

The settlement was also reached during a stage in the litigation after discovery and the Jail

28 was evaluated by neutral experts. (Decl. Specter fl 3.) Thus, the parties had adequate information
8
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (1) Prelim, Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:l l-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 9 of 10

1 to fully evaluate the parties' claims and defenses before engaging in settlement negotiations and

2 reaching an agreement.

Ja

Further, the outcome of the litigation and the extent of any relief that the class might be

4 awarded if the case went to trial is uncertain. Plaintiffs faced substantial burdens in

5 demonstrating a current and ongoing violation of inmates' constitutional rights on a system-wide

6 basis. And proceeding through pre-trial motions, trial, and probable appeal would impose risks, 7 costs, and a substantial delay in the implementation of any remedy in this matter. Given the relief 8 achieved and the risks and costs involved in further litigation, the Consent Decree represents a

9 fundamentally "fair, reasonable and adequate" resolution of the disputed issues and should be

10 preliminarily approved. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e)(2).

11 il. Tnn Counr sHouLD AppRovE THE CLASs Noucn.

T2

Rule 23(e) requires notice to the class before the Court grants f,rnal approval to any

13 compromise of the case. The parties have agreed to the form and content of the notice to the class,
t4 which is attached to the Specter declaration as Exhibit 2, and which provides reasonable notice of l5 the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. The means of disseminating the notice will l6 allow an adequate opportunity for the class to review and comment on the settlement. The parties I7 respectfully request that the Court approve the notice and order its dissemination to the class

18 members.

T9

ilI. TTTB CounT SHoULD APPRovE THE PRoPoSED SCHEDULING oRDER AND SET A DATE

20

FORA FAIRNESS HEARING CONCERNING THE STTPUT-¡.TNO SBTTINVTNNT.

2I

The parties propose the following general time schedule to provide for notice, comment,

22 and final approval of the Consent Decree. The parties also submit a proposed scheduling order.

z3

First, the parties request approximately seven days from the time of the preliminary

24 approval to publish the notice in the Jail. Second, the parties request a four-week period,

25 following the publishing of the notice, during which class members may file comments and

26 objections. Third, the parties request three weeks from the end of the comment period for the
2l

28 9
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot. (1) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (l:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112 Filed 05/28/15 Page 10 of 10

1 parties to respond to any objections. Fourth, the parties request that the fairness hearing be set 2 approximately two weeks after the deadline for responding to the objections.

J

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintifß and Defendant request that the Court issue

5 preliminary approval of the Consent Decree, approve the form of the proposed notice and order

6 its publication to the class and issue the proposed scheduling order. The parties further request

7 final approval of the Consent Decree at the fairness hearing.

8

9
Dated: }l4:ay 27,2015
10
11
12
13
t4

Respectfully submitted,
PRISON LAV/ OFFICE
/s/ Donald Soecter Donald Specter
Plaintiffs Quentin Hall, Shawn Gonzales, man, Brian Murphy, Dawn Singh and the Plaintiff Class

15
I6 Dated: l|l4ay 27,2015
t7

MoCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

18

19

20

2I

292s3-00188 3423230.1

By:

/s/ Michael G. Woods

Michael G. Woods

Attorney for Defendant County of Fresno

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10
Notice Mot. & Joint Mot, (1) Prelim. Approval Consent Decree and Notice to Class (1:1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM)

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 58

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 8392s) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 2s20r3)
2 PRISON LAV/ OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, CA947I0
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621

5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208s22) 6 MONTQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real 8 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 11 IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGEì

t2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

t4

QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, ANd

15 BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

T6

Plaintiffs,

I7

V.

Case No. 1 :1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF' DONALD SPECTER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

COUNTY OF FRESNO
18

Defendants.

I9

20
2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECL. OF D. SPECTER ISO OF MTN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 58

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)

SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)

2

COOLEY LLP

4401Eastgate Mall

J

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

4

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

5

MELTNDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

MONISHA COELHO (SBN 219233)

6

AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN t43s32)

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

7

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

8

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (21 3) 213-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

11

IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON CAPTION PAGE]

12

13
l4

15
t6 t7

18
I9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECL. OF D. SPECTER ISO OF MTN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 58

1

2

I, Donald Specter, declare:

J

L I am attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this

4 matter

5

2. Throughout the litigation of this case, Plaintiffs and Defendants have been zealously

6 represented by counsel.

7

3. After the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in substantial

8 discovery. On February 2l,2013,the parties agreed to vacate the dates for a motion for class

9 certification in favor of a process whereby experts agreeable to both parties would inspect the Jail
10 and issue reports and recommendations. Pursuant to that agreement, experts inspected the jail

11 and provided the parties with their reports and recommendations. Based on those

t2 recommendations, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations spanning almost two

13 years. In May 201 5 the parties executed the proposed Consent Decree, a copy of which is
T4 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Consent Decree, if approved, will resolve all claims for

15 injunctive and declaratory relief in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

I6

4. The parties have agreed on a proposed notice to the class, and my office has prepared a

I7 Spanish translation of that notice. A true copy of the proposed notice to the class (and a Spanish

18 translation) regarding preliminary approval of the Consent Decree is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

I9

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my

20 knowledge. Executed }r/ray 27,2015, at Berkeley, California.

2l
lsl

22

DONALD SPECTER

23

292s3-00188 3424469.1

24

25

26

27

28

DECL. OF'D. SPECTER ISO OF MTN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 58
HALL, et al. v. COIJNTY OF FRESNO
Case No. 1 : 1 1-CV-020 47 -LJO-BAM
E,XHIBIT 1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 58

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE J 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA947l0
4 Telephone : (510) 280 -2621 Fax: (510)280-2704
5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208s22) 6 MONTQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square
8 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11 IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

l2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

t4 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, ANd

15 BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,
16
Plaintifß,

I7

v.

Case No. 1 :1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM CLASS ACTION
CONSENT DECREE

18 COUNTY OF FRESNO Defendant.
19

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 58

1
2 J 4
5 6 7 8 9
10 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6 t7
18 T9
20
2I
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259) SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492) COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: (858) 490-6000
MELTNDA BIRD (SBN 102236) MONTSHA COELHO (SBN 219233) DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 21 3-8000 Fax: (213) 213-8001
MTCHAEL G. WOODS (s8683) MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 5 River Park Place East Fresno, CA93720 Telephone: (559) 433- 1 300 Fax: (559) 433-2300
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON CAPTION PAGEI

CONSENT DECREE

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 58

1
2 Introduction

3

1. The parties enter into this Consent Decree to address alleged deficiencies in

4 conditions of confinement in the Fresno County Jail as pled in plaintiffs' amended complaint.

5
The parties to this stipulated consent decree are plaintiffs Quentin Hall, Shawn Gonzales, Robert
6
Memyman, Dawn Singh, and Brian Murphy, and the class of prisoners they represent, and the
7

8 Defendant County of Fresno (Defendant).

9

2. The original complaint was filed by plaintiffs on December 13, 2011, and an

10 amended complaint was filed on January 25,2012. The amended complaint alleges that the

11 County of Fresno is failing to provide minimally adequate health care and to reasonably protect
T2
prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners as required by the Eighth and Fourteenth
13
Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as failing to provide reasonable
t4 15 accommodations to prisoners with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
I6 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On June I,2012, Defendant filed its answer to the

I7 amended complaint denying the material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. The
18 parties thereafter began class certification discovery. The parties subsequently agreed to suspend
19
discovery for the purpose of settlement negotiations. Defendant continues to deny plaintiffs
20
allegations but has entered into this Consent Decree, without admitting liability, as a compromise
2T
22 resolution of the issues described in the amended complaint and this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs
z) and Defendant hereby stipulate and consent to the injunctive relief detailed below in order to

24 compromise and settle the disputes between them relating to the facts and claims alleged in the
25 amended complaint. Nothing herein shall constitute or be used as evidence of any admission or
26
wrongdoing or liability of Defendant, its agents or employees.
27
3. Nothing in this Consent Decree prevents Defendant from temporarily suspending
28
compliance with all or any part of the Consent Decree as may be necessary during an emergency.

CONSBNT DECREE
1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 8 of 58

1
2 Defendant shall advise plaintiffs' counsel of any such suspension in writing within 10 days of the
Ja temporary or permanent suspension, describing which portion(s) of this Consent Decree was/were
4 suspended and the reasons thereof, Plaintiff may object to any suspensions of this Consent
5
Decree and invoke the dispute resolution procedure set forth in paragraph 18.
6
4. To aid in settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to jointly hire three experts to
7
I develop recommendations to remedy the alleged constitutional and statutory violations identified
9 by plaintiffs. Each of these experts conducted extensive tours and reviews of the jail facilities and

10 policies and procedures. They drafted reports that described their f,rndings and recommendations.

11 The parties further agreed that plaintiffs' counsel would conduct a tour of the jail facilities and I2
review policies and procedures regarding accommodations for prisoners with disabilities.
l3 Plaintifß' counsel completed a report that described their findings and recommendations to
I4 15 remedy alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of
t6 the Rehabilitation Act that they identified during their tour and review. The parties agreed that

T7 the experts' and plaintifß' counsel's reports would establish a working framework for the

18 negotiation of this Consent Decree. Through this Consent Decree, Defendant agrees to implement
I9
the measures set forth in the Remedial Plan attached as Appendix A subject to monitoring by
20
plaintiffs' counsel, evaluation by Court experts, negotiation between the parties, and if necessary, 2I

22 enforcement by the Court as set forth in this Consent Decree.

23

5. Each party to this Consent Decree was represented by counsel during its

24 negotiation and execution.

25 Terms and Conditions

26

6. Class and Defînition: The parties agree that this action meets the requirements of

27

Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be treated for all purposes as
28

a class action. The plaintiff class consists of all prisoners who are now, or at some time in the

CONSENT DECREE
2

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 9 of 58

1
2 future during the terms of this Consent Decree are, incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail.

J

7. Notice to Class Members: Defendant shall post notices of this action in a manner

4 agreed upon by the parties. Such notices shall include a brief description of plaintifß' claims, the

5
definition of the class, that the parties have entered into a Consent Decree to correct the alleged
6
violation of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of the plaintiff class, and the contact
7

8 information for the Prison Law Office should any prisoner wish to contact plaintiffs' counsel.

9

8. Implementation of Remedial Plan: Defendant shall make all reasonable efforts

10 subject to the availability of resources to fully implement all of the remedial measures, according

11 to the specified timeframes, set forth in the Remedial Plan attached as Appendix A. Defendant
t2 shall make all reasonable efforts to secure the funding necessary to implement the Remedial Plan.
13
The Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are designed and intended to meet the minimum level of
T4
15 health care and safety and security necessary to fulfill Defendant's obligations under the Eighth
I6 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as to ensure reasonable

t7 accommodations are provided to remedy the specific alleged violations of the ADA and Section

18 504 of the Rehabilitation Act set forth in the amended complaint. Nothing in this Consent Decree

19
shall be construed to require more of the Defendant than is minimally necessary to enforce the
20
2l Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and to comply with the requirements of the ADA and

22 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

23

9. Defendant shall develop and implement appropriate and adequate plans, policies,

24 and practices to ensure compliance with the Remedial Plan. Defendant will submit any new
25 health care plans or policies developed to meet the terms of the Remedial Plan to Plaintiffs'
26
counsel for their review and comments at least 15 days before implementation. Defendant will
27
submit all other new plans or policies developed to meet the terms of the Remedial Plan to
28
Plaintiffs' counsel for their review within 10 days of the effective date of each such plan or

CONSENT DECREE J

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 10 of 58

1

2 policy. Plaintifß' counsel may provide comments, if any, on each such plan or policy within 10

Ja days of receipt.

4

10. Experts: The parties agree to jointly request the appointment of three Court

5
experts pursuant to rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to advise the Court on the adequacy
6
of the implementation of the Remedial Plan. During the first year of this Consent Decree, the
7
8 three experts shall each complete one comprehensive review and report to advise the Court on

9 Defendant's progress in implementing the Remedial Plan. For the remaining duration of this

10 Consent Decree, the Court experts shall complete comprehensive reviews and reports as he/she
1i determine to be necessary, or as jointly requested by the parties, but not more than once a year to
12
advise the parties and the Court on the adequacy of Defendant's implementation of the Remedial
13
Plan. The Court experts shall also complete evaluations and reports upon request as described in
T4
15 the dispute resolution process detailed in Paragraph 18. The experts'duties specified in
I6 Appendix B shall be provided to the experts pursuant to Rule 706(b).

I7

1 1. The Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation in an amount

18 approved by the Court, which shall be paid by Defendant. The Court experts shall have access to
I9 all parts of any County jail facility, with adequate notice provided in advance of the same to
20
ensure appropriate security is provided, all relevant budgetary, custody, and health care
2T
22 documents, persons (including conf,rdential interviews with consenting staff and consenting
23 prisoners) and institutional meetings, proceedings, and programs to the extent the experts

24 reasonably determine such access is needed to fulfill their obligations. The Court experts will not
25 have access to personnel files, including records and information deemed confidential pursuant to 26
California Penal Code $ 832.1. Attorneys shall not have ex parte contact with experts regarding
27 their preliminary and proposed opinions to be presented to the parties.
28
12. The parties shall attempt to agree on who shall be appointed as the Court experts.

CONSENT DECREE
4

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 11 of 58

1
2 If the parlies do not agree, Defendant and plaintiffs shall nominate and submit potential experts to

J be chosen and appointed by the Court pursuant to Rule 706.

4

13. Status Reports: V/ithin 180 calendar days of the effective date of this Consent

5 Decree, Defendant shall provide to plaintiffs a status report describing the state of compliance
6
with the terms of this Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. This report shall include a description
7
8 of the steps that Defendant has taken to implement the Remedial Plan. At the end of each

9 subsequent 180-day period within four years from the date this Consent Decree is entered unless

10 the Consent Decree is earlier terminated Defendant shall provide to plaintiffs a status report

11 addressing each item of the Remedial Plan and shall specify each and every item with which it is I2
not in compliance.
13
14. Monitoring and Access to Information: Plaintiffs shall reasonably monitor
T4
15 Defendant's compliance with the Remedial Plan. Such monitoring shall be limited to issues
I6 related to the Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan and consist of touring the jail, interviewing

T1 staff and prisoners, reviewing and commenting on policies and procedures revised or added after
18 the effective date of this Consent Decree as provided for in paragraph 9, negotiating with county
19 personnel and their counsel, corresponding with prisoners, reviewing relevant documents,
20
communicating with the Court experts and all other duties and obligations specifically set forth
2T
22 herein, including but not limited to those set forth in paragraphs 15-18. This provision is not
23 intended to and does not supersede the Inmate Grievance Procedure. If plaintiffs reasonably

24 believe that Defendant is not complying with the measures set forth in the Remedial Plan, they
25 shall notify Defendant in writing of the alleged noncompliance. Defendant shall investigate 26 allegation(s) and use its best efforts to provide plaintiffs with a response in writing within 30
27
calendar days. If plaintiffs are not satisfied with Defendant's response, the parties shall engage in
28
the dispute resolution process described in Paragraph 18.

CONSENT DECREE 5

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 12 of 58

1

2

15. Defendant shall provide plaintiffs, upon advance written notice, with access to

aJ information, including all jail facilities, documents, records, and staff, that plaintiffs reasonably

4 believe in good faith is necessary to monitor Defendant's compliance with the Remedial Plan,
5
subject where applicable to a protective order agreed to by the parties and attached as Appendix
6
C. Plaintiffs shall not be entitled to personnel records, including records and information deemed
7
8 confidential pursuant to Penal Code $ 832.7. From the date this Consent Decree is entered by the

9 Court, Defendant shall provide plaintiffs with access to such information within 30 calendar days

10 of any request. If Defendant believes that the information requested by plaintiffs is not

11 reasonably necessary to monitor compliance with the Remedial Plan, the parties shall engage in t2
the dispute resolution process described in Paragraph 18.
13
16. Plaintiffs' counsel and their consultants (whose consultant fees shall be the sole
t4 15 responsibility of Plaintiffs) may conduct no more than two tours of the jail facilities per calendar
t6 year not to exceed a maximum of 40 hours total for all institutions each calendar year. Notice of

I7 any jail tour pursuant to this paragraph must be given in writing at least 7 days before the
18 proposed tour. Scheduling of any requested tour is subject to jail operational and/or security
19
concerns. Tours by plaintiffs' counsel andlor their consultants shall include reasonable access to
20
all of the County jail facilities, including all housing units, facilities where health care services are 2t 22 provided, and any other facilities where services are provided pursuant to the Remedial Plan.
23 Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify in their notice of any jail tour issues for discussion and

24 Defendant shall provide appropriate personnel to address those issues. During the tours,
25 Defendant shall make reasonable efforts to make available for interview management, clinical,
26
custodial, and program staff that have direct or indirect responsibility for healthcare, disability
27 accommodations, and the safety and security of prisoners. Defendant shall direct institution staff
28
to reasonably cooperate with plaintiffs' counsel in obtaining necessary information they request

CONSENT DECREE 6

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 13 of 58

1
2 during the tours. During the tours, Defendant shall permit and facilitate plaintiffs counsel having

J reasonable brief confidential discussion with any consenting prisoner identified by plaintiffs'

4 counsel. Upon two week's notice and request by Plaintiffs' counsel and pursuant to the
5
protective order, Defendant shall make available for inspection and/or copying the health care
6
andlor custodial information in Offendertrak of specified prisoners. At the reasonable request of
7
plaintiffs' counsel jail personnel shall provide individual prisoners reasonable access consistent
8
9 with jail security and staff availability to confidential telephone calls with plaintiffs' counsel.

10

I7, In the event that Defendant fails to make an employee or an agent available for an

11 interview, and the parties agree, plaintiff may depose the employee or agent who has not been
t2
made available. If the parties are unable to agree, the Court may order such deposition of the
13
employee or agent if such deposition is reasonably necessary to the enforcement of the Consent
l4

15 Decree.

16

18. At the reasonable request of any pafty, the parties shall conduct good faith

t7 negotiations to resolve informally any dispute regarding Defendant's compliance with the

18 measures set forth in the Remedial Plan, which shall not include any issue relating to an
t9 individual prisoner that is subject to the Inmate Grievance Procedure until after that process has
20
been exhausted. Any party may begin this dispute resolution process by written notice to the 2I
22 opposing party. If the parties are unable to resolve informally the dispute within 30 days
¿J following the Defendant's written response to plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to paragraph 14, or

24 within 30 days following Defendant's initial written notice to plaintiffs' counsel of a dispute, the

25 party initiating the process may inform the Courl's expert(s) of the area of disagreement and
26 request that the expert(s) evaluate the issue and prepare a report. If either party believes that a
27
request for an evaluation and report from an expert is beyond the scope of the Consent Decree or
28
the Remedial Plan they may apply to the Court for an order vacating the request. Unless such a

CONSENT DECREE 7

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 14 of 58

1
2 motion is made within 10 days of the request or the Court vacates the request, the expert(s) shall

J devote his or her best efforts to provide his or her report regarding the area of disagreement

4 within 45 days of the request. Defendant will pay the experts' reasonable fees for time incurred
5
and any repofts prepared by a Court expert about a disputed issue, as contemplated by this
6
paragraph, Any report prepared by a Court expert about a disputed issue, as contemplated by this
7
8 paragraph, shall be admissible as evidence at the request of any party in any judicial proceeding
9 in this case. While the report may be admissible, it may be disputed or contested by any party

10 with testimonial or extrinsic evidence, including expeft testimony. The report shall not be

11 admissible in any other action. If within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Court's expert's
I2 report, the parties are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute, any party
13
may file a motion for relief to the Court. t4

15 Enforcement

16

19. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree, and

I7 shall have the power to enforce the agreement through specific performance and all other

18 remedies permitted by law throughout the duration of this Consent Decree.
I9 Duration
20
20. The duration of this Consent Decree is four years from the date this Consent
2I 22 Decree is entered by the Court, unless the court earlier determines that Defendant is in substantial
23 compliance with the Remedial Plan or, subject to the dispute resolution process in Paragraph 18

24 that this time period shall be extended as to any provision of this Consent Decree with which
25 parties or the Court's expert(s) reasonably determine that Defendant is not in substantial
26
compliance for so long as substantial non-compliance persists. The parties have the right by
27 motion to the Court to contest the determinations made by the Court's experts with testimonial or
28
extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony.

CONSENT DECREE 8

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 15 of 58

1

2 Costs and Fees

J

21. Costs and Fees For Enforcement: Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiffs' counsel

4 $40,000 per calendar year, or a pro rated portion thereof, for all fees and expenses related to
5
monitoring the implementation of the Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan. The monitoring
6
l period shall begin the day after the Consent Decree is approved by the Court. Defendant shall
8 deliver payment within 60 days of the beginning of the monitoring period for each of the first
9 three years. For the duration of the Consent Decree, Defendant shall pay apro rata share within

10 30 days of each calendar quarter of monitoring. The limitation on fees and expenses for

11 monitoring shall not include any litigation to enforce or defend this Consent Decree or the

T2
Remedial Plan before the Court.

13
Effect of Consent Decree in Other Actions I4

15

22. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree noÍ any statements of claims contained

16 herein shall be used in any other case, claim, or administrative proceedings, except that Defendant

t7 and its employees and agents may use this Consent Decree and any statement contained herein to

18 asseft issue prelusion or res judicata.

I9

23. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to and does not modify, revise or

20
change any existing orders or consent decrees applicable to Defendant, operations at the Fresno
2T

22 County Jail or prisoners in the Fresno County Jail, including, but not limited to Orders and

23 Consent Decrees in John B. Cruz, et al. v. County of Fresno, et al., United States District Court

24 Eastern District of California Case No. 1:93-cv-05070-MCE.

25

24. Costs and Fees Prior to Entry of the Consent Decree: In the interest of

26
resolving this dispute, Defendant agrees to pay plaintiffs' counsel $900,000 as payment for all
27
reasonable attorneys fees and costs through the date the Court approves this Consent Decree.
28

Defendant shall deliver payment within 60 days of the date the Court approves this Consent

CONSENTDECREE 9

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 16 of 58
1
2 Decree. Payment of these fees and costs represents full satisfaction of all claims for fees and

J costs through the date upon which the Consent Decree is approved.

4

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

5

6 7
8 Dated: May27,2015

PRISON LAW OFFICE

9

By:

/s/ Donald Specter

10

Donald Specter

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

t2

13
r4 15 Dated: i|i4ay 27,2015

COOLEY LLP

16

t7

B

/s/ Maureen Alser

Maureen Alger

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

I9

20
2T
Dated: }i4.ay 27,2015
22

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

23

By:

/s/ Melinda Bird

24

Melinda Bird

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

21

28

CONSENT DECREE
10

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 17 of 58

1
2 Dated: I|l4ay 27,2015
J

MoCORMICK, BARSTOV/, SHEPPARD,
V/AYTE & CARRUTH LLP

4

By:

/s/ Michael G. lVoods

5

Michael G. Woods

Attorneys for Defendant

6

7

The Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs allege various violations of Federal law and the

8 Defendant County of Fresno denies those allegations. Having reviewed the reports of the joint

9
experts, the Court hereby finds that the remedy set forth herein is narrowly drawn, extends no

10 further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the

11 Plaintiffs' class, and is the least intrusive means necessary to comect the violation of federal t2
rights.

13
Therefore, and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Consent Decree, and orders
t4 the parties to comply with all its terms, and orders Defendant to implement the Remedial Plan

15
pursuant to the schedule set forth therein.
I6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
I7

18

19
Dated: 20

2I

29253-00188 3423289.r

JUDGE OF THE LINITED STATES DIS CT COURT

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE 11

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 18 of 58
HALL, et al. v. COUNTY OF FRESNO
Case No. 1 : 1 1-CV-020 47 -LJO-BAM
APPENDIXA, REME,DIAL PLAN

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 19 of 58

Høll, et. ø1. v, County of Fresno
REMEDIAL PLAN
M:ay 27,20L5

Pursuant to the Consent Decree entered on Fresno agrees to implement the following measures.
I. MEDICAL CARE

2015, the County of

A. Organizational Structure and Leadership

1. The County shall ensure that jail health care staff and the Sheriff s Offrce implement
an interagency agreement that addresses mutual responsibilities in the provision of
health care.

2. The Jail Medical Director shall be Board Certified or Board eligible in Internal
Medicine or Family Practice.

3. Jail health care staff shall meet with Sherifls Office staff during monthly
administrative meetings that shall include an agenda and minutes.

4. Jail health care staff and the Sheriff s Office shall develop and implement
standardized procedures that provide coordination between correctional and medical
staff such that patients receive safe and timely access to care and medications.

5. The County shall require that jail health care staff are appropriately credentialed
according to the licensure, certification, and registration requirements for the State of
California.

6. Jail health care staff shall participate in mock fire drills conducted by the Sheriff s
Ofhce once a year,

B. Staffïng

1. The County shall deliver adequate health care to comply with this Remedial Plan.

2. The County shall employ adequate numbers of correctional staff to assist with
medication administration and the movement of patients to receive health care
services.

2gzs3-ool883423s76.r

t

Hqll, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 20 of 58

3. The County will provide a budget for jail health care services sufftcient to finance
adequate health care and conectional staff to comply with this Remedial Plan.

C. Clinic Space
1. The County will provide an adequate number of clinic examination rooms to deliver
adequate health care and comply with this Remedial Plan.
2. Clinic examination rooms shall have standardized equipment and par levels of
supplies in a standardized presentation.
D. Policies and Procedures
1. The County's policies and procedures regarding medical intake shall require
completion of a Medical Intake Screening form that includes the following:
a. Questions on the history of HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Kidney Disease;
and
b. Questions regarding legal and illegal drug use (e.g., type, time of last use and
quantities.)
2. The County's policies and procedures shall include that inmates with chronic illness
are identified and seen after intake based on acuity (on the day ofarrival for patients with high acuity and not to exceed 14 days for all others), and for follow-up appointments in intervals that do not exceed 90 days unless such inmates are clinically stable on at least two consecutive encounters, in which case not to exceed intervals of 180 days.
3. The County's policies and procedures regarding Individualized Treatment Plans shall
include the following:
a. The minimum time period between intake screening and the first history and
physical examination shall be specified and based on acuity (not to exceed 14 days for all inmates);
b. Continuity of medications shall occur within 24 hours for inmates with
chronic illness, unless there are extenuating circumstances that prevent the prescription of such medications, in which case the inmate shall be evaluated by a physician or mid-level practitioner within 24 hours to determine an alternative treatment plan; and

29253-00188 3423576.1

2

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 21 of 58

c. The minimum time period between physician evaluations shall be specified
based on acuity.

4. The County's policies and procedures shall include that prescription medications shall
only be prescribed by licensed physicians, physician's assistants, or nurse practitioners, within the scope of their licensures.

5. The County's policies and procedures regarding detoxification shall include the
following:

a, Detoxification shall occur only under medical supervision in accordance with
local, state, and federal laws;
b. Detoxification from alcohol, opiates, hypnotics, other stimulants, and sedative
hypnotic drugs shall be conducted under medical supervision when performed
at the facility;
c. Inmates being detoxified shall be monitored by a physician; d. Specific guidelines shall be followed for the treatment and observation of
inmates manifesting mild or moderate symptoms of intoxication or
withdrawal from alcohol and other drugs;
e. Monitoring shall be structured and documented in accordance with the
Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment or the Clinical Opiate V/ithdrawal
Scale; and
f. Inmates experiencing severe, life threatening intoxication (an overdose) or
withdrawal shall be transferred under appropriate security conditions to a
facility where specialized care is available.

6. The Sherifls Office policies and procedures regarding Safety Cells shall include that
inmates may not be housed in safety cells for medical reasons.

7. The Sheriff s Office policies and procedures regarding disciplinary diets shall include
that physicians assess whether a disciplinary diet will affect a prisoner's medical
condition.

8. The County's policies and procedures regarding health records shall include the
following:

a. All medical records must comply with state and federal regulations pertaining
to access, disclosure andlor use of health information; and
b. Health record and health information, both oral and documented, is
confidential protected health information. The minimum necessary health information is to be disclosed to health care staff providing health care or to

29253-00188 3423s76.L

3

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 22 of 58
jail authorities when necessary for the protection of the welfare of the inmate or others, management of the jail, or maintenance ofjail security and order.
9. The County's policies and procedures shall separately identify the following
pharmaceutical procedures :
a. Procurement of pharmaceuticals; b. Controlled substances; c. Storage of medication; d, Use of methadone; e. Ordering and dispensing medication; f. Medicationadministration; g. Documentation of medication administration; and h. Medication renewal.
10. The County's policies and procedures shall include that all tuberculosis screening and management shall be conducted in accordance with the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care
OICCHC), "standards for Health Services", as endorsed under recommendations of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
1 1. The County's policies and procedures shall include an Infection Prevention Plan that includes procedures for identification, treatment, isolation, surveillance, immunization (when applicable), prevention, education and follow-up related to infectious diseases.
12, The County's policies and procedures shall include Nursing Encounter Protocols /Tools that are appropriate to the level of skill and preparation of the nursing
personnel who will carry them out and comply with the relevant state practice acts.
13. The County's policies and procedures shall require that pregnant inmates receive timely and appropriate prenatal care, postpartum care, counseling, and specialized obstetrical services when indicated.
14. The Sheriff s Office policies and procedures shall include a procedure to monitor temperatures in the facilities for the purpose of ensuring that inmates prescribed psychotropic medications are not at risk of malignant hyperthermia from extremely hot conditions, after consultation with medical/mental health staff, and that inmates are provided with extra blankets as needed in extremely cold conditions.

292s3-00188 3423576,1

4

Halt, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 23 of 58
15. The County's policies and procedures regarding restraints shall include the following:
a. Restraints shall not be used for medical purposes or during any medical
procedures;
b. Medical staff shall not participate in decisions to initiate use of restraints by
correctional staff;
c. Medical staff shall take all necessary measures to maintain proper peripheral
circulation during the use of restraints; and
d. A registered nurse or LVN under the supervision of a RN shall document vital
signs, mental status, and sensation of limbs within the first hour of placement, and by medical staff at least every 60 minutes thereafter.
16. The County's policies and procedures shall be revised, as necessary, to reflect all of
the health care remedial measures described in the Remedial Plan, and the County shall deliver healthcare pursuant to these revised policies and procedures.
E. Medical Intake and Screening
1. Tuberculosis screening shall include the following:
a. Screenings provided in accord with Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention guidelines;
b, Inmates shall receive either Mantoux skin testing or Interferon-gamma release
assays (IGRAs) within five days of intake;
c. Inmates who present with an initial positive tuberculosis screening result shall
receive a chest radiograph.
2. All inmates shall receive a thorough nursing intake screening to include vital signs,
capillary blood glucose testing for persons with diabetes, peak expiratory flow rate for persons with asthma, and oxygen saturation for persons with emphysema.
F. Access to Care
1. Correctional ofhcers shall make blank health service request forms available to
inmates, and only health care staff shall collect completed health service request forms. Locked boxes shall be available in dorm and open-cell housing units for inmates to submit health service request forms. Health care staff shall pick up completed health service request forms directly from inmates in lockdown units during medication passes twice a day.

29253-00188 3423576,1

5

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 24 of 58
2. The following procedures regarding completed health service request forms and
nursing triages shall be followed:
a. Health care staff shall collect and triage completed health service request
forms at least twice a day to determine the urgency based on the complaint;
b. All inmates with emergent issues shall be seen immediately, urgent issues
within 24 hours, and routine requests shall be scheduled within T2hours;
c. All inmates experiencing symptoms shall have vital signs taken during their
face-to-face evaluations; and
d. Nurses shall review the charts of the inmates being evaluated during all
triages.
3. All nursing sick call encounters shall occur in a room with an examination table, sink,
proper lighting, proper equipment, and with a medical record.
4. When a nurse determines clinician follow-up is necessary for diagnosis and treatment
of an inmate's condition, the inmate shall be referred to a physician, physician's assistant, or nurse practitioner for a face-to-face evaluation that takes place immediately for emergent concerns, within 24 hours for urgent concerns, and within 14 days for non-emergent or non-urgent concerns.
G. Outpatient Housing Unit (OHU)
1. The following procedures for inmates housed in the OHU for medical treatment shall
be followed:
a. Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, or Physician's Assistants shall sign an
admittance order for patients housed in the OHU; to be followed by a complete history and exam within T2hours;
b. Inmates admitted to the OHU shall receive daily checks to include review of
symptoms and vital signs by RNs; to be documented in the inmate's medical
record;
c. Physicians shall examine patients housed in the OHU no less frequently than
every 14 days; and
d. Correctional officers shall notify medical staff immediately when an inmate in
the OHU is requesting medical assistance.
2. The OHU shall be made compliant with Americans for Disabilities Act regulations.

292s3-ooLïg3423s76.L

6

Hal[ et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 25 of 58
H. Chronic Care
1. Health care services shall include a chronic disease management program
2. The chronic disease management program shall conform to contemporary standards
of care such as the National Health Lung and Blood Institute and asthma, hypertension, and lipid guidelines and American Diabetes Association guidelines.
3. All inmates with chronic illness shall be tracked on a chronic illness roster.
4. The chronic disease management program shall measure the number of inmates with
chronic illness who receive their medication within a day of incarceration.
I. Specialty Care
1. Specialty care appointments shall be tracked in a log that identifies the referral date,
the date the referral was sent to the clinic, the date the appointment is conf,trmed, and, if the appointment is rescheduled or canceled, the reason it was rescheduled or
canceled.
2. Inmates whose specialty appointment exceeds three months should be examined by a
physician, physician's assistant, or nurse practitioner monthly and evaluated to
determine if urgent evaluation is indicated.
3. Specialty consultant arrangements for pulmonology and ophthalmology shall be
developed.
J. Pharmacy and Medication Administration
1. Nursing staff shall observe patients taking medications, especially when Direct
Observation Therapy is required by the physician's order.
2. Nursing staff shall deliver medications with the lights on in administrative
segregation areas and observe patients ingest their medications.
3. Medication administration shall be documented immediately after administration,
with the exception of inmates housed on the second tier of the administrative segregation areas. For those inmates housed on the second tier in the lockdown areas, the nurses shall follow the following procedure:

29253-00188 3423s76.t

7

Hqll, el. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 26 of 58
a. Prior to the start of each pill pass, while in the pharmacy, the nurse will put
the medications inside pill envelopes labeled with the patient's name and Jail
Identification Number;
b. Nurses will push the medication carts into the pods; c. After entering the pod, the nurse will carry the envelopes in his/her hands or
pockets and will go cell door to cell door to administer the medications; and
d. Once the entire pill pass is completed, the nurse will return to the medication
cart and push the cart outside the housing unit to complete charting.
4. All hygiene practices while dispensing and administering medications shall conform
to nationally accepted professional standards.
5. All methadone treatment services for inmates shall conform with state and federal
regulations.
6. Access to pharmacy keys shall be limited only to health care staff assigned to work in
the pharmacy and the Director of Nursing. The pharmacy door shall remain closed and locked when pharmacy staff is not present. All medication cabinets shall remain locked at all times. Nursing Supervisors and Director of Nursing shall monitor control of the pharmacy daily by direct observation.
K. Dental Care
i. The County shall employ sufficient numbers of dental staff to provide timely access
to adequate dental care.
2. A qualified or appropriately trained clinician shall triage dental care requests to
identify emergent or urgent issues that require treatment of pain or infection.
L. Medical Records
1. The County, through Corizon, shall implement an electronic health record for inmates
within the first year of Corizon's contract.
2. All paper medical records shall be controlled via a sign-out procedure, and paper files
shall be centrally located to increase accountability.
3, Medical records paperwork shall be filed in a timely manner
4. Correctional staff shall not have access to the completed intake screening form.

29253-00188 3423576.t

8

Hall, et. al. v, County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 27 of 58
M. Self-Monitoring, Qualify Improvement, and Reviews
1. The County shall train all nurses on appropriate nursing protocols during new
employee orientation, and Nurse Supervisors shall review nursing competencies annually.
2. Any unorthodox treatment provided by physicians shall be subject to peer review
3. Physicians shall be evaluated annually by peer teview, and nurses shall be evaluated
annually by their supervisors.
4. A Medical/Behavioral Quality Improvement Committee that includes the Medical
Director, psychiatrist, registered nurse, pharmacy representative, Department of Public Health representative, and correctional representative shall meet quarterly for
the purpose of peer review and systematically analyzing and improving processes and the quality of medical care.
5. Each quarter, the Quality Improvement Committee shall monitor several of the
following key processes of care:
a. Numbers of inmates who missed intake screening; b. Numbers of inmates who missed TB screening at intake; c, Numbers of inmate health requests submitted daily, numbers triaged within24
hours, and the numbers who received face-to-face evaluations within 72
hours;
d. The percent of inmates who received their hrst dose of medication within 24
hours of prescription;
e. The number of medical records that could not be located upon request; f. The length of time to specialty appointment by service; g. The number of inmates with chronic illnesses who received their medications
within a day of incarceration; and
h. The number of inmates with chronic illnesses who received a history and
physical examination by a provider within two weeks of incarceration.
6. The Medical Director shall ensure that any corrective action recommended by the
Medical/Behavioral Health Quality Improvement Committee is implemented and completed within 30 days of the report making such recommendations, unless there are extenuating circumstances preventing implementation and completion within such timeframe in which case it shall occur as soon as reasonably practical.

29253-00188 3423576.1

9

Hal[ et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 28 of 58

N. Mortality Reviews

1. Mortality reviews shall include a written report.

2. Mortality reviews shall include identification of problems for which corrective action
is undertaken.

3. Autopsies shall be performed lor all deaths, except for those caused by suicide or
homicide, or where the cause of death can be conclusively determined from the facts
known before the death.

II. MENTAL HEALTH CARE

A. Staffïng

1. Clinical decisions, diagnoses, and treatment plans shall only be made by licensed
mental health clinicians (psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses). Licensed mental health clinicians shall review and cosign record entries made by Licensed Psychiatric Technicians (LPTs) and Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) when the LVNs and LPTs are providing behavioral health
services.

2. The County shall employ the number of mental health care providers necessary to
provide adequate mental health care and supervision.

3. The total psychiatrist time provided shall be a minimum of 50 to 55 hours per week.

4. In the event group sessions are conducted by unlicensed mental health staft the group
shall be strictly educational, and staff shall provide participants with a handout
specifying that no discussion of personal issues may occur.

B. Continuity of Care

1. The County shall provide continuity of care from admission to transfer or discharge
from the facility, including referral to community-based providers, when indicated. Jail health care staff shall provide discharge planning for sentenced inmates with serious mental health disorders, including connecting such inmates to community health care providers, community social services, community-based housing, andlot appropriate services per the individual's need. The same services will be provided to unsentenced inmates provided adequate time is available prior to a legally mandated
release.

29253-00188 3423s76,1

10

Hal[ et. al, v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 29 of 58
2. The County shall develop and implement a system that allows patients who are
prescribed psychiatric medications to have access to these medications as soon as
possible following their release from jail.
3. The Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) shall collaborate with mental health
staff to provide continuity of care with psychiatric medications and referrals to DBH services, and mental health staff shall have access to the DBH computerized information database to facilitate such care.
4. The County shall coordinate transportation, as necessary, with outside agencies and
applicable community resources for inmates with serious mental illness who are released from custody.
C. Psychiatry Services
1. Psychiatric medications, including but not limited to antipsychotic medications, shall
be prescribed to inmates with mental illness in accord with nationally accepted professional standards for the treatment of serious mental illness.
2. Physicians shall "bridge" all verif,red, valid prescriptions for inmates who enter the
facility currently on psychiatric medications. Inmates who receive such bridge medications shall receive a face-to-face evaluation with a psychiatrist within seven days of initiation of the medication. Follow-up face-to-face evaluations shall occur as needed, but within 30 days following the initial visit. Subsequent face-to-face evaluations by the psychiatrist shall occur as needed, but at intervals of no more than
90 days.
3. Inmates who are prescribed psychiatric medications by the psychiatrist (i.e., not
"bridge" medications) shall receive follow-up face-to-face evaluations with a psychiatrist as needed depending on their clinical status, but no later than 30 days
following the initial visit. Subsequent visits shall occur as needed but at intervals of
no more than 90 days.
D. Intake
i. The Health Care Screening Form shall include a question regarding any history of
mental health problems or treatment, hospitalizations, andlor current or previous thoughts of self-harm.

29253-00188 3423576.r

t\

Hqll, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 30 of 58

E. Suicide Prevention

l. Mental health clinicians shall complete a comprehensive suicide risk assessment form
for all inmates who display signs of suicide risk to determine if the inmate presents a low, moderate, or high risk of suicide. Mental health clinicians shall complete a new form if there are indications of any modification of risk factors, including but not
limited to any suicide attempts or expressions of suicidal ideation.

2. Inmates displaying signs of suicide risk shall be referred to a mental health clinician
for an evaluation.

3. The Sheriffl s Offrce and health care staff shall develop and implement policies and
procedures for housing and monitoring inmates that present a low or moderate risk of
suicide. Low-risk inmates shall be monitored at least monthly by mental health staff and shall be housed with other inmates or, if they cannot be housed with other inmates, in housing where they can be frequently monitored by correctional staff. Moderate-risk inmates shall be monitored at least weekly by mental health staff and shall be housed with other inmates unless they pose a safety and security threat to other inmates. Moderate-risk inmates shall also be housed in locations that allow custody staff to observe and communicate with these inmates on a daily basis'

4. Sentenced inmates who have been identified as a moderate or high level of suicide
risk on their most recent comprehensive suicide risk assessment form shall receive an evaluation by a mental health clinician prior to their release to the community for appropriate referrals or initiation of an involuntary psychiatric hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150. The same services will be provided to unsentenced inmates provided adequate time is available prior to a legally mandated
release.

5. All health care staff shall receive training regarding suicide prevention during new
employee orientation, and updated training annually. Correctional officers shall
receive suicide awareness and prevention training annually. All such training shall be
provided by a licensed clinician having expertise in correctional suicide prevention
and the use of a suicide risk assessment form.

F. Behavior Management
1. The Sherifls Office shall assist jail mental health staff in the development and
implementation of behavior management plans for inmates with serious mental illness who engage in repeated acts of misconduct with the goal of reducing their placements, or shortening the length of time they spend, in lockdown administrative segregation housing.

292s3-00188 3423s76.r

tz

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 31 of 58

2. Correctional staff assigned to Population Management who are familiar with the
housing of inmates with serious mental illness shall be included in administrative meetings where behavior management plans are developed and reviewed'
G. Administrative Segregation
.1 The Sheriffl s Office shall adopt and implement a policy of leaving open all of the cell
door portal coverings in2D of the South Annex Jail from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless an inmate requests that it remain closed or it is necessary to temporarily close the portal for exigent circumstances related to jail security.
2. The Sherifls Office and jail mental health staff shall collaborate to adopt and
implement a policy of housing no inmates with serious mental illness in2D of the South Annex Jail or the A Pods and FF Units in the Main Jail unless those inmates demonstrate a current threat to jail security, inmate andlor officer safety, as documented by correctional stafÏ, that prevents them from being safely housed in less restrictive locations.
3. In the event any inmates with serious mental illness (SMI) must be housed in2D,
correctional and mental health staff shall ensure those inmates are offered to be taken out of their cells for recreation a minimum of 7 hours per week and mental health treatment shall be offered 3 times per week.
a. Inmates with SMI who are placed in isolation in2D cells for more than 48 hours
are to have their cases reviewed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of
corrections and mental health staff every two weeks. Decisions for an individual's continued housing in isolation includes input from a licensed mental health clinician.
b. Out-of-cell structured behavioral health services for individuals with SMI held in
isolation in2D cells will be offered:
i. A minimum of three out-of-cell mental health contacts per week
consisting of structured individual or group therapeutic/educational treatment and programming, each lasting approximately one hour with appropriate duration to be determined by a mental health clinician.
ii. At a minimum, one one-to-one structured therapeutic contact session will
be offered by a mental health clinician. The remaining two contacts per week may either be additional one-to-one structured therapeutic contacts or group therapeutic/educational contact sessions.
c. Mental health contacts are to be documented indicating type and duration of
activity.

292s3-00188 3423s76.t

13

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 32 of 58
4. In the event any inmates with serious mental illness must be housed in FF Units,
correctional and mental health staff shall ensure those inmates are offered to be taken out of their cells for recreation a minimum of 7 hours per week and mental health treatment shall be offered 3 times per week.
a, Inmates with SMI who are placed in isolation in FF cells for more than 48 hours
are to have their cases reviewed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of
corrections and mental health staff every two weeks. Decisions for an individual's continued housing in isolation includes input from a licensed mental health clinician.
b. Out-of-cell structured behavioral health services for individuals with SMI held in
isolation in FF cells will be offered:
i. A minimum of three out-of-cell mental health contacts per week
consisting of structured individual or group therapeutic/educational treatment and programming, each lasting approximately one hour with appropriate duration to be determined by a mental health clinician.
ii. At a minimum, one one-to-one structured therapeutic contact session will
be offered by a mental health clinician. The remaining two contacts per week may either be additional one-to-one structured therapeutic contacts or group therapeutic/educational contact sessions.
c. Mental health contacts are to be documented indicating type and duration of
activity.
5. Medical staff shall complete health checks on all inmates in2D of the South Annex
Jail and the A Pods and FF Units in the Main Jail at least three times a week and document the checks to include any verbal exchange allowing inmates to report any health or mental health needs or concerns.
6. The Sheriff s Office shall adopt and implement a policy of reviewing the status of inmates with serious mental illness housed in A Pods in the Main Jail at least once every 30 days to determine if the inmate can be moved to less restrictive housing.
Jail mental health staff shall assess SMI inmates' housing requirements, which shall be discussed at monthly administrative meetings with custody and health care staff. This provision is not intended to and does not require a new mental health assessment of all inmates with serious mental illness every 30 days so long as jail mental health staff have adequate information to make an informed and meaningful recommendation about whether SMI inmates should continue to be housed in that unit.

zgzs3-ooLgl34z3s76,L

74

Hall, et. al. v, County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 33 of 58
H. Qualify Improvement
1. The quality improvement committee that meets quarterly shall collect and manage
data to develop corrective action plans in response to mental health program weaknesses that are identified. Areas that require recurrent review include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Timely continuity of verified community prescriptions for psychiatric
medications;
o Continuity of care for inmates with serious mental illness leaving custody; o Timely triage of health care service request forms describing mental health
symptoms; and
o Health checks of inmates in2D of the South Annex Jail and the A Pods and FF
cells in the Main Jail.
III.ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INMATES \ryITH DISABILITIES
A. Housing
The Sheriff s Office shall house inmates with disabilities in facilities that accommodate their disabilities no later than24 months from issuance of the consent decree. In the interim, the Sheriffs Office shall house inmates with disabilities in the most integrated and appropriate housing possible, based on their disabilities'
2. The County shall provide accessible toilets and showers in units where inmates
requiring special accommodations for access are housed no later than24 months from issuance of the consent decree. Accessible toilets and showers shall have such physical features as grab bars, shower seats, no shower curbs, no stairs, and pathways wide enough to permit wheelchair/walker access, etc. In the interim, the Sheriffs Offrce shall house inmates with disabilities in the most integrated and appropriate housing possible, based on their disabilities'
3. The Sheriff s Office and medical staff shall communicate to determine appropriate
housing for inmates with disabilities. Medical staff shall make available all information needed to make adequate housing decisions.
4. The Sheriffls Offrce shall create and implement the use of a centralized list of
housing placements with accessible features to simplify housing decisions and identify gaps in placement options. This list shall separately identify each cell in the Outpatient Housing Unit, since these vary in their accessible features.

292s3-00188 3423576,L

15

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 34 of 58

5. The Sheriff s Office and medical staff shall collaborate to implement the use of a
system that reflects an assessment of an inmate's functional limitations and
restrictions, including but not limited to:
a. The need for an accessible shower and toilet; b. The need for ground floor housing; c. The need for no stairs in the path of travel; d. The need for level terrain; and e. The need for and description of assistive devices and the conditions in which
they are to be used (e.g., use of a wheelchair full time, for all distances greater
than 50 feet, whenever out of cell/bed area, etc.).

6. The following information shall be included in Offendertrak:
a. The need for an accessible shower or toilet; b. The need for a lower bunk; c. The need for assistive devices; d. The need for ground floor housing;
e. The need for level terrain; f. The need for no stairs in the path of travel.

7. The Sheriff s Office shall not place inmates with disabilities in the OHU unless they
are receiving medical care or treatment, or there is no other housing location where they can be reasonably accommodated. Inmates with disabilities who are housed in the OHU because they cannot be reasonably accommodated in other locations shall
receive equal access to services, progtams, and activities.

B. Assistive Devices
1. The Sheriff s Ofhce and jail health care staff shall collaborate to develop
standardized procedures for the prescription, ordering, retention, and confiscation of
assistive devices. Policies shall be developed in a manner that is protective of the
safety and security of inmates and staff while affording equal access to jail programs, services, and activities for inmates with disabilities.
2. An inmate who arrives at the jail with an assistive device shall be allowed to retain
the device, or shall be provided with a jail-issued equivalent device, so long as it does not constitute an immediate risk of bodily harm or threaten the security of the facility, unless a jail physician documents that the device is not medically necessary or reasonable to allow equal access to jail programs, services, or activities.
3. The Sheriff s Office shall provide assistive devices prescribed by a jail physician to
inmates as soon as reasonably practical, so long as the device does not constitute an

29253-00188 3423s76.1

t6

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 35 of 58
immediate risk of bodily harm to inmates or staff, or threatens the security of the facility.
4. The V/atch Commander shall be responsible for determining if an assistive device
constitutes an immediate risk of bodily harm or threatens the security of the facility. If the Watch Commander makes such a determination, correctional staff shall consult with medical staff to determine an appropriate alternative accommodation that shall
be provided. Assistive devices shall not be conf,rscated if another inmate is the source ofthe security threat.
C. Training and Management
1. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) training shall be provided to all new health
care staffand correctional staff, and to all other existing staffas needed on an ongoing basis.
2. The Sheriff s Off,rce ADA Coordinator shall confer with medical staff monthly to
review whether accommodations for inmates with disabilities continue to be appropriate and necessary.
D. Grievances
1. The Sheriff s Office shall provide an inmate grievance system that inmates with
disabilities may use to contest any disability-based discrimination or violations of the
ADA, and will provide a prompt and equitable resolution to each issue raised,
2. The Sheriff s Offrce shall train all correctional staff assigned to screen or review
grievances to identify requests for reasonable accommodations and allegations of disability-based discrimination or violations of the ADA.
3. The Sheriff s Office ADA coordinator shall review all ADA related complaints,
assign an ADA trained officer to investigate the complaints and provide substantive
responses.
E. Notice and Effective Communication 1. The inmate handbook shall be revised at the next printing (2016) to include additional
information regarding the "Americans with Disabilities Act," "Disabilities," and how to request "Reasonable Accommodations." The contact information of the jail's designated ADA coordinator and the disability complaint procedures shall be made available in the inmate handbook. Inmates shall be provided jail inmate handbooks during the intake booking process. Until the handbook can be updated and printed, an addendum shall be provided inside each handbook distributed.

29253-oor8}34z3s76.r

t7

Hall, et. al, v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 36 of 58
2. The Sheriff s Office shall post and disseminate ADA notices in alternative formats to
promote effective communication, and make available grievance forms to address ADA related complaints.
3. The Sheriff s Offrce shall develop and implement policies such that inmates with
communication deficits are provided with reasonable accommodations (e.g., reading and writing assistance). This shall include both communications to the inmates (Jail rules, policies, notices, etc.) and addressing needs for the inmate to communicate with
jail staff.
IV. JAIL SAFETY AND SECURITY
A. Staffïng
L The County shall employ adequate numbers of qualified correctional offrcers to
comply with this Remedial Plan as outlined in the Staffrng Plan with the hiring of I27 Correctional Officers over a three year period, or as soon thereafter as the labor pool
permits.
2. The Sheriffls Office shall implement a staffing plan designed to reduce inmate-oninmate violence in the jails. This plan includes the hiring of I27 new correctional
officers spread over three years, or as soon thereafter as the labor pool permits. These
I27 Conectional Officer positions shall be formally added to the County's Salary
Resolution upon Court approval of the Consent Decree.
3. Correctional staff shall conduct appropriate rounds with suff,rcient frequency to
provide inmates with adequate supervision and reasonable safety. More frequent
rounds shall be conducted for inmates requiring more intensive supervision for safety and security reasons.
B. South Annex Jail
1. The South Ar¡rex Jail is an antiquated facility, and shall be considered for being taken
ofÊline as soon as practicable.
2. While the South Annex Jail remains in use, there shall be assigned adequate numbers
of correctional officers to protect inmates from an unreasonable risk of harm from violence and injury from other inmates and physical plant deficiencies.

292s3-ooLBB3423s76.L

18

Hal| el. ø1. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 37 of 58

C. Use of Force and Quality Assurance
1. The Sherifls Office shall reintroduce de-escalation tactics and techniques into the
annual training plan to reinforce the importance of communication skills in relationship to a correctional facility environment. This training shall be introduced to staff in fiscal year 201412015.

2. The Sherifls Office shall document all incidents (including those that are serious)
involving inmates that include suicides, suicide attempts, inmate-on-inmate violence, use offorce by staff, fires, escapes and deaths.

3. All documented incidents of the use of force shall be reviewed by the Jail Sergeant
and Watch Commander within 24 hours of the report being submitted, and by facility
commanders on a monthly basis.

4. All pre-planned uses of force shall be video recorded.

5. Jail Command Staff shall conduct quality assurance reviews on a monthly basis of all
documented incidents involving suicides, suicide attempts, inmate on inmate violence, use offorce by staff, sexual assaults, f,tres, escapes, and deaths, and information developed during those reviews shall be incorporated into improving policies, procedures, and practices to remedy any deficiencies identified.

6. Quality Assurance criteria, policies and procedures shall be developed to guide the
protocols of the Jail Command staff s monthly meetings and review, to include assaults, fights, deaths, fires, use offorce, escapes, sexual assaults, physical plant safety concerns, control of fl ammables/caustics, emergency preparedness, emeÍgency key testing, facility sanitation compliance and contract oversight. This group shall also examine systems of control, Jail policies and procedures, incident trends, and make appropriate recommendations for corrective action to the Jail Administrator.
.7 Uses of force incidents shall be reviewed by the Jail Sergeant and 'Watch Commander
as provided herein. Violations of use-of-force policies shall be properly addressed via the chain of command and necessary Supervisor Incident Reports. Remedial training shall be directed by supervisory/management staff if it is determined to be necessary and/or appropriate. As appropriate, incidents shall be directed to Sheriff s
Internal Affairs for possible policy violations, or to the District Attorney's Offrce if
investigation determines such referral is appropriate.

8. The Jail Command Staff (Captains and Lieutenants) shall evaluate the
appropriateness of all uses of force as a part of their scheduled agenda during their

292s3-ootql34z3s76.t

19

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 38 of 58

monthly meetings. A Jail Sergeant shall be assigned the collateral duty as Use of Force Review Coordinator and be responsible to produce the reports , data and necessary videos for review at these meetings. The findings of this group shall be
forwarded up the chain of command to the Sheriff, with any use of force suspected to be outside of law and/or policy directed to Internal Affairs for additional investigation, as necessary.
D. Classification

1. The Sheriffls Office shall maintain an appropriate classification system to protect
inmates from unreasonable risk of harm. Inmates shall be timely classified and placed in housing appropriate for security and safety. The system shall include consideration of an inmate's security level, suicide risk, and past behavior.

E. Inmates with Mental Illness

1. The Sheriff s Office shall gather statistical and comparative data on the uses of force
involving inmates with serious mental illness.

2. The County shall conduct initial and periodic training for all correctional staff on how
to recognize symptoms of mental illness and respond appropriately. Such training shall be conducted by a registered nurse and shall include instruction on how to recognize and respond to mental health emergencies.

F. Restraint Chairs
1. Inmates shall not be placed in restraint chairs unless there is sufficient justification for
such placement that is documented in an incident report.

2. Correctional staff shall review whether the inmate can be removed from the restraint
chair no later than two hours after the time of initial placement in the chair.

3. Inmates shall not be held in restraint chairs for longer than four hours.

4. Correctional staff shall notify the on-duty charge nurse of the use of a restraint chair
at the time of initial placement.

5. Correctional staff shall provide proper nutrition, hydration, and toileting as safely as
possible during the duration of restraint chair placements.

6. Correctional staff shall observe inmates placed in restraint chairs at least two times
each successive half hour after the time of initial placement.

292s3-00188 3423s76,1

20

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 39 of 58
G. Physical Plant
1. The County shall maintain the physical plant of the facility, with special emphasis on
security door maintenance. All security doors and locks shall be in proper working order in a manner that maintains appropriate security and safety for jail staff and
inmates.
2. The Sheriff s Office shall maintain in working order all cameras, alarms and other
monitoring equipment at the jail.
H. Fire, Emergency, and Tool Safety 1. The County's Internal Services Department Facility Services Division shall maintain
the jail in a manner that provides adequate fire safety. The Sheriff s Office shall take all reasonable measures to provide that: (a) inmates can be evacuated in a safe and timely manner during an emergency; (b) emergency exit routes are free of obstacles, maintained in a safe manner, and available for use; (c) emergency keys are readily available to staff; and (d) fire exit plans are posted and clearly labeled.
2. The SherifÎs Office shall develop and implement a written comprehensive fire and
safety emergency/disaster plan and appropriately train staff in implementing the plan. Mock fire drills shall also be conducted to make staff familiar with safety procedures and evacuation methods.
3. All emergency keys shall be appropriately marked and identified, consistently stored
in a quickly accessible location, tested annually, and staff shall be adequately trained in the use of these keys.
4, All coruectional staff shall receive basic Fire and Life Safety training during their first
year of training in the Basic Correctional Officer Core Course Academy. The Sheriff s Training Unit shall conduct supplemental Fire Suppression and Evacuation Procedure training during the 201412015 f,rscal year training cycle. Additional Fire and Life Safety/evacuation procedures shall be conducted on each shift, by shift supervisors on an as-needed basis.
5. The County's Internal Services Department Facility Services Division shall develop
and implement written policies and procedures for the introduction and control of tools in all Jail facilities subject to review and approval by the Sherifls Offìce.

29253-001893423576.1

2t

Hal| et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 40 of 58
I. Policies and Procedures
1. The Sheriff s Office shall develop and implement new policies, procedures and post
orders as needed to comply with the provisions of this Remedial Plan, including but not limited to the implementation of proper policies, procedures, post orders and corrective action plans to address problems uncovered during the course of quality assurance review activities.
2. Upon Court approval of the Consent Decree, appropriate training shall be formulated
and conducted with all staff regarding the requirements of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan, as well as changes to policies, procedures andlor post orders.
3. The Sherifls Offrce will review and update all facility policies and post orders as
appropriate to reasonably provide adequate safety and security in thejails.

29253-OOL883423576.7

22

Hall, et. al. v. County of Fresno, Consent Decree, Appendix A, Remedial Plan

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 41 of 58
HALL, et al. v. COUNTY OF FRES|{O
Case No. 1 : 1 L-CV-020 47 -LJO-BAM
APPENDIXB,
E,XPERTS' DUTIES

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 42 of 58

Hall, et, al. v, CounlY of Fresno
EXPERTS' DI.ITIES
April30, 2015

I .

pursuant to rule 706 of the Fecleral Rules of Evidence, the Courts' expefis shall

advise the Courl on the adequacy of the implementation of the Remedial Plan'
Z. During the first year of the Consent Decree, the tluee Court experts shall each
complete one somprehensive review and teport to advise the Court on defendant's progress in implcmenting the l{emedial Pian. For the remainitrg duration of the Consent f)ecreen the Court experts shall complete comprehensive reviews and leports as they determine to be necessary, or as jointly requested by the pæ1ies, but not more than once a year, to advise the parlies and the court on the adecluacy of def.'endant's implementation of the Remedial Plan. To form the basis of their rcports, the Courl experts shall have access to all parts of any County jail facility, with adecluate notice provided in aclvance of'the sanre to cnsure appropriate security is provided, all relevant bnclgetary, custody, arrd health care documents, porsons (inclucling confidential inrervielvs rvith consenting staff and oonsenting prisoners) and institutional meetings, proceedings, and prograrns to the extent the experts reasonably determine such access is neecled
to f1lfill their obligations. The Court experts shall not have access tcl personnel files, including
records and infomration deemed confidcntial pursuant to California Penal Code $ 832'7 ' Attomeys shall not have ex parte contact with experts regalcling their preliminary and proposed

opinions to be presented to the parties.
3. At the request of either p.arty,the Court experts shall partioipate in the dispute

resolution process, as describcd in Paragraph 18 of the Consent Decree, by evaluating the issue
in clisp¡te and prepaling a report, including but not limited to whether defenclant is in substantial
compliance with the terms of the Remedial Plan. The expert(s) shall devotc his or her best
1.
FIatt, et, al. v. county oJ',Fresno, conscnt Dectee, Appendix B, Experts' Dutjes

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 43 of 58

efTorts to provide his or her report regarding the alea of disagreement within 45 days of the

request.
4,

The Court expetts shall be available to meet jointly with the parties in person ol

by telephone in a marmer that is reasonable and convenient fbr the purpose of resolving disputes

betlveen the parties.
5, At the request of the Court, the Court experts shall attend any negotiations,

mediation sessions, or court hearings.
6. T'he Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation in an amount
approved by the Court, which shall be paid by Defendant, tbr time incrurecl to prepare repoils, resolve disputes, or attend hearings or meetings as requestecl by the Court, The Court experts shall provide defèndant with a detailed written itemization of the claimecl fees and costs, itemized by date, amount of time spent, and task, as well as records and bills evidencing the costs

claimed, on a quarterly basis.

2
Hall, et. al. v, County of Fresno, Consent l)ecree, Appendix B, Experts' Duties

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 44 of 58
HALL, et al. v. COUNTY OF FRESNO
Case No. I : 1 1-CV-020 47 -LJO-BAM
APPENDIX C,
(PROPOSED) PROTECTTVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 45 of 58

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 8392s)

KELLY KNAPP (SBN 2s20r3) 2 PRISON LAW OFFICE

aJ

1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA947l0

4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704

5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208s22)

6 COOLEY LLP

Five Palo Alto Square

7 3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 8 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

9 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 10 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGEI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12

13 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,

t4

ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, ANd BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and

15 all others similarly situated,

t6
V.

Plaintiffs,

I7 COUNTY OF FRESNO

18

Defendant.

t9

Case No. 1 : 1 1-CV-02047 -LJO-BAM CLASS ACTION
IPROPOSEDÌ PROTECTIVE ORDER

20
2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 46 of 58

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN t70259)

COOLEY LLP

2

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

J

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

4

5

MELINDA BIRD (SBN t02236)

6

AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN r43s32)

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

7

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

I-os Angeles;GA 9001J

8

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE]

11

t2

13
t4

15
t6 t7

18
t9

20
2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 47 of 58

I

WHEREAS the parties, through counsel, agree that aprotective order is necessary to

2 protect the confidentiality of documents and other information produced or disclosed in this

J
action; and

4

V/HEREAS, the parties agree that good cause exists for the entry of this Protective Order

5 because certain records produced or disclosed in this action contain Protected Health Information

6 and/or security information of prisoners detained in the Fresno County Jail.

7

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto,

8 through their respective counsel of record, that the following provisions shall apply:

9

1. "Protected Health Information" (hereinafter "PHI") is defined by the Health

10
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 45 CFR $ 160.103.

11

2. "security information" is defined as any records maintained in an individual

I2 prisoner,s custody file, including but not limited to incident reports and housing classification

13 documents, as well as any records that are designated by defendant as threatening jail safety
t4 and/or security if disclosed without protective conditions.

15

3. "Proprietary Information" is defined as any information that constitutes trade

16 secret or is otherwise competitively or commercially sensitive.

t7

4. All PHI, security information, or proprietary information produced by defendant in

18 this action shall be regarded as confidential and subject to the Protective Order. Such material is t9
hereinafter referred to as "conftdential material."

20

5. Any party that produces documents containing confidential material, shall mark

2T the document, or portions thereof containing confidential material as "Confidential Material -

22 Subject to Protective Order."

23

6, The designation of material as confidential shall be made by placing or fixing on

24 the first page of the material, in a manner that will not interfere with the material's legibility, the

25 words "Confidential Material" - Subject to Protective Order."

26

7, Any confidential information filed with the Court shall be filed under seal, labeled

27 with a cover sheet bearing the case name and number along with the following statement: "This

28

1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 48 of 58

1 document is subject to a protective order issued by the Court and shall not be copied or examined

2 except in compliance with that order." Documents so labeled shall be kept by the Clerk of the

J Courl under seal and shall be made available only to the Court or counsel. Upon failure of the

4 filing party to file conflrdential information under seal, any party may request that the Court place

5
the document under seal. The procedures of Local Rule 141 shall be followed.

6

8. Confidential information shall be used solely in connection with this action, and

7 shall not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated, orally, in writing,

8
or otherwise, by the parties, their counsel, or any of the representatives, agents, expert witnesses,

9 or consultants, for any other pu{pose without agreement between the parties, except that PHI may

10 be used without limitation with the consent of the prisoner concerned. All confidential

11 information shall be stored in a secure location. Access to confidential information shall be

12
limited to those pelsons designated as "qualified persons" in paragraph 9 below.

13

9. Confidential information received from the opposing party may be disclosed only

t4 to the following persons (hereinafter referred to as "qualif,red persons"):

15

a. Fresno County Counsel and counsel of record for the parties, and any of their

16 employees, representatives, or agents who are assisting such counsel in this action;

l7

b. The Court and court personnel;

18

c. The Court's experts appointed in this action pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal

t9 Rules of Evidence;

20

d. Stenographic reporters engaged in any proceedings;

2l

e. All experts and consultants retained by the parties;

22

f. Vy'itnesses to whom confidential information may be disclosed during a deposition

23 taken in this action. Such witnesses may not leave the deposition with copies of any confidential

24
information unless it is their own confidential information; and

25

g. Any person expressly named and agreed to in writing by counsel for the parties.

26

10. Except to the extent otherwise permitted by this Protective Order, every qualified

27
person provided copies of or access to confidential information pursuant to this Order shall keep

28

2
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 49 of 58

1 all such materials and information, and any copies, notes, extracts, summaries, or descriptions of

2 such material, within their exclusive possession and control, shall treat all such copies, notes,

J extracts, summaries, or descriptions of such material as confidential, shall take all necessary and

4 prudent measures to maintain the confidentiality of all such materials or information, and shall

5
not disseminate such confidential information, except as permitted by this Order.

6

11. If any counsel of record distributes copies of material containing confidential

7 information to one or more qualified persons, all such materials, and all copies, notes, extracts,

8 summaries, or descriptions of such material, shall be returned to that counsel of record at the

9 completion of a qualified person's consultation or representation in this case. That counsel of

10 record shall, upon request by opposing counsel or the Court, provide written confirmation that all

11 materials containing confidential information, and all copies, notes, extracts, summaries, or t2 descriptions of any such material have, to the best of counsel's knowledge, been returned as

13
required.

I4

12. After the termination of this action by entry of a final judgment or order of

15 dismissal, and any appeal, the provisions of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding. t6 The terms of this Order constitute and shall be deemed to be an enforceable agreement between l7 the parties (and their agents and attorneys, to the extent permitted by Rules of Professional

18 Conduct in this jurisdiction). The terms of this Protective Order may be enforced by specific t9 performance in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Califomia (Fresno

20 Division), V/ithin 90 calendar days of the final conclusion of this litigation (including all time for 2l appeals, or the expiration or dissolution by the Court of any consent decree, order or judgment,

22 whichever is later), each party shall destroy all documents or parts thereof designated as

23 confidential information, and all copies thereof in its possession, including documents in the

24 possession of all persons hired or retained by plaintiff to assist in connection with this litigation.

25

13. Nothing in this order is intended to prevent Defendant or its employees or agents

26 from having access to confidential information to which they have access in the normal course of

27
their official duties.

28

aJ PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 50 of 58

i

14. If a party inadvertently produces confidential information without the required

2 label, the producing party shall inform the receiving party in writing and the specific material at

J issue immediately upon discovering the inadvertent production. Likewise, if a receiving party

4 contends that confidential information was produced without the required label, the receiving

5 party shall inform the producing party in writing and the specific material at issue upon

6 discovering the failure to label the information. Upon receipt of notice, all parties shall treat the

7 material identified in the notice as confidential unless and until this Court enters an order stating

8 that the document shall not be treated as confidential information.

9

15. If a receiving party contends that any document has been erroneously or

10 improperly designated confidential, it shall treat the document as confidential unless and until this

11 Court enters an order stating that the document shall not be treated as confidential information'

l2

16. The inadvertent or unintentional disclosure by the producing party of information

13 subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege t4 or immunity shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of the party's claim of privilege or

15 work-product immunity, either as to the specific information disclosed oÍ as to any other

T6 information relating thereto or on the same or related subject matter. If a party has inadvertently t7 produced information subject to a claim of immunity or privilege, the receiving party, upon

18 request, shall return or destroy the inadvertently produced materials within frve (5) Court days of

19 the request, and all copies of those materials that may have been made and any notes regarding

20 those materials shall be destroyed. The party returning such information may move the Court for
2I an order compelling production of such information including on the grounds that such

22 production was not inadvertent or unintentional. However, the inadvertent production of

23 privileged or otherwise protected materials cannot be a basis for seeking production.

24

17. The substance of an individual's written or oral testimony, ol the fact that an

25 individual has testified to or provided information during the discovery process, may not be used

26 against the person for disciplinary purposes or to otherwise intimidate or retaliate against the 27 individual. This applies to all persons, including but not limited to current and former Fresno

28

4
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 51 of 58

1 County Sheriffs Department and Fresno County Department of Public Health staff and

2
contractors, and prisoners in the Fresno County Jail.

J

18. This Protective Order shall be binding on the parties, their attorneys, and the

4
parties' and their attorneys' successors, executors, personal representatives, administrators, heirs,

5 legal representatives, and other persons or organizations over whom or which the parties have

6
control.

7

19. By producing documents for review and inspection, the parties do not waive any

8 objections to relevance to the admissibility at trial of any such document or of any information

9
contained in any such document.

10

20. The provisions of this order are without prejudice to the right of any party: a) to

11 apply to the Court for a modification of this order or further protective orders relating to t2 discovery in this litigation; b) to apply to the Court for an order removing the conflrdential

13 information designation from any document; c) to object to a discovery request; or d) to apply to

T4 the Court for an order compelling production of documents or compelling an answer to a

15
discovery request.

t6

2I. By stipulating to this Protective Order, no party waives any right it may have to

T1 withhold or redact information protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege or other

18 applicable privilege, the work product doctrine, relevance, or any other protection, law, or

T9
regulation, or to seek appropriate protective orders respecting documents asserted to be subject to

20 any such privilege, doctrine, protection, law, or regulation.

2t

22. This order does not govern trial or other public proceedings. The parties shall

22
address the court at alater date on appropriate procedures for trial and other public proceedings.

23

23. The provisions of this order shall remain in full force and effect until further order

24 of this Courl.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

27

28

5 PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 52 of 58

1 DATED:
2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
t2
13
t4
15
t6 t7 l8 t9
20
2l
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE HONORABLE BARBARA A. MC AULIFFE United States District Court
6
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 53 of 58

1

2

EXHIBIT A

J I,

have read the Protective Order in Hall v' County of Fresno, Case

4 No. 1:1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM). I understand and agree to be bound by and abide by its terms. I

5 agree that all information provided to me in this matter is to be treated as confidential. I further

6 consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

7 of California for the purposes of any proceeding relating to the enforcement of this Order,

8 including, without limitation, any

for contempt.

9

10
Date
11
I2
13
t4

Signature

15
t6
t7
3424846.t
18
t9

Printed Name

20
2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 54 of 58
HALL, et al. v. COUI{TY OF FRESNO
Case No. 1 : 1 1-CV-020 47 -LJO-BAM
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 55 of 58
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING CONDITIONS IN FRESNO COTINTY
JAIL
Hall v. County of Fresno, I :l I -CV-02047 -LJO-BAM
A proposed settlement has been reached in a federal civil rights class action
lawsuit regarding certain conditions in the Fresno County Jail. The Hall v. County of
Fresno class action lawsuit claims that prisoners in the Jail are subject to conditions that violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that
the Jail did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court has
preliminarily approved a settlement of this matter, This notice explains the proposed settlement, how you can read it, and how you can tell the court about whether you think it is fair.
The settlement is set forth in a document called the Consent Decree. You can read the Consent Decree by completing the Inmate Request Form and requesting the documents from the Inmate Programs Manager. Key terms of the settlement agreement include the following:
1, The County has agreed to a22-page Remedial Plan that requires the County to
make sure that prisoners get the medical care, mental health care, and dental care required by the Constitution, that the County provides reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities and that prisoners are protected
from being harmed by other prisoners. A copy of the Remedial Plan is
available for review by completing the Inmate Request Form and requesting the documents from the Inmate Programs Manager,
2. The Prison Law Office and experts selected jointly by the parties or appointed
by the Court will monitor the County's compliance with all of the measures in
the Remedial Plan.
3. The Court will be able to resolve any disputes about whether the County is
complying with the Remedial Plan and the Consent Decree.
4. The County has agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $900,000 for their work to
this point and $40,000 per year to monitor compliance with the Consent
292s3-00188 3422824.1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 56 of 58

Decree. You can read Plaintiffs' counsels' motion for fees by completing the Inmate Request Form and requesting the documents from the Inmate Programs
Manager.

This case does not seek money damages for the class and none will be awarded.

The lawyers for the prisoners are the Prison Law Offrce. If you have any questions
about the settlement, you can contact the Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, CA94964.

The Court will hold a hearing on the fairness of the settlement on

at

, at the United States Courthouse in Fresno, Courtroom

2015

Prisoners can write to the federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The

federal court will consider written comments when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding the fairness of the settlement must include at the top of

the first page the case name (Hall v. Fresno) and the case number (Case No. 1:1l-CV-

02047-LJO-BAM). Comments must be received by

2015, and must be

sent to the following address:

Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of California 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501
Fresno, CA93721,

29253-00188 3422824.1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 57 of 58
PROPUESTA DE ARREGLO DE UNA DEMANDA COLECTIVA CON RESPETO A CONDICIONES EN LA CARCEL DEL CONDADO DE FRESNO
Una propuesta de arreglo se ha alcanzado en una demanda federal de acción colectiva de derechos civiles con respecto a ciertas condiciones en la cárcel del condado de Fresno. La demanda colectiva Hall v. County of Fresno alega que los presos en la cárcel están sujetos a
condiciones que violan las Enmiendas VIII y XIV de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y
que la cárcel no cumplió con el Americans with Disabilities Act. El Tribunal ha aprobado preliminarmente un arreglo de este asunto. Este aviso explica la propuesta de arreglo, cómo se puede leerla, y cómo usted puede decirle al tribunal acerca de si usted piensa que es justo.
El aneglo se expone en un documento llamado el Decreto de Consentimiento. Usted puede leer el Decreto de Consentimiento completando un formulario de solicitud de preso ("Inmate Request Form") solicitando los documentos del Inmate Programs Manager. Términos claves del arreglo incluyen los siguientes:
1. El Condado ha acordado un Plan de Remediación de22 páginas que requiere que el Condado asegure de que los presos reciban la atención médica, servicios de salud mental, y el cuidado dental requerido por la Constitución, que el Condado ofrezcaadaptaciones razonables a los presos con discapacidad y que los presos sean protegidos de daño por otros presos. Una copia del Plan de Remediación está disponible para su revisión completando un formulario de solicitud de preso ("Inmate Request Form") y solicitar los documentos del Inmate Programs Manager.
2.The Prison Law Office y los expertos seleccionados conjuntamente por las partes o designados por la Corte supervisarán el cumplimiento del Condado con todas las medidas del Plan de Remediación.
3. El Tribunal podrá resolver cualquier disputa acerca de si el Condado está cumpliendo con el Plan de Remediación y el Decreto de Consentimiento.
4. El Condado ha acordado pagar a los abogados de los demandantes $900,000 por su trabajo a este punto y $40,000 por año para supervisar el cumplimiento del Decreto de Consentimiento. Usted puede leer el moción de los abogados de los demandantes para los honorarios completando un formulario de solicitud de preso ("Inmate Request Form") solicitando los documentos del Inmate Programs Manager.
Este caso no busca indemnizaciones monetarias por daño parala clase y ninguno será otorgado
Los abogados de los presos son The Prison Law Offrce. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre el
29253-001883423702.L

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-1 Filed 05/28/15 Page 58 of 58

arreglo, puede ponerse en contacto con The Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, cA94964.

_,2015 El Tribunal celebrará una audiencia sobre la equidad del arreglo en

a

en el

Palacio de Justicia de Estados Unidos en Fresno, Sala de justicia
-. -, Los presos pueden escribir a la corte federal sobre si el arreglo esjusto. El tribunal federal tendrá

en cuenta los comentarios escritos al decidir si aprueba o no el arreglo. Comentarios respecto a la

imparcialidad del arreglo deben incluir en la parte superior de la primerapâgina el nombre del

caso (Hall v Fresno.) y el número de caso (Caso No. 1: 11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM). Los

comentarios deben ser recibidos antes del

de 2015, y deberán ser enviados a la

siguiente dirección:

Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of California 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501
Fresno, CA9372l

29253-00188 3423702.L

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 5

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 2s20r3)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE J 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA947I0 4 Telephone : (5 l0) 280 -2621
Fax: (510) 280-2704
5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208s22) 6 MONTQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square
8 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11 IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

t2

I.]NITED STATE,S DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

l4 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,
ROBERT MERRYMAN, DA'WN SINGH, and

15 BzuAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated, t6
Plaintiffs,

17

V.

Case No. 1 : I 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
fProposed] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

18 COUNTY OF FRESNO

I9

Defendants

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TPROPOSEDI ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 5

I

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 1702s9)

SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)

2

COOLEY LLP

J

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

4

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

5

MELTNDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

MONTSHA COELHO (SBN 219233)

6

AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN r43s32)

7

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

8

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone : (213) 2 1 3-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

11

IADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE]

12

13
I4

15
t6

t7

18
t9

20
2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 5 I

2

Plaintiffs in this action, Quentin Hall, et al., and a class consisting of all prisoners who are

J now, or witl in the future be, confined in the Fresno County Jail allege that conditions in the Jail

4 violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the

5 Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to injunctive relief to

6 address their claims.

7

The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with their Joint Motion

8 for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which would settle all claims in this case.

9 The parties have submitted a proposed Notice to the Class, as well as a proposed order regarding

10 the distribution of the notice to the plaintiff class.

11

This Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has

T2 reviewed all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed the Joint

13 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, along with the Consent Decree and

t4 supporting documents, and has considered the parties' arguments concerning the proposed

15 settlement of this class action. The Court has determined that inquiry should be made regarding

I6 the fairness and adequacy of this proposed settlement.

t7

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

18

I . A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it "appears to be

19 the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does

20 not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and

2t falls within the range of possible approval." In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d

22 1078, 1079 (N.D. CaL.2007). The Court finds that this standard is met in this case, as the

23 proposed settlement is the product of arms-length, serious, informed, and non-collusive

24 negotiations between experienced and knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and

25 defended this litigation. The Court further hnds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements

26 of 18 U.S.C. $ 3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval

27 and incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the

28 fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy ofthe Consent Decree.

2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the substance,

1
lpRoPosEDl oRDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 5

1

2 form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the "Notice") filed by the

J parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the Class Notice meets all due

4 process and other legal requirements and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

5

3. Within three days of this Order, the parties are directed to prepare a final version

6 of the Notice, incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

7

_ 4. Within

days of this Order, the County is directed to post the Notice in English

8 and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to all prisoners.

9 The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each prisoner in restricted housing, which

10 shall include 2D, FF cells, A pods and any other housing unit on lockdown. The Notice shall be

11 posted and delivered until the date of the fairness hearing.

T2

5. Until the date of the fairness hearing the County is also directed to provide a copy of

13 this Order, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees to

t4 prisoners who complete an inmate request form and request the documents from the Inmate

15 Programs Manager. Defendant must file and serve on Plaintiffs'counsel a declaration affirming

16 that notice was published as required in this order.

T7

6. A Faimess Hearing shall take place at

a.m. on

at the

- 18 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States Courthouse,2500

_, t9 Tulare Street, Courtroom Fresno, CA93721, to determine whether the proposed settlement of

20 this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable,

2t and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court. The hearingmay be continued from

22 time to time without further notice to the class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance

23 of the hearing shall be filed no later than

24

6. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in this

25 action through that class member's own attorney (at their own expense), but need not do so.

26 Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented

27 by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the federal court about

28 whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider written communications when

deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding the fairness of the settlement

[pRoposnDl oRDER ron pnnltlôNARy AppRovAL oF sETTLEMENT

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 112-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 5

1

2 must include at the top of the first page the case name (Hall v. Fresno.) and the case

J number 1 :1 1-CV-02047-LJO-BAM. A written comment must contain the author's full name

4 and must include all objections and the reasons for them, must include any and all supporting

5 papers (including, without limitation, all briefs, written evidence, and declarations), and must be

6 signed by the Class Member. A Class Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply

7 with the above objection procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the

8 objection shall not be heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by

9

and must be sent to the following address:

10

Clerk of the Court

1i

United States District Court

Eastem District of California

T2

2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501

13

Fresno, CA9372l

T4
15 IT IS SO ORDERED t6 DATED: t7

THE HONORABLE BARBARA A. MC AULIFFE United States District Court

18

T9

292s3-00188 3424705.1

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[pRoposEDì oRDER non pRu-IlílNARy AppRovAL oF sETTLEMENT

 
 1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 3 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
Fax: (510) 280-2704 5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522) 6 MONIQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square 8 3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and

15 BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated, 16
Plaintiffs,

17

v.

18 COUNTY OF FRESNO

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

19

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)

SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)

2

COOLEY LLP

3

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

4

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

5

MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

6

MONISHA COELHO (SBN 219233) AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN 143532)

7

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

8

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

11

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE] 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

Plaintiffs in this action, Quentin Hall, et al., and a class consisting of all prisoners

3 who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno County Jail allege that

4 conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

5 Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are

6 entitled to injunctive relief to address their claims.

7

The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with their Joint

8 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which would settle all

9 claims in this case. The parties have submitted a proposed Notice to the Class, as well as

10 a proposed an acceptable distribution of the notice to the plaintiff class.

11

This Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has

12 reviewed all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed the

13 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Supplemental

14 Brief, along with the Consent Decree and supporting documents, and has considered the

15 parties’ arguments concerning the proposed settlement of this class action. The Court has

16 determined that inquiry should be made regarding the fairness and adequacy of this

17 proposed settlement.

18

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

19

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears to be

20 the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies,

21 does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of

22 the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust

23 Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court finds that this standard is

24 met in this case, as the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are the product of arms-length,

25 serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and

26 knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.

27 Throughout extended negotiations, as various jail issues were discussed, the Court has

28 been involved, informed, and monitored these settlement negotiations. It appears to the

Court that the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are fair, adequate and reasonable as to

1

1

2 all potential class members, when balanced against the probable outcome of further

3 litigation and the complexity of the issues involved.

4

2. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class, as defined above, meets the

5 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of

6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The numerosity requirement is fulfilled because

7 there are approximately 2,700 class members. The commonality requirement is fulfilled

8 because the Class presents common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s

9 system-wide practices that present a risk of harm and discriminatory treatment to all

10 prisoners in the Fresno jails. The typicality requirement is fulfilled because Plaintiffs’

11 claims arise from the same policies and procedures similarly impacting all class members.

12 The adequacy requirement is met because Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent

13 the interests of the Class and counsel is experied class counsel knowledgeable in the

14 applicable areas of the law.

15

3. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met because this

16 action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that risk harm

17 and discriminatory treatment to the Class.

18

4. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

19 3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval and

20 incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the

21 fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

22

5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the

23 substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the

24 “Notice”) filed by the parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the

25 Class Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice

26 practicable under the circumstances. Within three days of the adoption of these Findings

27 and Recommendations, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the Notice,

28 incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

1

2

6. No later than August 7, 2015, the County is directed to post the Notice in

3 English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to

4 all prisoners. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each prisoner in

5 restricted housing, which shall include 2D, FF cells, A pods and any other housing unit on

6 lockdown. The Notice shall be posted and delivered until the date of the fairness hearing.

7

7. Until the date of the fairness hearing the County is also directed to provide a

8 copy of this Order, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs’ motion for

9 attorney fees to prisoners who complete an inmate request form and request the

10 documents from the Inmate Programs Manager. Defendant must file and serve on

11 Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as required in this

12 order.

13

8. The Court appoints the Prison Law Office as class counsel.

14

9. A Fairness Hearing shall take place at 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015 at the

15 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States

16 Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Courtroom 8, Fresno, CA 93721, to determine whether

17 the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the

18 Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the

19 Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice to the

20 class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later

21 than September 21, 2015.

22

10. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in

23 this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need not

24 do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be

25 represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the

26 federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider written

27 communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding

28 the fairness of the settlement must include at the top of the first page the case name (Hall

v. Fresno.) and the case number 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM. A written comment must

1 2 contain the author’s full name and must include all objections and the reasons for them, 3 must include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs, 4 written evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by the Class Member. A Class 5 Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply with the above objection 6 procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be 7 heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by September 8, 2015, 8 and must be sent to the following address:

9

10

Clerk of the Court

11

United States District Court

12

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501

13

Fresno, CA 93721

14

15 The Notice to Class members shall highlight the date, September 8, 2015, by which

16 comments must be postmarked.

17

11. Consistent with the Consent Decree, the Plaintiff shall file a status report semi-

18 annually with the Court regarding implementation of the Remedial Plan.

19

20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

21 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within

22 fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written

23 objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all

24 parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

25 and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and

26 recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

27 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

28 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

1 2 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3

4

The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations,

5 each counsel shall file of a statement of non-opposition, as this will shorten the

6 objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge.

7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9
Dated: July 1, 2015
10
11

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)

KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013) 2 PRISON LAW OFFICE

3 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710

4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704
5 MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522)

6 MONIQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)

COOLEY LLP 7 Five Palo Alto Square

8

3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155

9 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and

15 BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
CLASS ACTION
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

18 COUNTY OF FRESNO
Defendants. 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)

SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)

2

COOLEY LLP

3

4401 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA 92121-1909

4

Telephone: (858) 490-6000

5

MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)

MONISHA COELHO (SBN 219233)

6

AGNES WILLIAMS (SBN 143532)

7

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209

8

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone: (213) 213-8000

9

Fax: (213) 213-8001

10

11

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON

CAPTION PAGE]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

Plaintiffs in this action, Quentin Hall, et al., and a class consisting of all prisoners

3 who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno County Jail allege that

4 conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

5 Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are

6 entitled to injunctive relief to address their claims.

7

On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of

8 Class Action Settlement stating that the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which

9 would settle all claims in this case. (Doc. 112). The parties have submitted a proposed

10 Notice to the Class, as well as a proposed an acceptable distribution of the notice to the

11 plaintiff class. On June 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and ordered

12 supplemental briefing and modifications to the preliminary settlement agreement. (Doc.

13 121). The parties filed the supplemental materials and amendments on June 17, 2015.

14

Having reviewed the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

15 Settlement and Supplemental Brief, along with the Consent Decree and supporting

16 documents, on July 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

17 recommending that the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement

18 be granted. (Doc. 129). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all of the

19 parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days.

20 Both parties have filed statements of non-opposition to the Findings and

21 Recommendations. (Doc. 130).

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has

23 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

24 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and

25 proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and

26 Recommendations dated July 1, 2015. (Doc. 129), are ADOPTED IN FULL. The Motion

27 for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED, subject to the following

28 findings and orders:

1

1

2

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears to be

3 the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies,

4 does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of

5 the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust

6 Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court finds that this standard is

7 met in this case, as the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are the product of arms-length,

8 serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and

9 knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.

10 Throughout extended negotiations, as various jail issues were discussed, the Court has

11 been involved, informed, and monitored these settlement negotiations. It appears to the

12 Court that the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan are fair, adequate and reasonable as to

13 all potential class members, when balanced against the probable outcome of further

14 litigation and the complexity of the issues involved.

15

2. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class, as defined above, meets the

16 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of

17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The numerosity requirement is fulfilled because

18 there are approximately 2,700 class members. The commonality requirement is fulfilled

19 because the Class presents common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s

20 system-wide practices that present a risk of harm and discriminatory treatment to all

21 prisoners in the Fresno jails. The typicality requirement is fulfilled because Plaintiffs’

22 claims arise from the same policies and procedures similarly impacting all class members.

23 The adequacy requirement is met because Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent

24 the interests of the Class and counsel is experied class counsel knowledgeable in the

25 applicable areas of the law.

26

3. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met because this

27 action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that risk harm

28 and discriminatory treatment to the Class.

1

2

4. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §

3 3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval and

4 incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to challenge the

5 fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

6

5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the

7 substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the

8 “Notice”) filed by the parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the

9 Class Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice

10 practicable under the circumstances. Within three days of the adoption of these Findings

11 and Recommendations, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the Notice,

12 incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

13

6. No later than August 7, 2015, the County is directed to post the Notice in

14 English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner as to make the notice visible to

15 all prisoners. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each prisoner in

16 restricted housing, which shall include 2D, FF cells, A pods and any other housing unit on

17 lockdown. The Notice shall be posted and delivered until the date of the fairness hearing.

18

7. Until the date of the fairness hearing the County is also directed to provide a

19 copy of this Order, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs’ motion for

20 attorney fees to prisoners who complete an inmate request form and request the

21 documents from the Inmate Programs Manager. Defendant must file and serve on

22 Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as required in this

23 order.

24

8. The Court appoints the Prison Law Office as class counsel.

25

9. A Fairness Hearing shall take place at 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015 at the

26 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, United States

27 Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Courtroom 8, Fresno, CA 93721, to determine whether

28 the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the

1

2 Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the

3 Court. The hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice to the

4 class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing shall be filed no later

5 than September 21, 2015.

6

10. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf in

7 this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need not

8 do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be

9 represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write to the

10 federal court about whether the settlement is fair. The federal court will consider written

11 communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments regarding

12 the fairness of the settlement must include at the top of the first page the case name (Hall

13 v. Fresno.) and the case number 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM. A written comment must

14 contain the author’s full name and must include all objections and the reasons for them,

15 must include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs,

16 written evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by the Class Member. A Class

17 Member who desires to comment but who fails to comply with the above objection

18 procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be

19 heard or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by September 8, 2015,

20 and must be sent to the following address:

21

22

23

Clerk of the Court

United States District Court

24

Eastern District of California

25

2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501

Fresno, CA 93721

26

27 The Notice to Class members shall highlight the date, September 8, 2015, by which
28 comments must be postmarked.

1

2

11. Consistent with the Consent Decree, the Plaintiff shall file a status report semi-

3 annually with the Court regarding implementation of the Remedial Plan.

4

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: July 21, 2015

7

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,

No. 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM

9 10

ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

11

Plaintiffs,

v.

(Docs. 113 and 170)

12

13 COUNTY OF FRESNO,

14

Defendant.

15

16

Plaintiffs Quentin Hall, Shawn Gonzales, Robert Merryman, Dawn Singh, and Brian

17 Murphy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated seek final approval of a class

18 settlement reached with Defendant, the County of Fresno. (Doc. 170). In addition, Plaintiffs seek

19 an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 113). The Court heard oral argument on September

20 28, 2015. (Doc. 174). Counsel Donald Specter and Kelly Knapp appeared in person for

21 Plaintiffs. Counsel Michael Woods appeared in person for the Defendant. Having carefully

22 considered the parties’ submissions, oral argument, and the entire record in this case, the Court

23 recommends Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and Attorneys’ Fees be GRANTED. (Docs.

24 113, 170).

25

BACKGROUND

26

On December 13, 2011, Plaintiffs, individually and acting for the interests of the general

27 population of the Fresno County Jail, initiated this action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs are prisoners who

28 are or have been incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. The class consists of all prisoners who

1 are now, or will in the future be, incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail (“Jail”). Defendant is the
2 County of Fresno, which is responsible for the operation of the Jail.
3 The operative complaint in this action is the First Amended Complaint filed on January
4 25, 2012. (Doc. 8). The Complaint alleged that the conditions in the Jail violated the
5 constitutional and statutory rights of all prisoners who were or will be housed in the Jail.
6 Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Jail does not provide prisoners with access to
7 adequate medical, mental health and dental care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
8 Amendments; prisoners are not reasonably protected from injury and violence from other
9 prisoners in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and that prisoners are not
10 provided with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities in violation of the Americans with
11 Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Compl. ¶ 23.
12 On June 1, 2012, Defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint denying the
13 material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. The parties thereafter began class
14 certification discovery. The parties subsequently agreed to suspend discovery for the purpose of
15 settlement negotiations. On February 21, 2013, the parties agreed to a process whereby experts
16 agreeable to both parties would inspect the Jail and issue reports and recommendations. Pursuant
17 to that agreement, experts inspected the jail and provided the parties with their reports and
18 recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the parties engaged in extensive settlement
19 negotiations. In multiple status conferences, this Court provided guidance in the parties’
20 settlement negotiations on no less than fifteen occasions. (Docs. 65, 69, 71, 73, 76, 79, 82, 86,
21 89, 92, 96, 100, 103, 106, 109, 111)
22 In May 2015, the parties executed the proposed Consent Decree and the parties filed a
23 joint motion seeking preliminary approval of the Consent Decree, which the Court granted on
24 July 21, 2015. (Docs. 112, 129, 132). The parties now seek final approval of their class action
25 settlement.
26 LEGAL STANDARD
27 The Ninth Circuit has declared that a strong judicial policy favors settlement of class
28 actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). The role of the
2

1 district court in evaluating the fairness of the settlement is not to assess the individual
2 components, but to assess the settlement as a whole. Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 818-
3 19 (9th Cir. 2012) reh’g denied 709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013).
4 Review of the proposed settlement of the parties proceeds in two phases. True v.
5 American Honda Motor Co., 749 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2010). At the preliminary
6 approval stage, the court determines whether the proposed agreement is within the range of
7 possible approval and whether or not notice should be sent to class members. Id. at 1063. “If the
8 proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,
9 has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class
10 representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval, then the
11 court should direct that the notice be given to the class members of a formal fairness hearing.” In
12 re Tableware Antitrust Litigation, 484 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Manual
13 for Complex Litigation, Second § 30.44 (1985)). At the final approval stage, the court takes a
14 closer look at the settlement, taking into consideration objections and other further developments
15 in order to make the final fairness determination. True, 749 F.Supp.2d at 1063.
16 DISCUSSION
17 A. Terms of Settlement
18 The parties agreed to a Consent Decree granting injunctive and declaratory relief to the
19 Class without providing for a monetary award to the Class. Declaration of Kelly Knapp
20 (“Remedial Plan”), Attach. 1, (Doc. 170-1). Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the parties
21 have agreed to a detailed Remedial Plan that Defendant will be responsible for implementing
22 subject to monitoring by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Remedial Plan provisions cover the substantive
23 areas in dispute: health care, personal safety, and disability discrimination.1 Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel 24

25 1

Specifically, the Remedial Plan requires Defendant to ensure that: (1) prisoners with chronic illnesses

continue to receive necessary medications, (2) pregnant inmates receive timely and appropriate prenatal care,

26

postpartum care, counseling, and specialized obstetrical services when indicated, (3) there are sufficient numbers of dental staff to provide timely access to adequate dental care, (4) mental health clinical decisions, diagnoses, and

treatment plans shall only be made by licensed mental health clinicians, (5) continuity of mental health care will be

27 provided from admission to transfer or discharge from the facility, (6) psychiatric medications, including but not

limited to antipsychotic medications, shall be prescribed to prisoners with mental illness in accord with nationally

28

accepted professional standards for the treatment of serious mental illness, (7) mental health clinicians shall complete a comprehensive suicide risk assessment form for all prisoners who display signs of suicide risk to determine if the

inmate presents a low, moderate, or high risk of suicide, (8) for prisoners with serious mental illness who are housed

3

1 will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan.
2 Plaintiffs’ counsel will be able to inspect the Jail twice per year and the subject matter experts
3 will prepare a report during the first year of monitoring and upon request after the first year.
4 Under the Consent Decree, Class counsel will receive $900,000.00 for merits fees and for
5 costs incurred during litigation. The agreement also specifies that Defendant will pay $40,000.00
6 per year for monitoring fees and expenses. Declaration of Donald Specter (“Consent Decree”),
7 Doc. 112-1, Ex. 1 ¶ 21. In the event of a dispute, the parties have agreed on an informal dispute
8 resolution process, and the Court will retain jurisdiction to entertain motions to enforce
9 compliance if the dispute resolution process fails.
10 B. Notice to Class Members
11 The Court finds that the notice to the settlement class, as described in the July 1, 2015
12 order preliminarily approving the class settlement, provided the best practicable notice to the
13 class members and satisfied the procedures of Due Process. The Class Notice described the key
14 terms in the Consent Decree and the proposed agreement regarding attorneys’ fees, and advised
15 class members the Court will consider submitted written comments when deciding whether to
16 approve the settlement. Declaration of Donald Specter (“Specter Decl.”), Doc. 112-170-1, Ex. 2.
17 Defendant posted the Notice in English and Spanish in all housing units in such a manner
18 as to make the notice visible to all prisoners. The Notice was also hand delivered to each prisoner
19 in restricted housing and housing units on lockdown. Defendant also provided a copy of the
20 Court’s Order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement, the full Consent Decree, the
21 Remedial Plan, and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees to all prisoners who completed an inmate
22 request form requesting these documents. Declaration of Tom Gattie (“Gattie Decl.”), Doc. 152.
23 The Court finds that the procedures employed were adequate to satisfy Due Process.
24 ///
25

26

in unit 2D, correctional and mental health staff will ensure those inmates are offered to be taken out of their cells for

27 recreation a minimum of 7 hours per week and mental health treatment will be offered 3 times per week, (9)

prisoners with disabilities will be housed in the most integrated and appropriate housing possible, based on their

28

disabilities, and (10) a staffing plan will be designed to reduce prisoner-on-prisoner violence in the Jail, which includes the hiring of 127 new correctional officers. (Doc. 170 at 5-6).

4

1 C. Class Certification
2 Based on the showing made by the parties in support of the Motion for Preliminary
3 Approval and the Motion for Final Approval and as discussed more fully in the Preliminary
4 Approval Order, the Court finds the parties have met their burden as to the prerequisites for class
5 certification set forth in Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
6 Specifically, the Class includes an estimated 2,700 inmates at the Jail, and is therefore so
7 numerous that joinder is impracticable. (Doc. 129 at 4). As to commonality, the Class presents
8 common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendant’s system-wide practices that present a
9 risk of harm and discriminatory treatment to all prisoners in the Fresno jails. The typicality
10 requirement is fulfilled because Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same policies and procedures
11 similarly impacting all class members. The adequacy requirement is met because Plaintiffs will
12 fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class, and the Prison Law Office is
13 experienced class counsel knowledgeable in the applicable areas of the law.
14 As to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), the widespread injunctive relief sought is
15 appropriate for the Class as a whole, because all Class Members face the same policies and
16 practices that risk harm and discriminatory treatment to the class. (Doc. 129 at 4).
17 D. Settlement Approval Factors Support the Consent Decree
18 In determining whether or not the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts
19 balance several factors, including: (1) the strength of plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense,
20 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
21 throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed,
22 and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a
23 governmental participant; (8) and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
24 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1291 (9th Cir. 1992).
25 In evaluating a proposed settlement, “[i]t is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the
26 individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.” Hanlon v. Chrysler
27 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court “does not have the ability to delete,
28 modify, or substitute certain provisions,” and “[t]he settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.”
5

1 Id. The question is not whether the settlement “could be prettier, smarter, or snazzier,” but solely
2 “whether it is fair, adequate, and free from collusion.” Id. at 1027.
3 Here, the Consent Decree provides substantial equitable relief to class members. As
4 discussed in the order granting preliminary approval, the Consent Decree was the product of an
5 arm’s-length negotiation by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Doc. 132 at 2). Additionally, the Court found
6 that the Consent Decree was the result of “serious, informed, and noncollusive negotiations
7 between experienced and knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this
8 litigation.” Id. Thus, the Consent Decree is entitled to a presumption of fairness. See e.g., Harris
9 v. Vector Marketing Corp., 2011 WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Defendant has agreed to
10 settlement terms that directly address the class claims in this case, including the delivery of
11 constitutionally adequate healthcare, reasonable accommodations for prisoners with disabilities,
12 and a significant increase in the number of correctional officers to help reduce violence between
13 inmates. Remedial Plan at 18, (Doc. 112-1). The settlement was reached, with extensive Court
14 oversight, after two years of negotiations between the parties, who were zealously represented by
15 their experienced counsel throughout this litigation. Specter Decl. at ¶¶ 2-3. The settlement was
16 also reached after joint experts found systemic deficiencies in Defendant’s policies and practices
17 including understaffing the Jail with correctional officers and healthcare providers, prescribing
18 nonstandard medications to prisoners with mental illness, and housing prisoners with disabilities
19 in inaccessible dorms and cells. (Doc. 124).
20 Given the relief achieved and the risks and costs involved in further litigation, the
21 negotiated settlement represents a fundamentally “fair, reasonable, and adequate” resolution of
22 the disputed issues. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e)(2). Further, considering there was arm’s-length
23 bargaining; extensive investigation and discovery by experienced counsel; and a small percentage
24 of objectors, the Court concludes the settlement was presumptively fair, adequate and reasonable,
25 and should be granted final approval. Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at *8.
26 E. Class Members’ Reaction to the Proposed Settlement
27 Prior to the hearing on final approval, the Court received written objections to the
28 settlement from twenty-nine objectors. The objections fall into two categories: (1) ten objectors
6

1 commented on the substance of the Consent Decree and/or Remedial Plan;2 and (2) the remaining

2 nineteen class members voiced individual problems with the current Jail health care system;

3 described prisoner-on-prisoner violence, or detailed otherwise unrelated issues such as individual

4 access to the law library or their criminal case, but did not provide substantive comments on the

5 terms of the Consent Decree or Remedial Plan.3 Finding that the evidence presented supports

6 approval of the settlement, the Court now considers whether the objections otherwise require

7 disapproval of the class settlement.4

8 1. Objections on the Scope of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan

9

Seven class members objected that the settlement terms do not go far enough to address 10

the deficiencies identified by the parties’ experts. (Docs. 133, 139, 142, 146, 156, 163, and 164).

11

However, as the Ninth Circuit has observed, this alone is not a basis for rejecting a settlement:

12

Of course it is possible, as many of the objectors’ affidavits imply, that the

13

settlement could have been better. But this possibility does not mean the settlement

presented was not fair, reasonable, or adequate. Settlement is the offspring of

14

compromise; the question we address is not whether the final product could be

prettier, smarter, or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate, and free from

15

collusion.

16 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027.

17

Some of these objections include: (1) access to CPAP machines; (2) adequacy of medical

18 diets; (3) temperature controls; (4) removing triple bunks; (5) training and discipline for officers

19 who engage in misconduct against prisoners with mental health challenges or disabilities; (6)

20 closing the antiquated south annex; (7) applying the remedial plan to Unit 4f of the Main Jail; (8) 21 timeline of hiring an additional 127 correctional officers; and (9) the need for sanctions if 22 Defendant fails to comply/implement the Remedial Plan.

23
2
24 3

(Docs. 133, 139, 142, 146, 154, 156, 162, 163, 164). (Docs. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160,

161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173).

25 4

In cases of this type, it is not unusual to have a large number of objections, nor is it unusual for a court to

approve a settlement over such objections. See, e.g., Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1983)

26 (approving settlement over objections of more than 40% of class members and 23 out of 27 named plaintiffs); Austin

v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 876 F. Supp. 1437, 1472 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (approving settlement related to prison conditions

27 over objections of 457 class members); Hawker v. Consovoy, 198 F.R.D. 619, 628 (D.N.J. 2001) (approving prison

conditions settlement over objections from 250 class members); Pack v. Beyer, No. 91-3709, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

28 19542, 1995 WL 775360, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 1995) (approving prison conditions settlement over objection from

41% the class).

7

1 These objections are either implicitly addressed by the Remedial Plan (example: cpap
2 machine/temp controls/diets) or counsel has amended the Remedial Plan to address the objection.
3 The other objections can be addressed through the ongoing monitoring of the Remedial Plan once

4 the Remedial Plan is implemented. Considering these objections, the Court finds that the

5 settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and specifically directed at resolving the problems raised

6 by these and other inmates. The Consent Decree and Remedial Plan will provide Plaintiffs with

7 improved health treatment to which they are entitled.

8

2. Objections to Specific Remedial Plan Provisions

9

Inmates Daniel Trebas and Dustin Callison objected to three specific provisions of the

10 Remedial Plan, but did not present evidence that the class action settlement is unfair, inadequate,

11 or unreasonable. Areas addressed include: (1) electronic health records; (2) assistive devices; and

12 (3) autopsies. (Docs. 146, 154).

13

For example, Dustin Callison specifically objected to language in the Remedial Plan that

14 stated “autopsies shall be performed for all deaths, except for those caused by suicide or

15 homicide.” (Doc. 154 at 3). This objection resulted in a revision to the Remedial Plan. The

16 Remedial Plan was revised to specify that autopsies will be performed for “all deaths where the

17 cause of death cannot be conclusively determined.” Remedial Plan ¶ 10. Objections as to the

18 need for assistive devices and the creation of electronic health records can and will be addressed

19 through monitoring after the settlement is approved. These objections do not weigh against

20 approving the proposed Consent Decree

21

3. Objections Regarding the Applicable Constitutional Standard

22

Inmate Mike Starrett filed an objection based on his belief that the Eighth Amendment’s

23 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as it relates to medical care, should not be applied

24 to pretrial detainees. (Doc. 162). While Mr. Starrett is correct in part, the class action complaint

25 was written broadly to include both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims to include both

26 sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees. In an effort to provide relief to all inmates, the

27 Remedial Plan incorporates remedial measures regardless of an inmate’s status as a pretrial 28 detainee or convicted prisoner. For this reason, the Court does not find that this objection weighs

8

1 against approval of the settlement.
2 4. Objections Regarding Money Damages and Opting Out of Class
3 Inmates Daniel Trebas and Dustin Callison filed objections attempting to opt-out of the
4 settlement class because they are pursuing individual actions that will be filed at a later date.
5 Jared Ward also complains that the settlement does not provide money damages to the class.

6 (Doc. 139).

7

These objections do not negate the fairness of the settlement as there is no need for

8 inmates to opt-out of the class because they are not barred from seeking individual damage

9 claims. Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he general rule is that a class

10 action suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual

11 damage claims by class members, even if based on the same events”). Moreover, the Consent

12 Decree requires systemic changes to the Jail’s policies, procedures, and operations, and thus, by

13 its very nature, necessarily impacts all people incarcerated in the Jail. Further, objections to the

14 lack of money damages are meritless because this is a class action certified pursuant to Rule

15 23(b)(2) that seeks only injunctive relief. Therefore, the absence of an award of money damages

16 is neither unfair nor unreasonable.

17

5. Additional Objections

18

Of the twenty-nine total objectors, nineteen individuals submitted comments that the

19 Court will liberally construe as objections. Those class members are: Jimmy Buford (Doc. 134);

20 Matthew Messick (Doc. 135); Juan Alvardo (Doc. 136); Ronnie Azevedo (Docs. 138, 150);

21 Robert L. Morris (Doc. 140); Elaine Villareal (Docs. 141, 147, 151, 169); David Edwards Estrada

22 (Docs. 143, 165); Rory D. Jordan (Doc. 144); Georgina McGee (Doc. 145); Kelly Lynn

23 McKinney (Docs. 148, 151); Nyree Dawn Bernard (Doc. 149); Dennis Reynolds (Doc. 153),

24 Asatour Nagapetin (Doc. 157); Jezrell Crawford (Docs. 159, 161, 168, 173); Calvin Simpson

25 (Doc. 160); Martin Ganoa (Doc. 167); Gary Thompson (Doc. 163); and Gregory Ell Sheehee 26 (Doc. 172). 5 Although some of the objections are difficult to understand, the Court thoroughly

27

28
5

The name of one objector is illegible and is therefore not included in this list. (Doc. 137).

9

1 reviewed each objection.6 2
Specifically, the bulk of these objections are more accurately deemed as criticism of the 3
current medical care system in place at the Jail. The following are examples of objections from 4
inmates that do not relate to the fairness and adequacy of the Consent Decree itself: (1) inmate 5
Matthew Messick claims that the hygiene standards at the Jail are inadequate and he requests 6
additional recreational activities and more time in the yard (Doc. 135); (2) inmates Elaine 7
Villareal, Kelly McKinney, and Georgina McKee complain of the presence of black mold in and 8
around the Jail (Docs. 145, 148, 169); and (3) multiple inmates complain about delayed response 9
times for medical grievance forms (Docs. 135, 138, 140, 143, 144, 145, 155, 157, 165, 168, 169, 10
172). 11
After having carefully reviewed the objections, the Court characterizes them, in their 12
totality, as complaining about the current conditions at the Jail rather than any disagreement with 13
the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. Many objections are the result of a 14
fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying purpose of the class action, a lack of knowledge 15
of the ramifications if the settlement is not approved, and unrealistic or overly optimistic 16
expectations. The Consent Decree and Remedial Plan require systemic changes in the Jail’s 17
policies, procedures, and operations and thus, upon implementation, should address the individual 18
concerns raised by objectors. Regardless, when implemented, these types of concerns would fall 19
within the scope of the ongoing monitoring activity contemplated by the Consent Decree. 20
Accordingly, these objections fail to convince the Court that the Consent Decree is unfair or 21
unreasonable. 22
F. Attorneys’ Fees 23
The Consent Decree also provides that Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiffs’ class counsel, 24
the Prison Law Office, $900,000.00 in attorney’s fees and expenses and $40,000.00 per year for 25

26 6

Certain objections are wholly unrelated to the Consent Decree and address issues which are either frivolous

or nonsensical. (Docs. 149, 159, 161, 168). For example, Inmate Nyree Brown details a list of complaints about the

27 Fresno high-speed rail system, Barack Obama’s presidency, and she argues that she is “the only person who aint gay

in America.” (Doc. 149 at 17). Inmate Jezrell Crawford details plans to sell children’s programs such as the “Bubble

28 Guppies” to Valley PBS kids. (Doc. 159). The Court does not regard such comments as proper objections to the

Consent Decree, and, consequently, will not address them.

10

1 monitoring fees and expenses as part of the settlement. (Doc. 113). Plaintiffs’ Counsel represents
2 that this amount–which reimburses Plaintiffs’ counsel for some but not all of their actual hours
3 spent and $50,000 in out-of-pocket expenses—is fair and reasonable in light of the extraordinary
4 results obtained through this litigation and protracted and complex settlement negotiations.
5 Where a class action settlement results in injunctive relief, the court must ensure that the
6 amount of the requested attorneys’ fees does not result in “‘less injunctive relief for the class than
7 could otherwise have been obtained.’” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935,
8 947 (9th Cir. 2011). In a Section 1983 action, like this one, the Court may determine that a
9 prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d 1029; 42 U.S.C. § 1988. A
10 reasonable fee is generally calculated by application of the lodestar method, which requires
11 multiplying the hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. See City of Riverside v.
12 Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 568 (1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
13 Counsel calculated their attorneys’ fees using the lodestar method; that is, Plaintiffs’
14 counsel kept contemporaneous time records that detailed all work completed, and calculated the
15 requested award by multiplying the number of hours actually worked by a reasonable hourly rate.
16 Specter Decl., ¶ 8. In setting a reasonable hourly rate, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to limit their rate
17 to $211.50 based on the limits set out in the PLRA for payment of court-appointed counsel.
18 Vllebb v. Ada Cnty. 285 F.3d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 2002). Attorneys’ fees were then calculated by
19 applying an hourly rate of $211.50 per hour to a number of hours far below the number of actual
20 hours worked. Specter Decl. ¶ 8. While the rate of $211.50 is slightly higher than fees allowable
21 under the PLRA, the Court finds that the rate requested by the attorneys here is lower than the
22 overall market rate for attorneys of similar abilities and experience in this District. See Sanchez v.
23 Frito-Lay, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102771 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015) (reviewing billing rates
24 for the Fresno Division and concluding that a rate $350 per hour rate was reasonable in a class
25 action).
26 The Court also notes that this rate is particularly reasonable in light of the extensive
27 litigation involved in this case. A year after Plaintiffs initiated this action; the Court provided
28 guidance over settlement negotiations in fifteen or more status conferences. Accordingly, the
11

1 Court has firsthand knowledge that in order to further settlement efforts, counsel conducted
2 complex discovery, interviewed and corresponded with hundreds of prisoners, reviewed and
3 analyzed thousands of pages of healthcare records, inspected jail facilities, worked with neutral
4 experts, and met and conferred with opposing counsel and the County to participate in
5 negotiations. Thus, after a careful review of the record, and in considering the Court’s extensive
6 involvement, the Court concludes that the proportion between the fee award, the hours worked,
7 and the benefit obtained for the class is per se reasonable in this nearly four year old case.
8 Moreover, with the exception of one class member believing the fee amount is not enough
9 (Doc. 139), there have been no objections to the $900,000.00 attorneys’ fee amount.
10 Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
11 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(h) be GRANTED. (Doc. 113).
12 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
14 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Consent Decree be GRANTED;
15 2. The terms of the proposed Consent Decree be found to be fair, adequate and
16 reasonable and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
17 3. Plaintiffs’ request for certification of the Settlement Class be GRANTED and the
18 class defined as all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno County
19 Jail be certified for settlement purposes;
20 4. For purposes of the settlement, the above-defined settlement class be found to
21 meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
22 5. The notice that has been provided to the settlement class members, as well as the
23 means by which it was provided constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances
24 and is in full compliance with the United States Constitution and the requirements of Due Process
25 and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, that such notice fully and accurately
26 informed settlement class members of all material elements of the lawsuit and proposed class
27 action settlement, and each member’s right and opportunity to object to the proposed class action
28 settlement;
12

1 6. Reasonable attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $900,000.00 and
2 $40,000.00 per year for compliance monitoring be awarded to Class Counsel the Prison Law
3 Office;
4 7. That the Court enter the proposed Consent Decree (Doc. 112-1) as follows:
5

6

The Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs allege various violations of Federal law

and the Defendant County of Fresno denies those allegations. Having reviewed the

7

reports of the joint experts, the Court hereby finds that the remedy set forth herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

8

Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs’ class, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of federal rights. Therefore, and

9

good cause appearing, the Court approves the Consent Decree, and orders the parties to comply with all its terms, and orders Defendant to implement the

Remedial Plan pursuant to the schedule set forth therein. 10

8. This action be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the

11

agreement; however, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret, implement and

12

enforce the settlement, and all orders and judgment entered in connection therewith.

13

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

14

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

15

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

16

14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

18

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

19

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

20

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991);

21

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

22

The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations, each

23

counsel shall file of a statement of non-opposition, as this will shorten the objection period

24

and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated: October 7, 2015
27

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

13

 
 Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 179 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES, No. 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH,

12 and BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS

themselves and all others similarly situated, AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING

13

APPROVAL OF THE CLASS SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs,

AND GRANTING IN FULL PLAINTIFF’S

14 v.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

15 COUNTY OF FRESNO,

(Doc. 175)

16 Defendant.

17

18 On October 8, 2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and
19 Recommendations recommending that the parties’ joint motion for final approval of class action
20 settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees be granted. (Doc. 175). The Findings and
21 Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days.
22 Plaintiffs filed objections on October 12, 2015. (Doc. 176). In accordance with the provisions of
23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.
24 Plaintiffs’ objections do not contest the analysis and outcome set forth in the Findings and
25 Recommendations. Plaintiff states, however, that although immaterial to the outcome, the parties
26 object to the Court’s finding that the hourly rate of $211.50 that Plaintiff’s used to calculate fees
27 is “slightly higher that fees allowable under the PLRA.” (Doc. 175 at 11). Specifically, in the
28
1

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 179 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 3

1 Findings and Recommendations, the magistrate judge noted that the $900,000 fee request

2 reasonably reflected the time and labor required to litigate this matter. However, based on the

3 2015 CJA compensation rate of $127/hour, the Court determined that an hourly rate of $211.50

4 “is slightly higher than fees allowable under the PLRA.”

5

Plaintiff objects that the statutorily authorized rate for non-capital court-appointed counsel

6 is $142;1 and multiplying this figure by the statutorily authorized 150% multiplier results in an

7 hourly rate of $213. See Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2011); Kelly v. Wengler, 7

8 F.Supp. 3d 1069, 1075 (D. Idaho 2014); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 2013 WL

9 501646, at *2 (D. Idaho 2013); Lira v. Cate, 2010 WL 727979, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

10

Despite the parties’ objections, the Magistrate Judge did not err in her remarks about the

11 requested hourly rate.2

12

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated October 8, 2015 are ADOPTED IN

14 FULL;

15

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Consent Decree is GRANTED;

16

3. The terms of the proposed Consent Decree is found to be fair, adequate and

17 reasonable and complies with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

18

4. Plaintiffs’ request for certification of the Settlement Class is GRANTED and the

19 class is defined as all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, confined in the Fresno

20 County Jail be certified for settlement purposes;

21

5. For purposes of the settlement, the above-defined settlement class is found to meet

22 all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

23

6. The notice that has been provided to the settlement class members, as well as the

24 means by which it was provided constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances

25

26

1

See The Judiciary, Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Budget Justification at 6.14, available at

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/Judiciary%202015%20Congressional%20Budget%20Justifica

tion%20Excerpt%2C%202015.PDF (last viewed on 10/12/15).

27 2

The $142 hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference on which the PLRA hourly rate is calculated is

not made available in any published or generally-available online source. See Gilman v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist.
28 LEXIS 102866 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2014)

2

Case 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM Document 179 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 3

1 and is in full compliance with the United States Constitution and the requirements of Due Process

2 and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, such notice fully and accurately

3 informed settlement class members of all material elements of the lawsuit and proposed class

4 action settlement, and each member’s right and opportunity to object to the proposed class action

5 settlement;

6

7. Reasonable attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $900,000.00 and

7 $40,000.00 per year for compliance monitoring is awarded to Class Counsel the Prison Law

8 Office;

9

8. The Court enters the proposed Consent Decree (Doc. 112-1) as follows:

10

The Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs allege various violations of Federal law

11

and the Defendant County of Fresno denies those allegations. Having reviewed the

reports of the joint experts, the Court hereby finds that the remedy set forth herein

12

is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of

Federal constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs’ class, and is the least

13

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of federal rights. Therefore, and good cause appearing, the Court approves the Consent Decree, and orders the

14

parties to comply with all its terms, and orders Defendant to implement the Remedial Plan pursuant to the schedule set forth therein.

15 9. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the
16 agreement; however, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret, implement and
17 enforce the settlement, and all orders and judgment entered in connection therewith.
18

19

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with this order and to close this

20

action.

21

This terminates this action in its entirety.

22

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: October 30, 2015

25

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

27

28 3

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 1 of 25
CIVIL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Fresno) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−02047−LJO−BAM

Hall et al v. County of Fresno Assigned to: District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill Referred to: Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/13/2011 Date Terminated: 11/02/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Quentin Hall on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Alison Hardy Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Email: ahardy@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Agnes Akabogu Williams Disability Rights California 567 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C3 Fresno, CA 93704 559−476−2000−2010 Fax: 559−476−2001 Email: Agnes.Williams@disabilityrightsca.org TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew N. Berk Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: andrew.berk@disabilityrightsca.org TERMINATED: 06/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald Specter Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth St Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kathryn Kelley Cooley LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 858−550−6069 Fax: 858−550−6420 Email: mkkelley@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger Cooley LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 2 of 25
Palo Alto, CA 94306 650−843−5000 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: malger@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melinda R. Bird Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 213−8000 Fax: (213) 213−8001 Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique R Sherman Cooley LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 650−843−5798 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: msherman@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monisha Ann Coelho Disability Rights California 350 S. Bixel Street Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 213−8000 Fax: (213) 213−8001 Email: monisha.coelho@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Anne Scherer Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street, Ste 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: rachel.scherer@disabilityrightsca.org TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Leigh Sorrells Cooley LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 858−550−6171 Fax: 858−550−6420 Email: ssorrells@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Srividya Seshan Panchalam Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street #290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: sri.panchalam@disabilityrightsca.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 3 of 25

Kelly Jean Knapp Stebner and Associates 870 Market Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 4153629800 Fax: 4153629801 Email: kknapp@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Merryman on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew N. Berk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kathryn Kelley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Srividya Seshan Panchalam (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 4 of 25

Plaintiff
Dawn Singh on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew N. Berk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kathryn Kelley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Srividya Seshan Panchalam (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carlton Dwayne Fields on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew N. Berk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 5 of 25

Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kathryn Kelley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sharon Chavez TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 6 of 25

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian Keith Murphy

represented by Donald Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Srividya Seshan Panchalam (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shawn Gonzales

represented by Donald Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 7 of 25
TERMINATED: 06/17/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Agnes Akabogu Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Alger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melinda R. Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique R Sherman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monisha Ann Coelho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Leigh Sorrells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Srividya Seshan Panchalam (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Anne Scherer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Margaret Mims Sheriff, Fresno County TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Linden Lozano Smith 7404 N. Spalding Avenue Fresno, CA 93720 559−431−5600−145 Fax: 559−261−9366 Email: mlinden@lozanosmith.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gary Woods Martin Law Firm 113 Court Street, Suite 208 Hanford, CA 93230 559−433−1300 Fax: 559−433−2300

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 8 of 25

Email: mike.woods@mccormickbarstow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam B. Stirrup Baradat & Paboojian, Inc. 720 W. Alluvial Ave. Fresno, CA 93711 559−431−5366 Fax: 559−431−1702 Email: abs@bplaw−inc.com TERMINATED: 01/23/2014

Defendant
Edward Moreno, M.D. Director, Fresno County Department of Public Health TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Linden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Gary Woods (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014

Defendant
George Laird, Ph.D. Division Manager, Division of Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of Public Health TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Linden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Gary Woods (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014

Defendant
Pratap Narayen, M.D. Medical Director, Division of Correctional Health, Fresno County Department of Public Health TERMINATED: 11/16/2012

represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 9 of 25

Defendant Rick Hill Captain of Detention, Fresno County Sheriff's Office TERMINATED: 11/16/2012
Defendant Marilynn Weldon Captain of Inmate Programs and Contracts, Fresno County Sheriff's Office TERMINATED: 11/16/2012
Defendant County of Fresno

Michael R. Linden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gary Woods (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014
represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Linden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gary Woods (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014
represented by Maureen Alger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Linden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gary Woods (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014
represented by Daniel Carl Cederborg County Of Fresno

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 10 of 25

2220 Tulare Street, Suite 500 Fresno, CA 93721 559−600−3479 Fax: 559−600−3480 Email: dcederborg@co.fresno.ca.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam B. Stirrup (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2014

Michael Gary Woods McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP 5 River Park Place East PO Box 28912 Fresno, CA 93729−8912 559−433−1300 Fax: 559−433−2300 Email: mike.woods@mccormickbarstow.com TERMINATED: 02/10/2016

Intervenor
Dominic Hanna TERMINATED: 12/11/2015

represented by Robert Navarro Attorney at Law 1295 North Wishon Avenue Suite 207 Fresno, CA 93728 559−240−2354 Fax: 559−497−5471 Email: robrojo@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011
12/13/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against All Defendants by Dawn Singh, Robert Merryman, Carlton Fields, Quentin Hall. Attorney Knapp, Kelly Jean added.(Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Carlton Fields, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Dawn Singh (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Carlton Fields, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Dawn Singh (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Supplement)(Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
RECEIPT number #CAE100017241 $350.00 fbo Quentin Hall by Donald Specter on 12/13/2011. (Marrujo, C) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Margaret Mims* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Kelly Jean Knapp* *Prison Law Office* *1917 5th Street* *Berkeley, CA 94710*. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
6 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Edward Moreno, MD, Pratap Narayen, MD, Marilynn Weldon* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Kelly Jean Knapp* *Prison Law Office* *1917 5th Street* *Berkeley, CA 94710*. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
7 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED: Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/29/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order, # 2 Consent Form, # 3 VDRP Form) (Jessen, A) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 11 of 25

01/25/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/16/2012 03/22/2012
03/23/2012
04/10/2012 04/11/2012 04/12/2012

8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Dawn Singh, Robert Merryman, Carlton Fields, Quentin Hall, Sharon Chavez, Brian Keith Murphy, Shawn Gonzales. Attorney Scherer, Rachel Anne added.(Scherer, Rachel) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
9 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuing Mandatory Scheduling Conference by Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Pratap Narayen, MD, Marilynn Weldon. Attorney Linden, Michael Robert added. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
10 STIPULATION and ORDER Continuing Mandatory Scheduling Conference: last day for Defendants to file a responsive pleading is 4/10/2012 (NOTE: document had a typo with date of 4/10/2010). Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 2/29/12 to Monday, May 7, 2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/21/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
11 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Margaret Mims Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
12 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Rick Hill Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
13 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: George Laird, PhD Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
14 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Pratap Narayen, MD Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
15 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Edward Moreno, MD Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
16 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Marilynn Weldon Waiver sent on 2/10/2012, answer due 4/10/2012. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
17 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Melinda R. Bird. Attorney Bird, Melinda R. added. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
18 MOTION for DISCOVERY by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Knapp, Kelly Jean added. Motion Hearing set for 4/20/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Quentin Hall In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery, # 2 Declaration of Maureen Alger In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery, # 3 Declaration of Kelly Knapp In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery, # 4 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Early Discovery)(Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
19 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Entry Only) Due to the availability of the Court, 18 Motion tfor Discovery previously set for 4/20/2012 has been CONTINUED to 4/27/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Accordingly, Initial Scheduling Conference previously set for 5/7/2012 has been CONTINUED to 6/19/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/23/2012. (Gaumnitz, R) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
20 MOTION to DISMISS by Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Pratap Narayen, MD, Marilynn Weldon. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint)(Linden, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
21 CLERK'S NOTICE (text only): Motion Hearing re 20 Motion to Dismiss set for 5/16/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
22 OPPOSITION by Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Pratap Narayen, MD, Marilynn Weldon to 18 MOTION for DISCOVERY. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 12 of 25

04/17/2012 04/18/2012
04/20/2012
04/27/2012
04/27/2012 05/02/2012 05/02/2012 05/09/2012 05/10/2012 05/16/2012 05/30/2012 05/31/2012 06/01/2012 06/12/2012
06/12/2012

23 NOTICE of Change in Counsel by All Plaintiffs. (Scherer, Rachel) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
24 CLERK'S NOTICE to attorney Rachel Scherer re 23 Notice: When submitting a Designation of Counsel, please use the specific event Designation of Counsel which may be found in theOther Filings, Other Documents Category. Do not use the generic Notice (other) event when a more specific event is available. (Sant Agata, S) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
25 REPLY by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh re 18 MOTION for DISCOVERY, 22 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Donald Specter In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Limited Early Discovery)(Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
26 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/27/2012: MOTION HEARING held re Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 18 − argued, submitted. Motion taken under submission − order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Kelly Knapp − Telephonically, present. Defendants Counsel Michael Linden, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: ECRO − O. Figueroa. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
27 ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Discovery 18 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/27/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
28 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Monique R Sherman on behalf of Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Sherman, Monique R added. (Sherman, Monique) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
29 OPPOSITION by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh to 20 MOTION to DISMISS. Attorney Alger, Maureen added. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
30 REPLY by Margaret Mims re 29 Opposition to Motion, 20 MOTION to DISMISS. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
31 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) The motion to dismiss set for 5/16/2012 before Judge O'Neill is VACATED, and the matter submitted on the pleadings, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 10, 2012. (Munoz, I) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
32 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 16, 2012. (Munoz, I) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
33 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for EXTENDING TIME TO FILE ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Margaret Mims. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
34 ORDER extending time to file answer to first amended complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2012. (Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Deadline: 6/1/2012) (Figueroa, O) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
35 ANSWER to 8 Amended Complaint by Margaret Mims.(Linden, Michael) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
36 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Robert Merryman, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Brian Keith Murphy, Pratap Narayen, MD, Dawn Singh, Marilynn Weldon. Attorney Alger, Maureen added. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
37 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Robert Merryman, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Brian Keith Murphy, Pratap Narayen, MD, Dawn Singh, Marilynn Weldon. (Alger, Maureen) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 13 of 25

06/19/2012
06/20/2012
06/21/2012
07/10/2012 07/11/2012 07/25/2012 07/25/2012 07/30/2012 07/30/2012 08/01/2012 10/31/2012 11/01/2012 11/05/2012 11/07/2012 11/15/2012

38 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/19/2012: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held − Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Maureen Alger (telephonically), present. Defendants Counsel Michael Linden (in person), present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
39 Preliminary SCHEDULING ORDER: (1) 12/7/2012 Discovery cutoff deadline for class certification issues; (2) 2/1/2013 deadline to file and serve moving papers on class certification; (3) 4/5/2013 deadline to file and serve opposition papers on class certification. As discussed at the conference, notwithstanding the Dec. 7, 2012 cutoff, Defendant is not precluded from taking expert depositions of expert opinions disclosed in the motion for class certification; (4) 5/3/2013 deadline to file and serve reply papers on class certification; and (5) Class Certification Hearing set for 5/31/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/20/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
40 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Agnes Akabogu Williams for Sharon Chavez,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Carlton Fields,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Shawn Gonzales,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Quentin Hall,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Robert Merryman,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Brian Keith Murphy,Agnes Akabogu Williams for Dawn Singh, attorney Andrew N. Berk terminated (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
41 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Modifying Preliminary Scheduling Order to Set Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosures by Margaret Mims. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
42 STIPULATION and ORDER Modifying Preliminary Scheduling Order to Set Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosures: by 7/31/2012. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/11/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
43 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Monisha Ann Coelho on behalf of Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Coelho, Monisha Ann added. (Coelho, Monisha) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
44 SUBSTITUTION of ATTORNEY − PROPOSED, submitted by Rick Hill, George Laird, PhD, Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, MD, Pratap Narayen, MD, Marilynn Weldon. (Linden, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
45 ORDER SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEY signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/27/2012. (Sant Agata, S) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
46 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Shannon Leigh Sorrells on behalf of Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Sorrells, Shannon Leigh added. (Sorrells, Shannon) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
47 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Adam Benjamin Stirrup for Margaret Mims. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
48 PROPOSED ORDER re Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sorrells, Shannon) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
49 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Defendants to take Depositions of Plaintiffs by Margaret Mims. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
50 STIPULATION for Leave of Court for Defendants to Take Depositions of Plaintiffs; ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/5/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
51 ORDER on Protective Order (re 48 Stipulation), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/7/2012. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
52 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum Under 28 USC Sec. 2241 by Margaret Mims. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 14 of 25

11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012
11/16/2012
11/20/2012 11/20/2012 11/20/2012 11/21/2012 11/26/2012 11/29/2012 01/31/2013 02/11/2013
02/26/2013

53 DECLARATION of Adam B. Stirrup re 52 Petition. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
54 PROPOSED ORDER re Granting Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum re 52 Petition by Margaret Mims. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
55 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Dismissal of Defendants Mims, Moreno, Laird, Narayen, Hill and Weldon and Substitution of the County of Fresno as Defendant and Dismissal Without Prejudice of Sharon Chavez and Carlton Fields as Named Plaintiffs by Sharon Chavez, Carlton Fields, Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
56 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/16/12. The County of Fresno is substituted in place of Margaret Mims, Edward Moreno, George Laird, Pratap Narayen, Rick Hill, and Marilynn Weldon in this action. Plaintiffs Sharon Chavez and Carlton Fields are dismissed without prejudice. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
57 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Brian Murphy by County of Fresno. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
58 DECLARATION of Adam B. Stirrup re 57 Petition. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
59 PROPOSED ORDER re Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Brian Murphy re 57 Petition by County of Fresno. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
60 ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM to Transport Brian Murphy on November 26, 2012 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/21/2012. (Sant Agata, S) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
61 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AT PROSEQUENDUM by County of Fresno re 52 MOTION. (Stirrup, Adam) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
62 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Srividya Seshan Panchalam on behalf of Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Panchalam, Srividya Seshan added. (Panchalam, Srividya) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
63 Minute Order − DENIED (Doc. 64) filed on 2/11/2013 − STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Modification of Schedule for Class Certification by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
64 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: The parties' Stipulation to modify the Schedule for Class Certification (Doc. 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court sets a Status Conference for February 26, 2013, at 9:00 AM, before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. At that time, the parties should be prepared to discuss the issues raised in their Stipulation and the progress of settlement efforts. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/11/2013. (Herman, H) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
65 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe: This Court held a Status Conference on February 26, 2013 to discuss the parties' ongoing efforts to resolve this action without further litigation. The parties explained that they are diligently working towards a settlement procedure. Experts have been retained to perform inspections at the Fresno County Jail and additional experts may be scheduled. The parties however need additional time for their experts to complete their reports. In light of the parties' significant progress, coupled with the complexity of this matter, the Court VACATES the May 31, 2013 hearing and related dates on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. 39). The Court SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 8:30am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Accordingly, no later than March 25, 2013, counsel shall file a brief status report indicating the status of the parties' experts investigation and any intended dates for future experts. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter appeared by

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 15 of 25

03/25/2013 03/26/2013 05/28/2013 05/30/2013 09/03/2013 09/10/2013
09/24/2013 09/25/2013
10/11/2013 10/31/2013

telephone, present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods appeared by telephone, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
66 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
67 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: Based on the parties joint status report, the Court VACATES the STATUS CONFERENCE set for March 28, 2013 and SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 8:30am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Accordingly, no later than May 28, 2013, counsel shall file a brief status report indicating the status of the expert consultants' reports. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/26/2013. (Herman, H) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
68 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
69 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: Based on the parties joint status report, the Court VACATES the STATUS CONFERENCE set for June 4, 2013 and SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 8:30am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Accordingly, no later than September 3, 2013, counsel shall file a brief status report indicating the status of the consent decree. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2013. (Herman, H) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
70 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Quentin Hall. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
71 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe: This Court held a Status Conference on September 10, 2013, to discuss the parties' ongoing efforts to resolve this action through settlement. Expert investigations are complete and the reports and recommendations have been served. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors is meeting on September 10 to discuss what measures and how to implement the experts' recommendations on new health care initiatives. In light of further action by the Board of Supervisors, the Court SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 8:30am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. It is not necessary for the parties to file a status report, but all counsel appearing should be prepared to discuss updates from the Board meeting and whether dates should be set in this matter. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter appeared by telephone, present. Defendants Counsel William Littlewood appeared by telephone, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
72 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/24/2013: Telephonic Status Conference held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter appeared telephonically, present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods appeared telephonically, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
73 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On September 24, 2013, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss the parties' ongoing efforts to resolve this action through settlement. The County of Fresno is moving forward with developing funding and identifying providers to remedy matters addressed in the experts' report and recommendations. A Fresno County Board of Supervisors meeting on October 29, 2013 will address funding and implementation. In light of further action by the Board of Supervisors, the Court SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 8:30am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. It is not necessary for the parties to file a status report, but all counsel appearing should be prepared to discuss updates from the Board meeting and whether dates should be set in this matter. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/25/2013. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
74 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Michael Gary Woods. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
75 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/31/2013: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 16 of 25

11/01/2013
01/22/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014
03/06/2014 03/14/2014 03/19/2014

Counsel Donald Specter appeared by telephone, present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods appeared by telephone, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
76 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On October 31, 2013, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss the parties' coordinated efforts to resolve this class action. Defense counsel gave an overview of activities. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors has agreed to approve the application for funds to construct a new jail facility. New funds have also been designated to renovate current jail facilities and redress ADA compliance issues. A decision on the RFP for third party providers of mental health is expected in January 2014. The County is pursuing a potential program to reduce the number of pretrial detainees. In November and January, the County Advocate will hold additional meetings to address outstanding issues and outside bid proposals. Plaintiff stated that plaintiff circulated a draft consent decree that memorializes the issues and recommendations identified in the expert investigation reports. The parties requested a further telephonic status conference, which the Court sets for Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 8:00 am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. One week prior to the conference, the parties should prepare a brief update regarding the intended action by the county and what items, if any, remain outstanding. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/31/2013. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
77 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
78 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/30/2014: Telephonic STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Spencer, telephonically − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods and William Littlewood, both telephonically − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
79 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On January 30, 2014, the Court held a Telephonic Status Conference. The parties and the Court discussed the parties' ongoing settlement efforts. Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court sets a Status Conference for March 19, 2014, at 9:30 AM, in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Prior to the Status Conference, the Court ORDERS the following: (1) Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' with a red−lined response to Plaintiffs' proposed consent decree; (2) the parties shall meet and confer to discuss remedial matrixes that have been exchanged; and (3) Defendant shall exercise its best efforts to provide Plaintiffs with a custodial matrix. No later than March 14, 2014, the parties shall file a status report indicating the the parties' compliance with this Order, in addition to any relevant considerations concerning the parties' ongoing settlement discussions. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/30/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
80 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: parties agreed to the new time − TIME Change ONLY, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE set for 3/19/2014 at 08:30 AM (was 9:30 a.m.) in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/6/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
81 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
82 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/19/2014: This Court held a Status Conference to discuss the parties' ongoing settlement efforts. The parties continue to negotiate the terms of their consent decree. Additionally, a Fresno County Board of Supervisors meeting on March 25, 2014, will determine whether prison medical care will be outsourced to a third party provider. In light of future action by the Board and continued consent decree negotiations, the Court SETS a further Telephone Status Conference for Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 9:00am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. No later than May 9, 2014, the parties shall file a status report updating the court on the status of settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone, present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone, present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 17 of 25

05/08/2014 05/15/2014 05/30/2014 05/30/2014
07/22/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014
09/09/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014

83 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
84 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: Due to the unavailability of plaintiff's counsel and agreement by parties to continue to the following date and time − STATUS CONFERENCE of 5/14/2014 is continued to May 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/15/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
85 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2014: Telephonic STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Spencer, Kelly Knapp, both telephonically − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, telephonically − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: n chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
86 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2014: Discussions held regarding the status of the consent decree and the County's approval of jail staffing measures. The County Board of Supervisors will receive and review the jail staffing report by mid−June and the results of that review will have an impact on final consent decree terms. In light of the foregoing, the parties raised two key issues including: (1) the language needed to obtain the Court's final approval of the consent decree and (2) the need to set a further status conference after the submission of the jail staffing report. Accordingly, at the parties' request, the Court SETS a further Telephone Status Conference forTuesday, July 29, 2014 at 9:30ambefore Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. No later than July 22, 2014, the parties shall file a status report updating the court on the status of negotiations. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/30/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
87 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
88 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/29/2014: Telephonic STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter and Kelly Knapp, appeared telephonically − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared telephonically − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
89 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On July 29, 2014, the Court held a Telephonic Status Conference. The Court and parties discussed the status of ongoing settlement negotiations. Having considered the arguments of the parties, the Court SETS a Telephonic Status Conference for September 16, 2014, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. At least one week prior to the status Status Conference, the parties shall submit a joint status conference statement discussing the status of their ongoing settlement negotiations; particularly, the status of their negotiations concerning attorneys' fees. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/29/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
90 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
91 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/16/2014: Telephonic STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Spencer, telephonically − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, telephonically − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
92 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On September 16, 2014, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss the parties' coordinated efforts to reach a final resolution in this matter. Progress towards a final settlement is ongoing and over the last month the parties have reached resolution on several major issues addressed in the consent decree. Subject to final approval of the Board of Supervisors, counsel has agreed on an attorneys' fee arrangement and settled various staffing issues. Still remaining is a resolution of the final remediation plan. Currently the parties are attempting to resolve discrepancies in the joint experts' recommendations and the County's implementation of those recommendations. Counsel agrees that although

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 18 of 25

11/12/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014
11/21/2014
12/11/2014 12/15/2014 12/16/2014

issues remain, they are not insurmountable. Per the request of counsel, the Court SETS a further Telephonic Status Conference for Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 9:00 am before Judge McAuliffe. No later than November 12, 2014, the parties shall file a status report updating the court on the status of negotiations, including but not limited to, the County's response as to whether they will implement all or some of the joint experts' recommendations. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/16/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
93 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
94 PROPOSED ORDER re Order After Hearing by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
95 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/19/2014: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
96 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: On November 19, 2014, the Court held another telephonic status conference to discuss the parties' coordinated efforts to reach a final resolution in this matter. The parties are nearing the end of their settlement negotiations with only a few issues remaining. The County is currently in the process of determining whether the County's third party healthcare provider will be able to fully implement Plaintiffs' proposed remedial plan without additional contract negotiations. If further contract negotiations must take place, an amended contract is subject to final approval by the Board of Supervisors. Counsel also began discussing the proposed plan for caring for mentally ill prisoners housed in the segregation unit at the jail, but discussion on that issue was tabled until a later date. In the interim, the parties agreed to submit a stipulation to the Court agreeing that Defendants would complete a review of Plaintiffs' proposed remedial plan and submit a response to Plaintiffs on or before December 5, 2014. The Court set a further Telephonic Status Conference for Monday, December 15, 2014 at 9:00am before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. No later than December 10, 2014, the parties shall file a status report updating the Court on the status of the remedial plan and whether the Board of Supervisors will need to approve an amended contract with Corizon. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/19/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
97 ORDER AFTER Hearing. On November 19, 2014, the parties appeared through counsel for a telephonic status conference on the progress of settlement negotiations. Having heard the positions of the parties and good cause appearing therefore in order to assure timely resolution of the negotiations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before December 5, 2014, Defendant shall serve on Plaintiffs counsel a written response to Plaintiffs proposed Remedial Plan. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the next telephonic status conference shall be held on December 15, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint status conference statement on or before December 11, 2014. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/21/2014. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
98 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
99 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/15/2014: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Kusamura, W) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
100 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) At the parties' request, the Court held another status conference to discuss the progress of final settlement negotiations in this matter. The Court declined to set final settlement deadlines, but the parties agreed to make all practical efforts to finalize their negotiations and present their final remedial plan to the board of supervisors. In the interim, Plaintiffs counsel will begin an informal monitoring process of already implemented changes at the jail. The Court set a further Telephonic Status Conference for Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:00am

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 19 of 25

01/28/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
03/13/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015
04/08/2015 04/14/2015 04/14/2015
04/22/2015

before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. On or before January 28, 2015, the parties shall file a status report indicating the parties progress and relevant updates from the Board of Supervisors, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/16/2014. (Kusamura, W) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
101 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
102 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/2/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
103 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) A status conference was held to discuss the progress of settlement negotiations. The parties have made progress toward completing the settlement, but need additional time to finalize the agreements. A further telephonic status conference will be held on March 18, 2015 at 9:00 AM before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. On or before March 13, 2015, the parties shall file a status report indicating the parties' progress and relevant updates. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/2/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
104 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
105 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/18/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel, Donald Specter appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel, Michael Woods appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
106 MINUTE ORDER ***TEXT Only***: At the status conference, the parties updated the Court on settlement negotiations. The parties will continue to negotiate. At the next status conference, the parties will either advise the Court that an agreement has been reached or, if the case has not settled, a date for a settlement conference will be set. Counsel were advised that the personal appearance of all parties will be required at any settlement conference that may be set in the future. A further telephonic status conference will be held on April 14, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. On or before April 8, 2015, the parties shall file a status report outlining the parties' settlement efforts and relevant updates. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/18/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
107 JOINT STATUS REPORT by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
108 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/14/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
109 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY): A status conference was held on April 14, 2015. The parties continue to finalize the settlement agreement in this case. Another telephonic status conference will be held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. at which time the parties will advise the Court on the status of settlement negotiations. In the interim, the parties shall coordinate with Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman to set up a tentative date for a settlement conference during the week of May 4th in the event that settlement negotiations are not successful and Court intervention becomes necessary. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/14/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
110 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/22/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 20 of 25

04/22/2015
05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/29/2015 06/02/2015 06/02/2015 06/04/2015 06/04/2015
06/05/2015 06/08/2015

111 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY): A status conference was held on April 22, 2015. The parties have reached a final settlement agreement that awaits approval of the Board of Supervisors. Another telephonic status conference will be held onThursday, June 4, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.at which time the parties will advise the Court on the action taken by the Board of Supervisors and set dates for the preliminary approval of a class settlement, if needed. On or before May 28, 2015, the parties shall file a status report indicating the relevant updates from the Board of Supervisors and proposed dates for the joint motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/22/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
112 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Attorney Specter, Donald added. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Specter ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement)(Specter, Donald) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
113 MOTION for ATTORNEY FEES by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Motion Hearing set for 7/10/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
114 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
115 NOTICE of Status Report by Dawn Singh. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
116 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): In light of the joint motion for preliminary approval of the consent decree (Doc. 112), the June 4, 2015 Status Conference is Vacated. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/28/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
117 PROPOSED ORDER re Protective Order by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
118 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): the Court received communications from the parties AND the TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE is placed back on calendar for June 4, 2015 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/2/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
119 PROTECTIVE ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/2/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
120 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/4/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
121 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): On June 4, 2015, the Court held a status conference to discuss: (1) dates for the preliminary approval of class settlement and the final fairness hearing under Rule 23; (2) the disclosure of information related to settlement; and (3) the need for the Court to ascertain whether the proposed settlement class satisfies Rule 23 despite the parties stipulation that a class exists for the purposes of settlement. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). In light of the discussions, on or before June 28, 2015, counsel shall supplement their briefing and proposed findings and recommendations for the preliminary approval of settlement. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/4/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
122 REQUEST for Seal Documents and Declaration of Michael Woods In Support by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
123 ORDER Granting Joint Request to SEAL Documents (Doc. 122). Directing Clerk to File Documents Under Seal. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 21 of 25

06/08/2015 06/17/2015 06/17/2015 06/30/2015
07/01/2015
07/01/2015
07/02/2015
07/09/2015
07/21/2015 07/24/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015

6/8/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
124 SEALED EVENT (Robles, S) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
125 SUPPLEMENT by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh re 112 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
126 PROPOSED ORDER re Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement re 112 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
127 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): at the Courts request and parties agreement − a Telephonic STATUS CONFERENCE is set for Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel shall make arrangements and have a one line conference call, with ALL counsel on the line, and shall initiate the call at the designated time. After all parties are on the line, the call should then be placed to Judge McAuliffe's chambers at (559)499−5789. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/30/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
128 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/1/2015: STATUS CONFERENCE held. Brief discussions with counsel concerning their settlement and proposed consent decree. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter, appeared by telephone − present. Defendants Counsel Michael Woods, appeared by telephone − present. Court Reporter/CD Number: in chambers, off record. (Herman, H) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
129 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations, each counsel shall file of a statement of non−opposition, as this will shorten the objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/1/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
130 JOINT STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Quentin Hall to 129 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that re 112 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed by Dawn Singh, Quentin Hall, Brian Keith Murphy, Shawn Gonzales, Robert Merryman. referred to Judge O'Neill;. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
131 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) Based on the Findings and Recommendations issued on 7/1/2015, document 129 , the hearing scheduled for 7/10/2015 on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, document 112 , is VACATED. Consistent with the Findings and Recommendations, the hearing scheduled for 7/10/2015 on the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, document 113 , is CONTINUED to 9/28/2015 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Minute Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/9/2015. (Rooney, M) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
132 ORDER ADOPTING 129 Findings and Recommendations In Full, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/21/2015. (Marrujo, C) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
133 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Plaintiff Shawn Gonzales to 129 Findings and Recommendations. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
134 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Jimmy Buford. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
135 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Matthew G. Messick. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
136 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Juan Alvarado. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
137 OBJECTIONS to Settlement (Hellings, J) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 22 of 25

08/11/2015 08/20/2015 08/21/2015
08/24/2015
08/24/2015
08/27/2015 08/28/2015 08/28/2015
08/28/2015
08/28/2015 08/28/2015
08/28/2015 08/31/2015
09/01/2015 09/02/2015 09/03/2015 09/04/2015 09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/08/2015
09/09/2015
09/10/2015
09/10/2015
09/10/2015 09/11/2015 09/14/2015 09/14/2015

138 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Ronnie Azevedo. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
140 OBJECTIONS by Robert L. Morris. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
139 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Jared Michael Ward. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
141 OBJECTION to Settlement by Elaine K. Villareal. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
151 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Elaine Villareal and Kelly McKinney. (Attachments: # 1 IFP Application)(Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
142 OBJECTION to Settlement by Glen Champ. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
143 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by David Estrada. (Lundstrom, T) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
144 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Rory D. Jordan. (Lundstrom, T) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
145 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Georgina McGee. (Lundstrom, T) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
146 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Daniel Trebas. (Lundstrom, T) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
147 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Elaine K. Villareal. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
148 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Kelly McKinney. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
149 **MAINTAINED IN PAPER** OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Nyree Dawn Bernard. (Hellings, J) (Main Document 149 replaced on 9/10/2015) (Martin−Gill, S). (Entered: 09/01/2015)
150 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Ronnie Azevedo. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
153 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Dennis Reynolds. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
152 DECLARATION of Tom Gattie. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
154 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Dustin Callison. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
155 OBJECTIONS to Settlement. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
156 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Benjamin Goss. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
157 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Asatour Nagapetin. (Jessen, A) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
159 OBJECTIONS to the Settlement by Jezrell L. Crawford. (Marrujo, C) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
158 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): "In light of the procedural posture of this case, the numerous objections, and that Findings and Recommendations will have to be issued on the pending motions, the parties may wish to reconsider consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Consent would permit more efficient handling of the case through the remaining issues." signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/9/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
160 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Calvin Simpson. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
161 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Jezrell Crawford. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
166 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Roxanne Vindiola. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
162 OBJECTIONS to Settlement, by Mike Starrett. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
164 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Joseph Varrella. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
165 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by David Estrada. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 23 of 25

09/14/2015 09/14/2015 09/14/2015 09/15/2015 09/21/2015
09/21/2015
09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/28/2015
10/08/2015
10/12/2015 10/28/2015
10/30/2015 11/02/2015
11/02/2015 11/03/2015
11/10/2015

167 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Martin Gaona. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
168 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Jezrell Crawford. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
169 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Elaine Villareal. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
163 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Gary Thompson. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
170 MOTION to APPROVE CONSENT JUDGMENT and Attorneys' Fees by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2015 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Knapp ISO of Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Class Action Settlement)(Specter, Donald) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
171 JOINDER by County of Fresno in re 170 MOTION to APPROVE CONSENT JUDGMENT and Attorneys' Fees filed by Dawn Singh, Quentin Hall, Brian Keith Murphy, Shawn Gonzales, Robert Merryman. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
173 OBJECTIONS to Settlement by Jezrell Leavel Crawford. (Gonzalez, R) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
172 NOTICE by Gregory Ell Sheehee. (Gonzalez, R) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
174 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe: Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Attorney Fees Hearing held on 9/28/2015. Matter was argued and submitted. Court Order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Donald Specter & Kelly Knapp Defendants Counsel Michael Woods Court Reporter: Karen Hooven. (Kusamura, W) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
175 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Docs. 113 and 170). Referred to Judge O'Neill; within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. The parties are advised that if they do not object these Recommendations, each counsel shall file of a statement of non−opposition, as this will shorten the objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the District Judge. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/7/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
176 STATEMENT of Objection to Finding re PLRA Rate and Non−Opposition to Overall Recommendations of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff Quentin Hall. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2015)
177 MOTION to INTERVENE to Move to Unseal by Dominic Hanna. Attorney Navarro, Robert added. Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2015 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Navarro, Robert) Modified on 11/3/2015 (Kusamura, W). (Entered: 10/28/2015)
178 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE., attorney Agnes Akabogu Williams terminated (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
179 ORDER Adopting in Full the 175 Findings and Recommendations Granting Approval of the Class Settlement and Granting in Full Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/15. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
180 JUDGMENT dated *11/2/15* pursuant to order (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
182 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) The 177 MOTION to INTERVENE to Move to Unseal has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Motion Hearing currently set for 12/9/2015 before Judge O'Neill is VACATED and Re−set for 12/11/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/3/2015. (Kusamura, W) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
183 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): The Court is in receipt of potential intervenor Dominic Hanna's motion to intervene and move to unseal the expert reports in this

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 24 of 25

11/18/2015 11/25/2015 12/03/2015 12/09/2015
12/11/2015
12/19/2015 12/22/2015 01/08/2016 01/14/2016 01/16/2016 02/01/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/10/2016

matter. (Doc. 177). On November 2, 2015, the Court entered the parties' proposed consent decree, judgment was entered, and this case is now closed. Courts are generally hesitant to allow intervention in closed cases. Thus, in light of the procedural posture of this case, the Court orders Dominic Hanna to submit supplemental briefing, no later than 12:00PM, Friday, November 20, 2015, addressing whether his motion is timely and whether the Court should permit intervention after the existing parties have entered into a consent decree and the case closed. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/10/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
184 MEMORANDUM by Dominic Hanna in SUPPORT of 177 MOTION to INTERVENE to Move to Unseal. (Navarro, Robert) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
185 OPPOSITION by County of Fresno to 177 MOTION to INTERVENE to Move to Unseal. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
186 RESPONSE by Dominic Hanna to 185 Opposition to Motion. (Navarro, Robert) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
187 MINUTE ORDER (TEXT Only): Intervenor by Dominica Hanna's Motion to Intervene to Move to Unseal (Doc. 177) currently set for hearing on 12/11/2015 at 9:00am before Judge McAuliffe has been VACATED. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 78), the Court will take the motion under submission. MOTION SUBMITTED. If the Court determines that a hearing will be necessary following review of the parties papers, a hearing will be set by the Court. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/9/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
188 ORDER DENYING Dominic Hanna's Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records (Doc. 177). (1) Hannas Motion to Intervene for the limited purpose of filing a Motion to Unseal is hereby DENIED as MOOT; (2) To the extent Hannas motion seeks an order unsealing the expert reports of: (1) Dr. Michael Puisis regarding Fresno County Jails medical program, (2) Richard Hayward, Ph.D., regarding Fresno County Jails mental health program, and (3) David Rardin, regarding Fresno County Jails Operations Review, the motion is DENIED. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/11/2015. (Herman, H) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
189 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 188 Order on Motion to Intervene,, and Motion to Unseal by Dominic Hanna. (Navarro, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2015)
190 OPPOSITION by County of Fresno to 189 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 188 Order on Motion to Intervene,, and Motion to Unseal. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
191 ORDER For Supplemental Briefing, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/8/2016. (Filing Deadline: 1/15/2016) (Fahrney, E) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
192 OPPOSITION by County of Fresno to 189 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 188 Order on Motion to Intervene,, and Motion to Unseal. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
193 RESPONSE by Dominic Hanna to 191 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings, 192 Opposition to Motion. (Navarro, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2016)
194 MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Dominic Hannna's 189 Motion for Reconsideration of 188 Order Denying Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/1/2016. (Hanna's motion to unseal the expert reports is DENIED and his motion to intervene is DENIED AS MOOT. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 189) is DENIED.) (Gaumnitz, R) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
195 PROPOSED ORDER re Appointment of Court Expert by Quentin Hall. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
196 SUBSTITUTION of ATTORNEY − PROPOSED, submitted by County of Fresno. (Woods, Michael) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
197 ORDER for Substitution of Attorney 196 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/9/16. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 02/10/2016)

Case: 1:11-cv-2047 As of: 11/27/2018 01:31 PM PST 25 of 25

02/11/2016
02/12/2016 04/04/2016 04/07/2016 04/11/2016 06/16/2016 03/06/2017 03/07/2017
03/07/2017 09/27/2018 10/03/2018

198 ORDER on Joint Request for Appointment of Court Expert, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/10/16: The Court APPROVES the appointment of Dr. Michael Puisis as Court expert to be paid by Defendant in the amount of $295 an hour for work performed and $142.50 an hour for time spent traveling. Defendant will also reimburse him for reasonable travel expenses. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
199 USCA CASE NUMBER 16−70423/Dominic Hanna v. USDC−CAFR, regarding Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
200 USCA ORDER as to USCA Case Number 16−70423: Accordingly, the petition is denied. (Verduzco, M) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
201 PROPOSED ORDER re Appointment of Court Expert by Shawn Gonzales, Quentin Hall, Brian Keith Murphy, Dawn Singh. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
202 Joint Request for Appointment of Court Expert and ORDER, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/11/16. (Marrujo, C) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
203 NOTICE of Change in Counsel by Quentin Hall. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
204 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Alison Hardy on behalf of Quentin Hall. Attorney Hardy, Alison added. (Hardy, Alison) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
205 CLERK'S NOTICE re 204 Notice of Appearance: Please disregard filing 204 . Attorney's office called stating document was filed in error. (Marrujo, C) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
206 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Alison Hardy on behalf of Quentin Hall. (Hardy, Alison) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
207 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Attorneys' Fees by Quentin Hall. (Hardy, Alison) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
208 ORDER on Stipulation for Attorneys' Fees 207 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/3/2018. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

 
 US Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections
JAIL &
JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
BILLY WASSON &
BILL CROUT CONSULTANTS NOVEMBER 6-10, 2006

US Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections
Disclaimer
This technical assistance activity was funded by the Jails Division of the National Institute of Corrections. The Institute is a Federal agency established to provide assistance to strengthen state and local correctional agencies by creating more effective, humane, safe and just correctional services. The resource persons who provided the on site technical assistance did so through a cooperative agreement, at the request of the Fresno County, and through the coordination of the National Institute of Corrections. The direct onsite assistance and the subsequent report are intended to assist the agency in addressing issues outlined in the original request and in efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the agency. The contents of this document reflect the views of Mr. Billy Wasson and Bill Crout, Consultants. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the National Institute of Corrections.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

2

Fresno County

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHAT LED UP TO THIS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST?

4

THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

4

FRESNO COUNTY

5

COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES

12

PRETRIAL PROGRAMS

23

COURTS

24

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

25

PUBLIC DEFENDER

25

PROBATION FRESNO COUNTY CASELOAD

25

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

29

WHAT DOES WORK/WHAT DOESN’T WORK

29

REVIEWS ON RECIDIVISM

30

CRIMINAL SANCTIONS VS. TREATMENT

30

OBSERVATIONS 38

RECOMMENDATIONS 41

A SYSTEM WIDE STRATEGY TO MANAGE JAIL USE

44

CONTROLLING THE SYSTEM

46

UNDERSTANDING JAIL CROWDING

47

THOSE INTERVIEWED IN THIS PROJECT

50

OTHER RESOURCES FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER

51

APPENDIX

52

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

3

Fresno County

WHAT LED UP TO THE REQUEST FOR THIS ASSESSMENT?

Fresno is a rapidly growing county and has been releasing prisoners from its jail facilities per a Federal Court order when the population reaches 90% of its capacity. The county is faced with the prospect of expanding its jail system to meet the increasing demands. In an initial letter dated August 2006, the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer requested a local system assessment to determine the county’s short and long term needs and the factors that are driving the demand for jail space. In addition they requested assistance to identify the physical requirements of the jail that they would need.
A letter from the county dated September 20, 2006 to NIC was amended to include the signatures of the District Attorney, Presiding Judge, Sheriff, Chief Probation Officer, Public Defender, County Administrator and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors.
On October 10, 2006, after considerable discussion at formal Board of Supervisor sessions, the Board approved a significant increase in staffing to the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation offices. The strategy approved was to increase positions in these agencies to lessen the processing delays at the pre-trial stage of the system and re-instate a pre-trial release/supervision program. All of these changes came after an analysis revealed that the jail population was made up of 75% pre-trial detainees.

ABOUT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The Assessment process used by this consultant team, through the course of interviews (interview list at the end of this report) and publicly available data from the system and community, documents how the system is operating from a process referred to as “decision point analysis”.

The criminal justice community and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) over a period of years have learned that the criminal justice system workload is driven by at least the following seven decision points (outlined in more detail later in this report) in the system:

1. Decision to arrest; 2. Decision to detain pretrial; 3. Decision to release from pre-trial detention; 4. Decision to prosecute; 5. Adjudication outcome; 6. Sentencing decision; and 7. Sentence modification decisions

The consultants, based on the interviews and material gathered give an overview

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

4

Fresno County

of the system centered on these seven decisions and offer suggestions for what the officials and community might consider in changes intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.
In addition the team has toured the county jail facilities and done an assessment of their condition and usable status as jailing resources for the county.

FRESNO COUNTY

Fresno County is located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, a rich agricultural area in the center of the state. About half of the county’s pollution is from agricultural and industrial related activity. Agriculture, construction and manufacturing employ about 1/3 of all workers in the county.

POPULATION GROWTH

1980

1990

507,005

667,490

Source: U.S. Census quick facts 2000

2000 799,407

2006 884,000

1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

1980

1990

2000

2005

FRESNO COUNTY ETHIC MAKEUP

White

37.9%

Black

5.7%

Indian or Native American
Hispanic
Asian
Source: U.S. Census 2000 quick facts

1.9% 46.1%
8.9%

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

5

Fresno County

White
Black
Indian or Native American Hispanic
Asian

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (%)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

10.7%

11.6%

11.8%

10.5%

9.0%

6.5%*

Source: California Employment Development Department, *Governor’s press release 10/20/06

12 10
8 6 4 2 0
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Almost a quarter (23%) of Fresno County’s residents live below the poverty level; that’s nearly double the rate of California (14%) and the U.S. (12%)
Source: 2000 U.S. Census

14% 5%

28%

Services Governm ent Retail Trade

8%

Agriculture

Manufacturing

14%

21%

Construction and Mining Remaining Sectors

10%

So urce: State of Califo rnia Emplo yment Develo pment Department, 2004

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

6

Fresno County

49% of the work force works in the services or government sectors of the economy.

Year Crime Rate per 10,000
Totals

1995 1142.7
8617

CRIME IN FRESNO COUNTY VIOLENT CRIMES

1997 961.2

1999 798.8

2001 775.9

7485

6344

6378

Source: California Criminal Justice Statistics Center

2003 590.7
5053

1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0 1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2005 624.7
5574

Year Crime Rate per 10,000
Totals

1995 4421.4
33342

CRIME IN FRESNO COUNTY PROPERTY CRIMES

1997 3147.2

1999 2219.0

2001 2783.9

24507

17623

22884

Source: California Criminal Justice Statistics Center

2003 2528.2
21626

2005 2516.1
22452

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

7

Fresno County

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Violent and property crime trends, similar to national trends, have gone down over the past 6 years. In our interview with the Fresno Police Department their data through November 8 for 2006 shows a 9.4% decrease in total crimes (12% decrease for violent and 9% decrease for property).

The Fresno Police Department 2005 annual report indicates that 2005 culminated a “34 year low in crime” for the City of Fresno.

COUNTY BUDGET OVERVIEW:

The following charts, taken from materials supplied by the County’s Budget Officer, give a multi-year picture of the total county budget and then a focus on the public safety share of that budget. Like most county governments the public safety costs are growing faster than other services in the county.
COUNTY BUDGET

$1,000

ADOPTED 2004-07 SUMMARY BY SYSTEM (in millions)

$900

$800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0 04-05 05-06 06-07
Fiscal & Admin

04-05 05-06 06-07
Human Services

Countywide Revenues

04-05 05-06 06-07
Internal Services

04-05 05-06 06-07
Library

Department Revenues

04-05 05-06 06-07
Justice

04-05 05-06 06-07
Land Use

04-05 05-06 06-07
Capital Projects

Special Revenue/ISF/Other Funds

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

8

Fresno County

SHARE OF NET COUNTY COST

350

(MILLIONS)

10.72%

300

10.95%

250

3.75%

9.05%

200

150

100

32%

31%

31%

30%

29%

50

10%

10%

4% 3% .5%

6% 3% 1%

0

2002-03

2003-04

Total NCC Sheriff NCC
Source: County Administrator’s office

Probation NCC

11% 5% 3% 1%
2004-05 District Attorney NCC

11% 6% 3% 1%

11%
5% 3% 1%

2005-06

2006-07 Recommended

Public Defender NCC PA/PG - Coroner NCC

JUSTICE SHARE OF NET COUNTY COST

(MILLIONS)
350

10.72%

300
10.95%

250

3.75%

9.05%

200
150
52%
100
50

52%
+4.64%

55%
+15.17%

57%
+13.75%

55%
+7.47%

0 2002-03

2003-04

Source: County Administrator’s office

2004-05 Total NCC

2005-06 Justice NCC

2006-07 Recommended

Fresno like other counties across the country is seeing an ever increasing portion of its discretionary funds going to the justice costs of the county. The above costs

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

9

Fresno County

do not include the supplemental increases to the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation Department approved in October 2006.

Serious issues facing
Fresno County According to One Voice 2006 Publication

RAPID POPULATION GROWTH
From 1980-2000 Fresno Counties’s population grew by 56.4%, California by 43.1%, and the United States by 24.2%.
During the three decades, 2000-2030, the County’s population is expected to increase by 75.4% compared to California’s 42.0% and the nation’s 29.2%.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, State of California Department of Finance Central California Futures Institute

TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Large population growth in the County is expected to create traffic problems.
Average number of daily vehicle trips in the County: 2005 2.9 million 2025 4.4 million (a 52% increase from 2005)
Average daily commute time: 1990 19.1 minutes 2000 20.8 minutes (a 9% increase since 1990)
Drive alone commuters:
74.2% Fresno County
71.8% California
71.8% United States

Sources: Council of Fresno County Governments, 2000 U.S. Census

Lack of transit rider-ship:
Only 1.7% of Fresno County workers use public transportation to get to their jobs. This compares to 5.1% of California worker s and 4.7% of the nation’s workers.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

10

Fresno County

UNHEALTHFUL AIR QUALITY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data shows that the air quality in Fresno County ranks as among the worst in the nation. Since 1999, the San Joaquin Valley has led the nation in violations of the eight-hour health standard for ozone (smog). The County’s weather and topography create an ideal setting for the formation and retention of pollutants. Smog is created during the County’s many hot summer days. Then the pollutants are trapped between the surrounding mountain ranges with little opportunity to escape or dissipate due to our infrequent and low-speed winds.

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board,

LANGUAGE: PROBLEMS OF CHILDREN

Of Fresno County’s c hildren aged 5-17 ye ars, 6.2% speak English “not well” or “not at all.” T his compares to 5.8% of California’s 5-17 y ear olds and the 2.5% of the nation’s 5-17 year olds.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

LACK OF EDUCATION
• In 2000, 18.3% of the County’s population aged 25 years and older had less than a 9th grade education compared to California’s 11.5% and the United States’ 7.5%. Nearly a third, 32.5%, of the 25-yearand-older population did not graduate from high school or receive a GED compared to 23.2% for California and 19.6% for the nation.

• Four of Fresno County’s cities rank among the five California cities with

the highest percent of the adult population (aged 25 years and older)

with no high school diploma or GED.

In all of these cities , San

Joaquin, Huron, Mendot a, and Orange Cove, over 75% of the adult

population did not complete high school.

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
• County unemployment rates have gr adually increa sed from 9.0% in 1980, to 11.6% in 1990, to 14.3% in 2000. In comparison, Calif ornia’s rates have been 6.8%, 5.8%, and 4.9%, for the same years.
• Six of Fresno County’s cities rank among the ten California cities with the highest unemploy ment rate (Mendota 32% unemployment, Huron 29%, San Joaquin 28%, Parlier 27%, Orange Cov e 25%, Reedley 23%)
Sources: State of California Employment Development Department U.S. Bureau of the Census

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

11

Fresno County

POVERTY

Year 2000 Overall Poverty levels:

Fresno County 22.9% was living below the poverty level

California

14.2%

United States

12.4%

Year 2000 Poverty levels for school age children (5-17 years)

Fresno County 31.3% was living below the poverty level

California

19.1%

United States

16.0%

Four of Fresno County’s cities (San Joaquin, Mendota, Parlier, and Orange Cove) have the lowest per capita income of all of California’s 474 cities.

Per Capita Income: Fresno County California United States

$15,495 $22,711 $21,587

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES
The jailing system in Fresno County is comprised of four facilities, listed below.

COUNTY JAIL INVENTORY

Facility

Population Cap

• Main Jail 1064

2005

ADP Age

930 1989

• Satellite Jail

300

172

1986

• North Annex 1728

1248

1993*

• South Annex

686

581

*the North Annex completed a 1296 bed expansion in 2002.

1947

Each of the three main facilities (does not include the Satellite Jail that is 2 miles from the Main Jail) is connected through a basement tunnel providing access between facilities and to the Court House.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

12

Fresno County

JAIL WORKLOAD SUMMARY

Year

2000

2001

2002

Bookings 39041 37838 38941

ALOS

21.0

22.4

20.6

ADP

2249

2324

2196

Total

ADP

1778

1835

1833

Pre-trial

ADP

471

489

363

Sentenced

ADP

225

239

216

Females

Population 2382

2482

2482

Capacity

Source: California Standards Authority Jail Profile Survey

ALOS: average length of stay of an inmate in days

ADP: average daily population

2003 38432 26.1 2745
2338
407
305
3346

2004 40333 26.5 2925
2267
658
350
3346

2005 43175 23.8 2811
2276
535
331
3706

44000 43000 42000 41000 40000 39000 38000 37000 36000 35000
2000

2002

2004

Bookings

Bookings seem to be sky-rocking even though the crime rate is falling in most crime categories. The emphasis on special crime/gang teams, according to those interviewed is the cause of this increase.

27 26.5
26 25.5
25 24.5
24 23.5
23 22.5
22 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

ALOS

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

13

Fresno County

The length of stay increase since 2002 is directly related to the increases in beds without a pre-trial release program and a bond schedule that, according to most people interviewed, is very high and does not realistically permit those arrested to get a bondsman or post cash bail.

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

ADP

Steady growth in average daily population since the 2002 opening of the 1296 beds and the closure of the pre-trial release program.

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total ADP Pre-trial ADP Sentenced ADP

Sentenced ADP has been relatively flat but the pre-trial continues to grow over the six years.

BOOKINGS BY GENDER-10/6/2006

• Male • Female • Total

3037

87%

455

13%

3492

100%

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

14

Fresno County

M ale Fem ale

POPULATION BY DISPOSITION-10/6/2006

• Pre-Trial 2619 • Sentenced

75%

873

25%

Pre-Trial Sentenced

OVERALL JAIL STATUS-10/6/2006

• Jail Capacity

3778

• Available for occupancy

• Inmate population count

• Occupancy % 92.48%

3776 3492

BOOKING BY RACE - 2005

White

11274

Black

6814

Hispanic

23277

Asian

1241

Other

572

Source: Jail automated data base

26% 16% 54% 2.8% 1.2%

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

15

Fresno County

White Black Hispanic Asian Other

Except for the disproportionate number of Black inmates (5.7% of the General Population vs. 16% of the Jail at Booking) the jail seems to mirror the overall general population of the county at this time.

The jail uses the NIC objective based classification model and in a snapshot of the population on November 7, 2006 the population looked as follows:

Gender Male Female Total

Minimum 1247 306 1553/60%

Medium 735 70 805/31%

Maximum 213 8 221/9%

Total 2195 384 2579

Minimum Medium Maximum

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

16

Fresno County

AGENCY ARREST COUNTS BY AGENCY: 2005 AT BOOKING

Agency

Number

% of Total

Fresno County Sheriff

11727

27%

Fresno P.D.

12960

30%

Clovis P.D.

1288

3%

Multi-Agency Gang Unit

321

California Highway Patrol

2636

6%

U.S. Marshal

659

*

State Parole

771

1.7%

Sanger P.D.

273

*

Probation

905

2%

Parlier P.D.

222

*

Reedley P.D.

351

.8%

Selma P.D.

222

*

Tri-County Transport

547

1%

Huron P.D.

179

*

Bondsman

166

*

Others/Misc.

10521

24%

Total

43175

100%

Source: Jail automated data base * all others 4.5%

As discussed in all the interviews, the Fresno Police Department, as the largest jurisdiction in the county, is the largest user of the booking unit. The City of Fresno, using 2000 Census Data, is 53% of the county population so to make up 30% of the bookings is not a disproportionate share of the incoming workload.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

17

Fresno County

Number of Bookings

2006 Bookings

14000

13196

12000

10000

8000

6000 5224

4000 2000
0

1967 1207
117 0 47 46

149221 62 0 166248250221 41 0 9 46 16 0 18 31 41 7 12 4 498 5 517420425129

FRESNO SHERIFF'S DEPT SFITEACMDTAMEIELIRCGCFCDAAAREOLRLLAIINRUBTFFTINNGIUPDOEOMOAIARREERRRBTNUSEIPOANNNUSICCIAAALOBFRAEAOUDNCRACNMOILETTTDYAMSOABOSRILOARLTIMOTRNHOAFMCONUAEISSURPNEOUNACNIKTSFTONLNHIUATEDINMIOCTIEDFTCHVANRURMMOETCUTSARELFEOK'KPUFGSEERENUANOYTNUEPABSDASHOCEAABNSAARRFTSNIUTSSEIETRAETLLCLUABRREIINTRDNYJEIESWVTAADARRVPLOOSRUULLNZHGCIGMEURULOEFTTEOEGGALVNERAOAGEEATFBGIMSVEROORLRENRREIRMTTRTNOAARSNHTAARGAYVRSIIEAIACDNIINEINCIIOPOPPPOPNPEPPPPEPPPCGTPLHTCCRENCGCDYSENTEDEDDYNPDDYSDYRSDDDDDDSDEEY

The chart above is for the first six months of 2006 and shows the impact of the largest jurisdiction, the City of Fresno, on all bookings.

The Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce is currently facilitating a task force of City and County officials examining the feasibility of a joint prisoner processing unit (currently Fresno City does a redundant booking at their offices) with the County Jail. In addition, separate task forces are examining evidence and property storage, a joint dispatch center and governance issues.

In a May 10, 2006 report by the consulting firm Management Partners Inc., portions relevant to “Joint Prisoner Processing”, highlights some of the issues in the county:

Page 16 of the report states:

“…To effectively accomplish single prisoner processing in the future…a larger facility will be needed…any addition needs to be in close proximity to the jail…” This consultant team certainly agrees with that statement and feels strongly that the booking unit should be not just in the “proximity” of the jail but part and parcel of the jail itself. The design, in addition to single and group holding cells, should embrace a open booking format found in most new generation jails today. An “open booking” format can best be described when you visualize most large emergency rooms at hospitals that have a staging area for incoming patients to wait until they can be processed. That same concept works in jails as well; the

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

18

Fresno County

vast majority of prisoners are compliant and can be staged in a waiting area adjacent to telephone and a television viewing area awaiting bail review/booking. The few that are non-compliant (verbally or physically combative) are easily detected and are isolated from the rest of the area.

POPULATION BY PART I OFFENSE TYPE

SNAPSHOT 11/06/2006

Crime Homicide

Number 47

Percentage 6.2%

Violent

Manslaughter

6

Rape

23

Robbery Assault Burglary Theft Auto Theft

124

16%

171

23%

49%

219

29%

2

165

22%

Total

757

Source: Jail population data base

100%

Property 51%

Of the most serious crimes, Part I offenses, the jail is evenly split between violent and property offenders.

COMPARISON OF FRESNO COUNTY TO SELECTED JURISDICTIONS IN CALIFORNIA

County

Population # of Beds*

Rate

ADP

Rate

San Bernardino 1,946,202

5,538

2.846

5442

2.797

Riverside

1,877,000

2,884

1.536

3357

1.788

Santa Clara

1,759,585

4,166

2.367

4606

2.617

Alameda

1,507,500

4,294

2.847

3988

2.644

Sacramento

1,369,855

4,125

3.011

4165

3.020

Contra Costa

1,020,898

1,987

1.949

1640

1.606

Fresno

883,537

2,792

3.213

3228

3.652

Ventura

813,052

1,810

2.226

1767

2.173

San Francisco

799,263

2,144

2.683

1820

2.278

Kern

753,070

2,698

3.583

2288

3.039

San Mateo

723,453

818

1.131

1098

1.519

San Joaquin

663,333

1,333

2.010

1435

2.164

* The number of beds used here come from the California Corrections Standards Authority and

relate to “rated beds” versus the actual number of beds a county may have. In order to make a

fair comparison the data from every county was used from this single source.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

19

Fresno County

National Growth in Incarceration Rate*

Year

#Held in Jail

Incarceration Rate*

2005

747529

2.52

2004

713990

2.43

2003

691301

2.38

2002

665475

2.31

2001

631240

2.22

2000

621149

2.20

1995

507044

1.93

*# of jail inmates per 1000 persons U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

According to the American Corrections Association directory for 2005-07 there are 3,751 locally

operated jails in the United States.

Relative to other counties in California and the national incarceration rate, Fresno County has a high incarceration rate. Many of those interviewed were quick to point out that Fresno is the “birth place of the three strikes movement”.

RELEASES BY TYPE OF RELEASE 2005

Type of release

Number

Bond

6602

Probation release

5595

Released en-route

7645

No charges filed

3393*

Hold dropped

2336*

On Recognizance

4244

Time Served

4308

Case Dismissed

762*

Past time for Probable Cause
Past time to pick up

280* 133

Past time to File

2043*

Superior Court release

814

Sentence modified

24

Sentenced and released

445

Overcrowding release

2

Booked and released

35

Cash bail

68

Wrong defendant

256

% of Total 17% 14% 20% 9% 6% 11% 11% 2% .7%
* 5%
* * 1.1% * * * .7%

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

20

Fresno County

Escaped**

5

*

Hold dropped no signature Total

2* 38,992

* 100%

Source: Jail population data base * all other releases total 2.5% **these were “walk aways” from the Satellite Jail when inmates were on work details in the community.

The above data on releases shows some alarming dysfunction with the current legal system:

1. 23% (8816) of the releases, marked with a * above, were released because the Prosecutor failed to act on the case in some manner;
2. Only 6670 were able to Bond or make Cash Bail (17%) this is a reflection of a Bond Schedule that is too high.
2006 Releases

5000 4500 4000

3868

4661

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500

2575 1876
1376

1305

3209 1851

2766

1000

500

356

22 0

44

0

0 38

123 87

346

445

19

2 80 0

Number of Releases

Book and Release Case DismiBssoendd
Hold DCrPitoaaspttiNpPoPoTeainadssstCHmtO/nhoevlToTiatiedOrroSmCgimCcDaeregPerRistsontoc0hoaopwkFtiodlpCFBuiiPnUtleeeralieeplCdddey SReelnteeasnSceReedelndtbeeyaRanTnesilScdeeuemdaPpRerseMeEolreSionbederodraiarotfviisOu/eCoteednReddT Wrong DefEesncdaapnte Died

The above chart is for the first six months of 2006 and shows the percentage of releases by type. “Released enroute” reflects inmates released to a non-Fresno County custodial facility.

PRE-TRIAL SNAP-SHOT TIME SERVED TO DATE 10/12/2006

Days served to date 30 days or less 90 days or less 180 days or less

Number 285 1149 567

Percent of Total 11% 46% 23%

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

21

Fresno County

365 days or less Over 365 days
Totals
Source: Jail automated data base

306 208 2515

12% 8% 100%

30 days or le s s
90 days or le s s
180 days or le s s
365 days or le s s
Over 365 days

SENTENCED SNAP-SHOT SERVED TO DATE 10/12/2006

Days served to date 30 days or less 90 days or less 180 days or less 365 days or less Over 365 days Totals
Source: Jail automated data base

Number 23 284 351 7 0 665

Percent of Total 3% 43% 53% 1%
100%

Some conclusions from the time served to date data:

1. 43% of the Pre-trial population have been in custody longer than 180 days at the time of the snap-shot; this verifies the statements made to the Board of Supervisors that the pre-trial processing system of the local system is not working properly;
2. The Sentenced population numbers are relatively low; this combined with the high pre-trial and the release data showing credit for time served and release at the point of sentencing, it appears the defendants are paying their price as pre-trial defendants not as a sentenced inmate.
3. If it has not done so already, the jail or some other agency close to the process should assign staff to be “expeditors” of the cases and take the longest cases (time served to date) and work them on a daily basis to encourage the parties (Prosecution, Defense and Judge) to move the case.

Other observations about the jailing services in the county: 1. Using the financial information of the county, period ending 7/31/06, the jail cost center of the county is $50,719,133. This equates to a per day

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

22

Fresno County

prisoner cost for 2005 of $49.43 per bed day. This cost does not include any amortization of physical structures or building improvement costs. 2. Currently the state reimburses the county $47.29 for the housing of parole violators and the Parole agency uses an average daily population of 72 beds. When possible the county should renegotiate this rate upwards. 3. There has been local debate about whether to reduce the housing of Federal inmates through the Federal Marshal Contract. The agreement requires for the current year that the county provide a minimum of 260 beds; the average daily use has been above 400 beds. The Marshal pays $75/bed day for those beds. This consultant team does not recommend the reduction of the Federal Marshal use; the revenue can be used for alternative programs in the county.
PRETRIAL PROGRAMS
In July 2003 the Bureau of Justice Assistance published a report, “Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the 21st Century” by John Clark and D. Alan Henry (http://www.pretrial.org/pretrialsurvey.pdf).
Here are some excerpts from that report that are relevant to Fresno County:
• There were 200 respondents to the survey: 34% of Pretrial programs are operated by Probation, 27% by Jails, 24% by Courts.
• The American Bar Association and Association of Pretrial Service Agencies have published standards for these programs that call for the use of an objective risk assessment of offenders. Fewer than 1 in 4 programs use such objective tools. 42% combine subjective and objective factors and 35% use subjective criteria only.
• 48% of the programs reported that they have never validated their objective risk assessment instrument.
• 71% of the programs do not calculate re-arrest rates for those released.
• Programs that assess risk of pretrial misconduct in an exclusively subjective manner are more than twice as likely to have a jail population that exceeds its capacity than those that assess risk exclusively through an objective risk assessment.
A comprehensive pretrial screening process can serve this purpose of triage and the investment is justified if the other system components (Prosecution, Defense, Adjudication and Probation Supervision) have confidence in pretrial screening and agree to utilize and build upon the assessment information in their discretionary decisions.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

23

Fresno County

While on site this team supplied resource materials from Butte County, California and the State of Virginia on the development of a pre-trial screening tool and supervision program.
COURTS

The Superior Court operating in Fresno County has 45 Judicial Officers: • Nine Commissioners • 36 Judges, the state will add four new Judicial positions in 2007
The Court operates in two locations in downtown Fresno and five out lying courts. There are eleven trial courts in the total mix.
The Court spent the past year with a consultant to realign how it and where cases will be heard. Relative to the pre-trial crowding at the jail the court is going from two to five courts to do early processing of cases. This has been referred to as “vertical vs. horizontal” processing of the cases by prosecution and defense.

CRIMINAL TRIAL COURTS

FRESNO COUNTY

NEW CRIMINAL FILINGS

Year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total Case Filings Felonies

138136 144725 135533 129201 130752 10651 10717 11419 11481 10082

Misdemeanor 15378 14267 13643 13766 9755 Non-traffic

Misdemeanor 27595 27300 Traffic
Source: Judicial Council of California

26322

24036

22718

2004 206394
12268 13057
34957

2005 210563
13804 14009
35573

250000 200000 150000 100000
50000 0 1999 2001 2003 2005

Total Case Filings Felonies
Misdemeanor Non-Traffic Misdemeanor Traffic

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

24

Fresno County

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
The District Attorney for Fresno County took office in 2003; the office has 115 attorneys plus the addition of 15 positions on October 10, 2006.
The office is resisting what it feels is the Los Angeles experience that is creeping up the valley where cases get settled “cheaper and cheaper”. The view is that the move by the courts to a vertical process vs. the horizontal case system of the past will speed up the handling of cases but it will be more staff intensive for their office.
PUBLIC DEFENDER
Indigent defense is assigned to a county department, Public Defender, and conflict cases are assigned to a contract legal service, Alternative Defense.
The Public Defender has a total of 135 staff positions in the office and 72 of those are attorneys. In the October 10, 2006 action by the County Board of Supervisors, they received an additional 11 attorney positions. They currently receive 6000 cases per year and the felony caseload is 400-650 cases per attorney. The staff increase will allow them to reduce the work load to approximately 320 cases per attorney.
In a joint interview with the Public Defender representative and the Alternative Defense attorneys, they indicated that when a conflict case is determined it will mean another two week stay in jail because of the way in which the case is assigned by the court. The current process requires the court to officially remove the assigned attorney and appoint the new attorney and that will take an average of two weeks time to get that procedure approved. In a follow-up meeting with the county and Court the Court agreed to sign a resolution allowing for an expedited appointment of Alternative Council thus eliminating the two week delay.
PROBATION FRESNO COUNTY CASELOAD
Probation in California is a county operated system and in Fresno the 2005 annual report shows a continuum of sanctions:

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

25

Fresno County

The Probation Department in Fresno County is funded and supervised by the county but receives programmatic direction from the Superior Court. The agency is an adult and juvenile agency and recently opened a new juvenile detention complex a few miles from the downtown court house.

In the adult field unit there are 14 probation officers at this time and the October actions by the Board of Supervisors will add 6 officers to that unit. In addition there are 4 probation techs (work in the data entry in the banked caseloads). The agency has 4 banked caseload of 600-650 cases each; each of these caseloads has a probation officer and tech assigned to it.

ADULT PROBATION CASELOAD AND ACTIONS

Year Caseload

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 12305 12806 12548 11987 11777 10725

Felonies/% 8544/69 8672/68 8658/69 8072/67 7992/68 8336/78

Misdemeanors 3761 4134 3915 3915 3785 2389

Revoked

2539 3046 2696 3080

Source: California Department of Justice statistical profile

3915

4973

2005 11906 8918/75 2988 4602

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

26

Fresno County

Total Caseload

15000
10000
5000
0 1999

2001

2003

2005

Revoked

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0 1999

2001

2003

2005

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0 1999

2001

2003

2005

Felonies Misdemeanors

The agency currently does not use any risk/needs classification tools although historically it did use the Wisconsin risk and needs system at one time but abandoned it in the process of budget cutting a number of years ago.
The recent funding increases will allow the agency to take the following actions:
1. Increase the Honor Release Program (Pre-Trial Release) from a two staff program to a five staff operation by February of 2007. The target will be to reduce the pretrial population of the jail by 375 inmates. The program has been approved for electronic monitoring/home detention as well. The program is currently structured to make recommendations to the Court and the Court decides;
2. Divide the current sex offender caseload of 400 cases into two caseloads of 200 cases per officer;
3. Divide the gang caseload of 400 into two caseload of approximately 200 cases per officer;
4. Create a “youthful offender” caseload and in addition form a mental health caseload;
5. Divide the auto theft caseload.
The agency is aware and several interviews indicated that the probation department workload is excessive and because of that the program is not viewed as a credible program in the eyes of many.
This consultant team certainly agrees with the conclusion but the agency solution(s) can be improved in our view. The agency should pursue an

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

27

Fresno County

Evidenced Based Practice approach to redesigning the agency approach and workload.
While on site we were given a November 6, 2006 Draft memo from the Sheriff’s Association and the Chief Probation Officers Association addressed to Jim Tilton Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The memo was a draft of a comprehensive state-wide strategy to deal with crowding in prisons and jails.
The memo states:
“…It is anticipated that overcrowding and early release of convicted felons would be eliminated by:
1. Treating mentally ill offenders instead of just housing them; 2. Treating inmates who are substance abusers instead of just housing them; 3. Rehabilitating inmates to help them succeed once released and reduce
the rates of re-offending; 4. Providing better medical care; 5. Providing state-of-the-art facilities that will improve inmate and staff
safety.”
The memo goes on to propose a state funding plan and suggest it be modeled after the successful Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. I will quote from segments of the plan in the memo relevant to the Probation Department in Fresno County:
• “…The plan would require a department to identify the implementation of a validated risk and needs assessment tool (RNA) will assist the probation officer in determining the safety concerns the offenders present and the services they need to change behavior. The tool will assist in the appropriate use of banked caseloads.
• The plan would require a department to use services and programs to address drug treatment, mental health treatment, cognitive behavior skills and educational/vocational needs….”
“Proper assessment and supervision of offenders will enhance public safety, improve the repair of victims and hold offenders and officers more accountable. Additionally, proper supervision and support of the offender’s efforts to change will increase their social and emotional competency while increasing the cost effectiveness of services….”
With all of this in mind, this consultant team strongly recommends that the County and Court start now to realign the Probation department around an evidenced based strategy with objective risk based assessment being the foundation for both the pre-trial and post trial population. Since the Court is using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) tool for the Drug Court this should

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

28

Fresno County

probably be the tool adopted for the probation population. If it were me I would realign the resources in the Investigations section of the agency to include assessment with the LSI-R. Recent data indicates it takes 35-45 minutes to administer the LSI-R (2004 Topics in Community Corrections research article by Lowenkamp and Holsinger).
EVIDENCED BASED PRACTICE (EBP)
The California Chief Probation Officer Association in conjunction with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) recently sponsored training on Evidenced Based Practice (EBP) with the presenter being Dr. Ed. Latessa, University of Cincinnati. In light of that direction I have included a summary of the EBP strategy.
Recent research efforts, based on meta-analysis, have provided the criminal justice field with much needed information about how to better reduce offender recidivism (repeat criminal conduct). This research indicates that certain programs and intervention strategies, when applied to a variety of offender populations, reliably produce sustained reductions in recidivism. Unfortunately, few criminal justice agencies are using these effective interventions and their related concepts/principles.
The conventional approach to supervision in this country emphasizes individual accountability from offenders and their supervising officers without consistently providing either with the skills, tools, or resources that science indicates are necessary for risk and recidivism reduction. Despite the evidence that indicates otherwise, officers continue to be trained and expected to meet minimal contact standards which emphasize rates of contacts. These standards largely ignore the opportunities these contacts provide for reinforcing behavioral change.
The research has indicated a “Works” and “Not Works” list of programs currently in use in the country:
WHAT DOESN’T WORK
• Direct deterrence efforts • Physical challenge programs • Military models of discipline and physical fitness (Boot Camps) • Intensive supervision without treatment • Non-action oriented group counseling • Client-centered, non-directive therapy • Approaches of non-skill education

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

29

Fresno County

WHAT DOES WORK
• Target criminogenic risk and need • Cognitive/behav ioral in nature • Boot Camps that incorporate evidenced based programming as a part of
the curriculum, such as cognitive behavioral programming like the Fresno model • Incorporate social-learning practices • Balanced integrated approach to sanctions and interventions • Incorporate the principle of responsivity • Therapeutic integrity
REVIEWS ON RECIDIVISM
• Not a single reviewer of studies of the effects of official punishment (custody, mandatory arrests, probation, increased surveillance, etc.) has found consistent evidence of reduced recidivism.
• At least 40% and up to 60% of the studies of correctional treatment services reported reduced recidivism rates relative to various comparison conditions in every published review.
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS VS. TREATMENT

The above research summaries (source: Dr. Ed Latessa, University of Cincinnati) state pretty clearly that sanctions/punishment do not reduce recidivism and, in fact for low risk offenders, increase recidivism.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

30

Fresno County

The biggest challenge in adopting these evidence-based practices is to change existing systems to appropriately support the new innovations. Identifying interventions with good research support and realigning the necessary organizational infrastructure are both fundamental to evidence-based practice.
Evidence-based practice is a significant trend throughout all human service fields that emphasize outcomes. Interventions within corrections are considered effective when they reduce offender risk and subsequent recidivism and therefore make a positive long-term contribution to public safety.
The evidence-based principles component of the integrated model highlights eight principles for effective offender interventions. The organization or system that is most successful in initiating and maintaining offender interventions and supervision practices consistent with these principles will achieve the greatest recidivism reductions.
The following framework of principles is listed in developmental order and they are all highly interdependent. For example, offender assessments must consider both risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs, in that order. Research indicates that resources are used more effectively when they are focused on higher-risk rather than lower-risk offenders, therefore considering offender’s risk to reoffend prior to addressing criminogenic needs allows agencies to target resources on higher-risk offenders.
Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions
1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs. 2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. 3. Target Interventions.
a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.
b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs. c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style,
motivation, culture, and gender when assigning programs. d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months. 4. Skill Train with Directed Practice (use Cognitive Behavioral treatment methods). 5. Increase Positive Reinforcement. 6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities. 7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices. 8. Provide Measurement Feedback.
1) Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs Develop and maintain a complete system of ongoing offender risk screening / triage and needs assessments. Assessing offenders in a reliable and valid

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

31

Fresno County

manner is a prerequisite for the effective management (i.e., supervision and treatment) of offenders. Timely, relevant measures of offender risk and need at the individual and aggregate levels are essential for the implementation of numerous principles of best practice in corrections, (e.g., risk, need, and responsivity). Offender assessments are most reliable and valid when staff is formally trained to administer tools. Screening and assessment tools that focus on dynamic and static risk factors, profile criminogenic needs, and have been validated on similar populations are preferred. They should also be supported by sufficiently detailed and accurately written procedures.
Offender assessment is as much an ongoing function as it is a formal event. Case information that is gathered informally through routine interactions and observations with offenders is just as important as formal assessment guided by instruments. Formal and informal offender assessments should reinforce one another. They should combine to enhance formal reassessments, case decisions, and working relations between practitioners and offenders throughout the jurisdiction of supervision.
(Andrews, et al, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, et al, 1996; Kropp, et al, 1995; Clements, 1996)
Questions to ask:  Does the assessment tool we’re using measure for criminogenic risk and
need?  How are officers trained to conduct the assessment interview?  What quality assurance is in place to ensure that assessments are
conducted appropriately?  How is the assessment information captured and used in the development
of case plans?
2) Enhance Intrinsic Motivation Staff should relate to offenders in interpersonally sensitive and constructive ways to enhance intrinsic motivation in offenders. Behavioral change is an inside job; for lasting change to occur, a level of intrinsic motivation is needed. Motivation to change is dynamic and the probability that change may occur is strongly influenced by interpersonal interactions, such as those with probation officers, treatment providers, and institution staff. Feelings of ambivalence that usually accompany change can be explored through motivational interviewing, a style and method of communication used to help people overcome their ambivalence regarding behavior changes. Research strongly suggests that motivational interviewing techniques, rather than persuasion tactics, effectively enhance motivation for initiating and maintaining behavior changes.
(Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Miller & Mount, 2001; Harper & Hardy, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000)
Questions to Ask:  Are officers and program staff trained in motivational interviewing
techniques?

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

32

Fresno County

 What quality assurance is in place?  Is staff held accountable for using motivational interviewing techniques in
their day-to-day interactions with offenders?
3) Target Interventions
a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.
b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.
c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, gender, and culture when assigning to programs.
d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months.
e. Treatment Principle: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction requirements.
3a) Risk Principle Prioritize primary supervision and treatment resources for offenders who are at higher risk to re-offend. Research indicates that supervision and treatment resources that are focused on lower-risk offenders tend to produce little if any net positive effect on recidivism rates. Shifting these resources to higher risk offenders promotes harm-reduction and public safety because these offenders have greater need for pro-social skills and thinking, and are more likely to be frequent offenders. Reducing the recidivism rates of these higher risk offenders reaps a much larger bang-forthe-buck.
Successfully addressing this population requires smaller caseloads, the application of well developed case plans, and the placement of offenders into sufficiently intense cognitive-behavioral interventions that target their specific criminogenic needs.
3b) Criminogenic Need Principle Address offender’s greatest criminogenic needs. Offenders have a variety of needs, some of which are directly linked to criminal behavior. These criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that, when addressed or changed, affect the offender’s risk for recidivism. Examples of criminogenic needs are: criminal personality; antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs; low self control; criminal peers; substance abuse; and dysfunctional family. Based on an assessment of the offender, these criminogenic needs can be prioritized so that services are focused on the greatest criminogenic needs.
(Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Lipton, et al, 2000; Elliott, 2001; Harland, 1996)

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

33

Fresno County

3c) Responsivity Principle Responsivity requires that we consider individual characteristics when matching offenders to services. These characteristics include, but are not limited to: culture, gender, motivational stages, developmental stages, and learning styles. These factors influence an offender’s responsiveness to different types of treatment.
The principle of responsivity also requires that offenders be provided with treatment that is proven effective with the offender population. Certain treatment strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral methodologies, have consistently produced reductions in recidivism with offenders under rigorous research conditions.
Providing appropriate responsivity to offenders involves selecting services in accordance with these factors, including:
a) Matching treatment type to offender; and
b) Matching style and methods of communication with offender’s stage of change readiness.
(Miller & Rollnick, 1991; Gordon, 1970)
3d) Dosage Providing appropriate doses of services, pro-social structure, and supervision is a strategic application of resources. Higher risk offenders require significantly more initial structure and services than lower risk offenders. During the initial 3-9 months postrelease, 40-70% of their free time should be clearly occupied with a delineated routine and appropriate services, (e.g., outpatient treatment, employment assistance, education, etc.). Certain offender subpopulations (e.g., severely mentally ill, chronic dual diagnosed, etc.) commonly require strategic, extensive, and extended services. However, too often individuals within these sub-populations are neither explicitly identified nor provided a coordinated package of supervision/services. The evidence indicates that incomplete or uncoordinated approaches can have negative effects, often wasting resources.
(Palmer, 1995; Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Steadman, 1995)
3e) Treatment Principle Treatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral types, should be applied as an integral part of the sentence/sanction process. A proactive and strategic approach to supervision and case planning that delivers targeted and timely treatment interventions will provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community, the victim, and the offender. This does not necessarily apply to lower risk offenders, who should be diverted from the criminal justice and corrections systems whenever possible.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

34

Fresno County

(Palmer, 1995; Clear, 1981; Taxman & Byrne, 2001; Currie, 1998; Petersilia, 1997, 2002, Andrews & Bonta, 1998)

Questions to Ask:  How do we manage offenders assessed as low risk to reoffend?  Does our assessment tool assess for criminogenic need?  How is criminogenic risk and need information incorporated into offender
case plans?  How are offenders matched to treatment resources?  How structured are our case plans for offenders, especially during the
three to nine month period in the community after leaving an institution?  How staff is held accountable for using assessment information to develop
a case plan and then subsequently using that case plan to manage an offender?
4) Provide skills training using cognitive-behavioral treatment methods Provide evidence-based programming that emphasizes cognitive-behavioral strategies and is delivered by well trained staff. To successfully deliver this treatment to offenders, staff must understand antisocial thinking, social learning, and appropriate communication techniques. Skills are not just taught to the offender, but are practiced or role-played and the resulting pro-social attitudes and behaviors are positively reinforced by staff. Correctional agencies should prioritize, plan, and budget to predominantly implement programs that have been scientifically proven to reduce recidivism.
(Mihalic, et al, 2001; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Lipton, et al, 2000; Lipsey, 1993; McGuire, 2001, 2002)
Questions to Ask:  How are social learning techniques incorporated into the programs we
deliver?  How do we ensure that our contracted service providers are delivering
services in alignment with social learning theory?  Are the programs we deliver and contract for based on scientific evidence
of recidivism reduction?
5) Increase Positive Reinforcement. When learning new skills and making behavioral changes, individuals respond better and maintain learned behaviors for longer periods of time when approached with carrots rather than sticks. Sustained behavioral change is better achieved when an individual receives a higher ratio of positive to negative reinforcements. Research indicates that a ratio of four positive to every one negative reinforcement is optimal for promoting behavior changes. These rewards do not have to be applied consistently to be effective (as negative reinforcement does) but can be applied randomly.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

35

Fresno County

Increasing positive reinforcement should not be done at the expense of or interfere with the administration of swift, certain, and real responses for negative and unacceptable behavior. Offenders having problems with responsible self-regulation generally respond positively to reasonable and reliable additional structure and boundaries. Offenders may initially overreact to new demands for accountability, seek to evade detection or consequences, and fail to recognize any personal responsibility. However, with exposure to clear rules that are consistently (and swiftly) enforced with appropriate and graduated consequences, offenders will tend to comply in the direction of the most rewards and least punishments. This type of extrinsic motivation can often be useful for beginning the process of behavior change.
(Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Meyers & Smith, 1995; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Azrin, 1980; Bandura et al, 1963; Bandura, 1996)
Questions to Ask  Do we model positive reinforcement techniques in our day-to-day
interactions with our co-workers?  Does our staff understand and use the four-to-one theory in their
interactions with offenders?
6) Engage On-going Support in Natural Communities Realign and actively engage pro-social supports for offenders in their communities. Research indicates that many successful interventions with high risk populations (e.g., inner city substance abusers, homeless, dual diagnosed) actively recruit and use family members, spouses, and supportive others in the offender’s immediate environment to positively reinforce desired new behaviors. This Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) has been found effective for a variety of behaviors (e.g., unemployment, alcoholism, substance abuse, and marital conflicts); and research also indicates the efficacy of twelve step programs, religious activities, and restorative justice initiatives geared towards improving bonds and ties to pro-social community members.
(Azrin, & Besalel, 1980; Emrick et al, 1993; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Meyers & Smith, 1997; Bonta et al, 2002; O’Connor & Perryclear, 2003; Meyers et al, 2002)
Questions to Ask:  Do we engage community supports for offenders as a regular part of case
planning?  How do we measure our community network contacts as they relate to an
offender?
7) Measure Relevant Processes/Practices Accurate and detailed documentation of case information, along with a formal and valid mechanism for measuring outcomes, is the foundation of evidencebased practice. Agencies must routinely assess changes in offenders’ cognitive and skill development, and recidivism, if services are to remain effective.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

36

Fresno County

In addition to routinely measuring and documenting offender changes, staff performance should also be regularly assessed. Staffs that are periodically evaluated for performance achieve greater fidelity to program design, service delivery principles, and outcomes. Staff whose performance is not consistently monitored, measured, and subsequently reinforced work less cohesively, more frequently at cross-purposes and provides less support to the agency mission.
(Henggeler et al, 1997; Milhalic & Irwin, 2003; Miller, 1988; Meyers et al, 1995; Azrin, 1982; Meyers, 2002; Hanson & Harris, 1998; Waltz et al, 1993; Hogue et al, 1998; Miller & Mount, 2001; Gendreau et al, 1996; Dilulio, 1993)
Questions to Ask:  What data do we collect regarding offender assessment and case
management?  How do we measure incremental offender change while they are under
supervision?  What are our outcome measures and how do we track them?  How do we measure staff performance? What data do we use? How is
that data collected?
8) Provide Measurement Feedback Once a method for measuring relevant processes/practices is in place (principle seven), this information must be used to monitor process and change. Providing feedback to offenders regarding their progress builds accountability, and is associated with enhanced motivation for change, lower treatment attrition, and improved outcomes (e.g., reduced drink/drug days, treatment engagement, and goal achievement).
The same is true within an organization. Monitoring delivery of services and fidelity to procedures helps build accountability and maintain integrity to the agency’s mission. Regular performance audits and case reviews with an eye toward improved outcomes, keep staff focused on the ultimate goal of reduced recidivism through the use of evidence-based principles.
(Miller, 1988; Agostinelli et al, 1995; Alvero et al, 2001; Baer et al, 1992; Decker, 1983; Luderman, 1991; Zemke, 2001; Elliott, 1980)
Questions to Ask:  How is information regarding offender change and outcomes shared with
officers? With offenders?  With whom do we share information regarding outcome measures?  How is staff performance data used in the performance evaluation
process?
Summary Aligning these evidence-based principles with the operations of a system is difficult, but will largely determine the impact the system has on sustained

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

37

Fresno County

reductions in recidivism. In order to accomplish this shift to an outcome orientation, practitioners must be prepared to dedicate themselves to a mission that focuses on achieving sustained reductions in recidivism. The scientific principles presented in this document are unlikely to produce a mandate for redirecting and rebuilding an agency's mission by themselves. Leadership in organizational change and collaboration for systemic change are also necessary.
Source: - Lore Joplin, Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Billy Wasson, and William Woodward NIC/CJI Project 2004
http://www.nicic.org/Library/019341
This consultant many times summarizes this Evidenced Based Practice approach by suggesting that jurisdictions: “Take A.I.M. at Criminal Re-Offense” The AIM represents:
Assess Intervene Measure

Programming Principle
Different objectives lead to different approaches
which leads to different results

LOW RISK
HIGH RISK

Diversion, short intervention

Goal = Efficiency

Limited punishment, sole sanction

Goal = can be deterrence or risk reduction

Probation and treatment

Goal =
Risk reduction

Surveillance, incapacitation

Goal =

Public safety

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

38

Fresno County

OBSERVATIONS

1. This consultant team received excellent staff support from the County Administrator’s and Sheriff’s office and open and honest information from those interviewed. Many of those interviewed encouraged this consultant team to be “brutally frank”, as one person put it, with the county with our assessment. It is in the spirit of this request that this is written;
2. Even though the population of the county has had steady growth the crime rate for both violent and property crime has declined or remained stable through 2004 with some slight increases in 2005;
3. The county history/reputation, born out by the data, is conservative in the handling of adult offenders. The community is the reportedly home of the “three strikes” movement and has one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation. The officials interviewed report that they are not convinced that the community will support any serious efforts at “treatment” programs for adult offenders and the community wants them “jailed” and certainly not forced released from the jail;
4. The City of Fresno population dominates the county demographics and the policies/resources of the Fresno Police Department drive to great extent the county criminal justice workload (this is not a new issue and was formally studied in 1993 for example). The current Fresno Police Chief took office in 2001, in the three years ending in 2004 the agency added 92 officers to its staff bringing the agency total staff up to a today authorized force of 836 sworn/1251 total agency employees (on any given day 35 of the sworn positions are vacant/in the process of recruitment). In 2002 the jail brought on line the last major expansion of beds, 1296 expansion from the 1999 master plan. During these same years the other parts of the adult criminal justice system, especially the probation function were in budget decline. Fresno P. D. focus in this expansion has been on targeted enforcement of gangs, drugs, traffic (from 22 motor-cycle officers to over 75 in this time period) and parole violators.
5. Jail bookings and court filings seem to mirror each other with significant increases in the last two years. These spikes over the last two years are tied to the increases in enforcement and the policies of targeted enforcement in the above areas primarily by the Fresno Police Department. The other components of the system, in order to deal with the increased workload in the face of a delay in increased resources have taken the following steps: prosecution failing to file on up to 32% of the felony cases coming to it from Fresno and very few of the misdemeanor cases at all, a probation and parole staff that are “case banking” the

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

39

Fresno County

majority of the cases (i.e. no real community based supervision taking place and the staff are turned into running from one brush fire to another) and a jail system that has been rapidly turned into a pre-trial holding facility and as the following paragraph outlines by necessity uses its cap mechanism of the Federal Court to regulate its ultimate workload level ;
6. The jail system of the county has been governed under a Federal Court Consent Decree since 1994 and the county has periodically had need to follow the directives of the order to keep the facilities in compliance with the order. The most recent actions to initiate the population releases brought about action to increase resources to the prosecution, defense and probation functions of the county and initiate this third party review of the situation;
7. Clearly, 75% based on most recent jail data, most of the jail population is held pre-trial in the jailing system. Those pre-trial offenders appear to have long lengths of stay with the overall length of stay of inmates exceeding comparable counties rates;
8. The county’s actions to add resources as a strategy to impact length of stay of pre-trial inmates is the right strategy based on the data available;
9. On any given day in the county there are 3400 inmates in custody; 11,000 offenders on probation and another 5000 offenders on parole in the county. All told there are on any given day over 18,000 adult offenders under government supervision and the vast majority of this population is under supervision for a felony offense;
10. With the exception of the jail classification system, the other segments of the adult correctional system (probation, parole and pre-trial services) do not risk classify their caseloads or use any other objective based tools to organize/prioritize the cases/workload;
11. There is a lot of usable data from the criminal justice segments of the Fresno criminal justice system but there are few examples where this data has been converted into usable management reports:
12. Most importantly, in the view of this consultant team, is that in the face of this overwhelmingly endless flow of cases/workload there is no clearly understood mission and vision for the adult corrections system in Fresno County. There is a clear view by most of those interviewed that the current system and methods of handling the repeat offenders (and there are many) is not working. The question unanswered in this small assessment project is whether the community and its’ elected officials operating the adult criminal justice system can accept change based upon evidenced

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

40

Fresno County

based practice to reduce repeat criminal conduct in the face of a history that has had such a foundation of punishment as the core value of the process. The first step is to see if the criminal justice stake-holders and executive branch leaders that fund the system can reach consensus on a vision and mission of the adult corrections system of the county, currently no such policy statement exists that has consensual support of the parties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUE #1:
The criminal justice system officials in Fresno County are operating in their own “silo” of influence and are not sharing information with one another and not collectively coordinating their efforts.
The situation has led to almost no communication and coordination of policy in the county related to the direction and effectiveness of the system.
This is a common issue in a system in which it has been historically designed to disperse power in different branches of government and in different and separately elected officials.
The national learning around this issue has evolved into the formation of “Criminal Justice Coordination Councils” in the county criminal justice system. NIC has a specific training/resource manual on this topic to assist the county (http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017232.pdf).
1. Form and operate a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council a. Establish improved communication links among agencies;
b. Develop a clear and system wide purpose (Vision and Mission)
of correctional services for jail and community based corrections. It is important to engage the community and create opportunities for input and ownership in this Vision and
Mission setting process; c. Develop a master plan for the implementation of these
purposes.
ISSUE #2:
The data in the various “silos” of the criminal justice operation is not usable as information for policy change or assessment of existing practices. The experience of this assessment project demonstrates that this management information does not currently exist. The data being collected seems adequate but there does not appear to be the report writing software and/or the expertise to put it in operation in the county.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

41

Fresno County

This is a critical issue in this age of information and change based on documented facts, not anecdotal sense of the policy makers.
2. Create an Information Systems Resource support to staff the Coordination Council;
ISSUE #3:
The current process with the jail and other officials is to place too much importance on the crime of the moment with the offender. The national learning is to develop a risk and need based process (EBP) based upon many other factors, including the immediate charged offense, to guide in decision-making. These tools can be validated for pretrial as well as post trial cases. Their value is to bring consistency and fairness to the process and provide a justification for decisions made in the event they are challenged by the inevitable case gone badly.
3. Implement an early risk assessment of arrestees with information sharing to make detention, bond setting, and pre-trial release and charging decisions. NIC may be able to assist with the process by the development and delivery of a workshop for the criminal justice stakeholders on Evidenced Based Practice (EBP), we recommend the county pursue this opportunity with NIC.
ISSUE #4:
The 1947 “Old Jail” needs to be replaced; the design and maintenance issues make it no longer serviceable as a detention facility in today’s corrections environment. The design being linear and with additions over the 59 years there are many blind spots where staff can not supervise, in an efficient manner, the inmates. One official interviewed summed up the old jail very succinctly: “the old jail is a shame and disgrace”.
NIC has a Planning of a New Institution (PONI) program that the county should apply for that will assist the county with design and construction planning issues. NIC also has a workshop on How To Open a New Institution (HONI) that the county may also want to participate in at the appropriate time.
In the design of the new facility it is feasible to generate a new facility that can generate more inmate beds with the same staffing pattern as the current poorly designed facility. It should also be pointed out the inventory of beds the county currently has at its disposal is deficient of medium and maximum security beds to meet the rising classification needs of the inmate population.
The scope of this assessment does not allow for a full need assessment of the

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

42

Fresno County

counties jailing services and the county does need to pursue a separate analysis of jailing needs. When this occurs the analysis should include the financial ability of the county, it is only realistic that the projection of jailing services be done in the context of other county services and the financial ability of the county to operate those services.
In the replacement here are some other recommendations that are related:
4. Replace the old 1947 jail with a podular direct supervision new generation jail that includes: a. Centralized booking for all police agencies in the county with digital printing and digital photos integrated into the automated record system; b. Upgraded automated information system to have a report generation feature to provide management information reports to the management staff in a user friendly manner.
Discussion: This consulting team is aware that the concept of “Direct Supervision” has been rejected in Fresno County on the basis that it is too expensive for the county to consider. There is conflicting evidence on this topic and in the appendix of this report we have included a section of an evaluation of that subject that was done by an independent assessment that determined that in both construction and operations direct supervision facilities were less expensive to the jurisdiction. The issue can not be truly resolved until there is a schematic design on the table for Fresno County and a staffing analysis can be done of the design. The issue is important because in every respect in the jailing community and every measure that has been tested direct supervision as an inmate management strategy is superior to in-direct supervision. It has however met with serious staff resistance where ever it has been implemented.
On the topic of “Centralized Booking” this consultant team was made aware of the work group with the City of Fresno and the efforts to combine some services. It is not our intent to interfere or suggest that that collaboration is not desirable it certainly is. The difference with booking over the other topics is the need to transport prisoners that brings with it cost and increased security issues. It is our experience that from a cost and security stand point the fewer times an inmate has to be moved (i.e. bring all services to the inmate in their housing unit) the better off the county will be from a cost and public safety stand point. We therefore took the stance that the booking unit should be planned and designed with the pre-trial holding facility.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

43

Fresno County

ISSUE # 5:
Even if the county were to begin building immediately it will take 3-5 years for those beds to be available for occupancy. So the county needs a strategy on how it is going to manage the jail population on an on-gong basis. The Federal Court has already set the upper limit and capped the facilities with a number not to exceed and the State Jail Inspection process reinforces this with annual inspections. In other words the county is regulated by outside parties to keep it within acceptable boundaries from a total number of inmates stand point.

Clearly the county and the community response to “forced releases” where the inmate is release pursuant to the Federal Court order has not been popular and has raised fear and concern for those involved. This consultant team suggests that the county develop a “Population Management Plan” that lays out from a policy stand point the steps the parties (Sheriff, District Attorney, Courts, Probation and Public Defender) will take to collectively move offenders into alternative sanctions and services in lieu of force releasing them to the community. The parties can regulate intake and length of stay and make choices to move inmates to other options such as: pre-trial supervision or probation reinstatement for example.
The concept is to make a policy choice note to use the forced release option of the Federal Court order but at the same time recognize that you must adhere to the cap placed on your facilities.
5. That the County approve a Population Management Plan in conjunction with the District Attorney, Superior Court, Sheriff, Public Defender and Probation departments.

A SYSTEM WIDE STRATEGY TO MANAGE JAIL USE

A survey by the National Institute of Justice of 1,400 criminal justice officials from all parts of the country identified jail and prison crowding as the most serious problem facing the criminal justice system. Crowded jails may compromise public safety when lack of space and the cost of the space denies a bed to a serious offender or takes away resources from other aspects of the governing body. The results of crowding and an ever-rising use of the jail system have been documented as follows:
• Increased victimization and fear • Decreased public confidence in the public safety system • Lawsuits, the former county jail had a Federal Court cap placed on it • Federal court imposed limits on population and other required programs • Significant tension and strain on correctional and general fund budgets • Delays in case processing due to cumbersome access to prisoners • Lack of hope and stress by those working in the system

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

44

Fresno County

Virtually every decision maker in the local system exercises discretion that can impact the jail population. Jurisdictions that use a SYSTEM WIDE approach to the management of jail use can reduce some of these conditions and represent proudly to their constituency that they are managing the situation rather than letting it manage them.

There are Seven Key Justice System Decisions that determine the workload, size and cost of any justice system:
1. Decision to arrest. 2. Decision to detain pretrial. 3. Decision to release from pretrial detention. 4. Decision to prosecute. 5. Adjudication outcome. 6. Sentencing decision. 7. Sentence modification decision.
Let’s examine in more detail each decision point and the options (discretion) available at each point:
Decision to Arrest • Citation to appear in court on a date and time certain • On the spot counseling with no further intervention • Submit information to the Prosecutor for review and action to request a warrant of arrest • Take into custody and transport to a processing center
Decision to Detain Pretrial • Issue summons to appear at date and time certain • Accept a promise to appear at a date and time certain and/or bail to be posted • Divert the case to a pretrial release/supervisory authority • Lodge into a pretrial detention facility
Decision to Release from Pretrial Detention • At anytime after detention, the pretrial authority and/or court may issue a summons to appear based on a promise, bail and/or conditions of community release
Decision to Prosecute (District Attorney) • Do not file charges and release from custody with no further action • Divert to a community program and/or set of conditions • Proceed to file formal charges at a lesser charging level and release to pretrial conditions and/or bail

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

45

Fresno County

• File formal charges at a greater or lesser level based on the facts available and hold in custody
• Hold bail hearing and/or initial appearance proceedings • Plea bargain the case
Adjudication Outcome: • Accept the plea bargain agreement and impose sentence • Hold trial with or without jury • Order and receive a pre-sentence investigation to guide the courts actions • Dismissal or not guilty finding
Sentencing Decision: • Impose a sentence from available continuum of sanctions and services
Sentence Modification Decisions • Appeal the outcome to a higher court • Release by shortening the length of stay based on a capacity management plan • Class ification system movement of the offender to a lesser intrusive sanction and/or service
CONTROLLING THE SYSTEM
Can these decisions be monitored and controlled? Many experts believe that they can but it takes quality information about the system and a willingness to cooperate in ways not previously believed possible. Managing the justice system more effectively will require new ways of organizing, and new ways of thinking. The appropriate policy mechanism would be collegial and it would emphasize coordination, cooperation, and communication as principle ways of operating. The policy makers need to be organized into a group and have regular meetings in an atmosphere where the separation of powers and the authority of each entity are respected. There may be breakdowns from time to time but on the whole the decision makers would acknowledge that each of their individual decisions do impact the others workload and that they are in the system together.
Managing these decision points properly requires timely and quality information. Fresno County does not have this information available in a usable form at this time but has the capacity to do so in the near future.
Available from the Bureau of Justice Assistance is a publication: A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding, A Systems Perspective that discusses in detail the system decision points and what a jurisdiction might do to better regulate its own work load. This publication is also available from the NIC Information Center

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

46

Fresno County

(www.nicic.org) at no charge.
UNDERSTANDING JAIL CROWDING
Preventing and/or managing crowding requires a basic understanding of the jail population dynamics that determine how many people are in a jail. This understanding comes from examination of a basic formula:

THE JAIL POPULATION ANALYSIS FORMULA:
The admission rate and inmate length of stay determines the number of people in jail. This can be expressed as (number of admissions x average length of stay = number of jail bed days required) divided by 365 days per year = average daily jail population.

Changes to either portion of this equation (number of admissions or length of stay) will change the number of people in jail on any given day.
The length of inmate stay is a very important but under-appreciated, and perhaps, less understood determinant of the number of people in any jail. Many jail administrators can quickly produce detailed information about their number of admissions, often with additional detail about arresting agency, charges, and so forth. Yet, it is much harder to find jail administrators who can produce length of stay information for these same classes of prisoners.

The seven-decision point flow diagram (at right) may be helpful in conceptualizing these data elements (Table1). The key data elements monitor and reflect any changes in policy and practice by the justice system officials and their staff.
It is precisely in these times of crisis that the jail administrator is expected to answer what lay people believed are pretty simple questions:
• Who is in jail? • Why has the jail population been
increasing? • Why is the jail crowded? • What can be done about this
crowding?

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

47

Fresno County

• How much will these changes cost?

Typically, the people responsible for answering these questions do not do a very good job. This is because they simply do not have sufficient information to do so. This difficulty in answering even simple questions can undermine public confidence in the ability of the jail administrator to understand and manage the situation.

Usually, it’s not that the jail administrator isn’t trying. The interaction of these variables can be complicated. These are not easy interactions to understand. Many computerized jail information systems seem unable to create the kinds of reports that are needed. And, if done manually, it takes time to pull the booking jackets, collect the data by hand, analyze it, and prepare a report. Even then, the report may not contain information sufficient to answer some of the questions that will be asked. For example, it may not contain information that will confirm or discredit some of the hypotheses (guesses) others will set forth to explain changes in jail population levels. Thus, the analysts must return to the data, do additional analysis, and repeat the process.

By the time a written report can be presented, additional changes in admission and release rates may be taking place. The situation keeps changing. Analysts are always shooting at a moving target. It is difficult to create a clear picture of the situation. Rather, the process seems to go in circles. There is erosion in confidence in the department’s ability to analyze the situation. As a consequence, there is little enthusiasm for proposed courses of action because too many people are unsure that these are the appropriate remedies. The result is inaction.

Table 1: Jail Population Analysis System Data Elements

Essential Data Elements Person identifier Booking event number Sex Booking date Booking time Release date Release time Release Type Other critical data elements Arresting agency Sentence status Offense level Court jurisdiction

Description Number unique to the person Number to identify the jail admission Identify gender Date inmate was admitted to the jail Military time inmate was admitted Date inmate was released from jail Military time inmate was released Bail, ROR, acquittal, escape, etc.
Agency making arrest (not transport) Sentenced all charges; partial; none Felony, Misdemeanor, Infraction, etc. Court of jurisdiction

These data should be collected on every person in the jail at a specific date and time, and thereafter for anyone who enters or leaves the jail. The data for each

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

48

Fresno County

inmate would appear as a row on a spreadsheet or in a database. Conceptually, it is like creating a checkbook where the checkbook balance represents the daily population count, deposits represent admissions and checks written represent releases -- It’s a crude equivalent of a “Quicken” for Corrections.
Fresno Counties’ conversion to the Motorola automation system in the upcoming year should improve the current data management situation for Fresno and make the data much more manageable. The system will go from the current main frame environment to a distributed model with much improved user friendly soft ware choices for the jail management staff to use.
MODELING JAIL POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Once the basic jail population analysis capability is established it can be used to begin modeling the results of hypothetical or actual changes in admissions or lengths of stay. Hypothetical changes may be labeled “defensive,” as in the case of a crowded jail that seeks to find ways to reduce the size of the inmate population. But other changes may be labeled “proactive.” For example, officials may seek to make more effective use of jail bed space by deliberately changing the composition of the jail population so as to keep some people longer and move lesser offenders to other corrections options in the community.

CONCLUSION
The key to preventing crowding, and to managing the jail population, is to continuously collect, monitor and analyze admission and length of stay information, then share the results with other justice officials and officials in leadership positions in general government.

Their cooperation will be essential. They, collectively, control the policies and practices that determine jail admissions and length of stay. As noted earlier, with only a few minor exceptions, these levers and mechanisms lie outside the control of the jail administrator and/or the Sheriff.
For this reason, the County and the jail administrator have a stake in forming a justice system wide Criminal Justice Coordination Council (CJCC), or in strengthening an existing CJCC that is not operating well. This is a forum where the County can change the perception that potential crowding is a “jail problem.” The data and ensuing dialogue will allow the County to portray potential or actual jail crowding as a justice system dysfunction. That change in perception makes it “our problem” instead of “the Jail’s problem.”

These officials have a big stake in making sure the jail bed resource is best used to maximize public protection. When they are presented with clear and convincing, empirical evidence, they will do what they can to modify their policies and practices. A jail administrator can exert a great deal of influence on the decision making of these other agencies. But they can only do so if they have the

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

49

Fresno County

facts, if they can competently answer questions about how the jail population is changing, and if they can clearly demonstrate how changes in admission rates or lengths of stay can improve the administration of justice.
Primary source for this document comes from Understanding Jail Crowding by Bob Cushman, an NIC Publication
THOSE INTERVIEWED IN THIS PROJECT
• Bart Bohn, County Administrative Officer • Sheriff Richard Pierce • Brandi Orth, Administrative Analyst • Jeanette Ishii, Assistant County Administrative Officer • Judge Gary Hoff, Superior Court • Judge Hilary Chittick, Superior Court • Sandra Silva, Associate Executive Officer, Superior Court • Sheran Morton, Director of Court Operations • Judge Edward Sarkisian, Presiding Judge • Tom Gatti, Assistant Sheriff • Steve Forker, Administrative Services Director, Sheriff’s Office • Paul LeDuc, IT Manager, Sheriff’s Office • Kalyana Nissankarao, IT Analyst, Sheriff’s Office • Danny Negrete, State Department of Parole • Richard Ciummo, Alternative Defense • Mark Broughton, Alternative Defense • Charlotte Tilkes, Offender Programs Manager, Sheriff’s Office • Paul Hinkly, Deputy Public Defender • Joy Thompson, Probation Services Manager • Tom Charnock, Probation Manager Adult Division • Phil Larson, Chair, Board of Supervisors • Henry Perea, Supervisor • Kathleen Donawa, Budget Analyst • Wes Merritt, County Legal Counsel • Dennis Marshall, County Legal Counsel • Bob Waterston, Supervisor • Judy Case, Supervisor • Susan Anderson, Supervisor • Russell York, U.S. Marshal Office • Chief Doug Johnson, Reedley Police Department • Chief Tom Whiteside, Selma Police Department • Helen Dunkel, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms • Chief Jerry Dyer, Fresno Police Department • Ron Bertrand, State Jail Inspector • Bob Ellis, Chief Assistant District Attorney • Cal Minor, Candidate for Sheriff

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

50

Fresno County

• Margaret Mims, Candidate for Sheriff • Tom Abshere, SEIU • Anna Casey, Corrections Officer, Union Officer • Josie Ruiz, Corrections Officer, Union Officer • Ed Moreno, Community Health Department • Jose Flores, Fresno Co. S.O. • Kathleen Grassi, Community Health • Bud Laird, Jail Medical Services • Chris Markus, Community Health • Dennis Koch, Behavior Health, Substance Abuse • Curt Thornton, Fresno County Mental Health Board • Giang Nguyen, Behavioral Health • Ali Umar, Chaplain, Fresno Co. S.O.
OTHER RESOURCES FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER
1. “Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee”, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. January 2000. NIC Accession number 017232.
2. “Jail Crowding, Understanding Jail Population Dynamics”, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. January 2002, NIC Accession number 017209.
3. “Jail Resource Issues, What Every Funding Authority Needs to Know”, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. February 2002, NIC Accession number 017372.
4. “Preventing Jail Crowding, a Practical Guide” Second Edition, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. May 2002, NIC Accession number 016720.
5. “A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding, A Systems Perspective”, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. October 2000, NCJ 182507.
6. “Jail Design Guide, A resource for Small to Medium Sized Jails”, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. November 1998.
7. “Objective Jail Classification Systems: A Guide for Jail Administrators”, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. February 1998.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

51

Fresno County

8. National Center for State Courts, www.ncsconline.org/, phone 888-4500391x1864.
9. National Institute of Corrections, Evidenced Based Practices Project http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/019341.pdf
10. Evaluation of Direct Versus Indirect Supervision Correctional Facilities, NIC 1989. http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/007807.pdf
Items 1-7 and 9 and 10 are available from NIC at no cost to the jurisdiction.
APPENDIX
• Jail Assessment Report • Community Meeting attendance list • A Comparison of “Direct” and “Indirect” Supervision
Correctional Facilities, June 1, 1989, NIC, Conclusions section.

NIC Jail and Justice System Assessment

52

Fresno County

Fresno County Jail System Assessment

The Fresno County J ail system consists of four “local detention facilities.” T hree of these facilities are locat ed in t he main d owntown a rea of the City of Fre sno. These facilities are located in close proximity to each other and the courts, and are connec ted via un derground t unnels. The forth jai l, a facility for sentenced inmates, is located a pproximately 2 mile s south of the main city core in an industrial area.

Facility

Rated Capacity

2005 ADP

Age

• Main Jail 1064

930 1989

• Satellite Jail

96

172

1986

• North Annex 1104

1248

1993

• South Annex

528

581

1947

MAIN JAIL
The Main Jail was c onstructed in the late 1980s and opened in 1989. The Main Jail is a six story building – some stories wit h second “tier” levels - that contains most of the core services for the jail system including: intake receiving, jail administration, an infirmary, court holding and inmate hous ing. This facility has a Title 24; California Code of Regulations (CCR) “rated capac ity” of 1064 inmates. This does not include medical space or other “special use cells.”
Law enforcement agencies with arrestees enter the facility via a vehicle sallyport located on the north side of the facility. The sally port door is remotely operated by staff in the facility’s control room and observe waiting vehicles via a video monitor. This vehic le area will accept multiple cars and/or interstate busses used to transport inmates.

1

Once in the secured sallyport, officers access the booking area for the jail system. This book ing area consists of three booking windows, one of which is staffed by a registered nurse who performs a medical pre-screening on the arrestee. The arrestees are searched for contraband and enter one of a s eries of holding cells adjacent to this booki ng area. This area is significantly undersized for the population it serves. This is ev idenced by the lengthy backlog of police vehicles that are lined up outside of the sallyport
during busy hours to wait their t urn to book their arrestees. This backlog not only puts a strain on the booking staff, it takes these officers out of service from their respective jurisdictions for extended periods of time.

housing.

The inmate is led to a “dress out area“

adjutant to the book ing holding cells after

necessary paperwork is

complet ed

(booking and classification). Here, the

inmate is showered, provided with jail

clothing and assigned to appropriat

e

While the first floor consists of intake and

release related areas , the second floor is

dedicated to an infirmary i

ncluding a

medical treatment room, medical records, a

pharmacy and dedicated medical housing.

This floor is not a hospital, nor a

Correctional Treatment Center; rather it

provides s pace for “out-patient” type care.

Inmates needing in-patient care are

transported to a local hospital where staff provides necessary security during the duration of their stay.

2

The third, forth, fifth and sixth floor of the Main jail are identic al. Thes e floors consists of six “pods ” – each containing sixteen cells with eight on the m ain floor and eight on the second tier level. These sixteen cells share a common dayroom and are all visible to a central security station that is located in the center of the floor (with a 360 degree view).
In addition to the six pods on each floor, there are ten adminis trative segregation cells arraigned in a linear fashion. These are single occupancy cells that are used to confine the most dangerous inmates in the system. E ach inmate is afforded a period of time each day to access the adjacent “dayroom” (albeit a long narrow one) and use the shower.
One of the unique as pects of this facility is the fact that these pods of double occupancy cells are “triple-bunked”. Under a 1993 “Pilot Project” with the California Board of Corrections , these cells were allowed t o exceed their normal rated capacity by adding a third level to each bunk in each cell. In addition, the doors t o the cells are left open so that the inmates may have free acc ess to the dayroom. Essentially, these floors have become very expensive dormitori es. Dormitories that allow the free access to the dayroom, as
these pods allow, are much cheaper to construct than the double occupancy cells. The only explanation fo r this occurring is the fact th at the system was overcrowded and needed additional beds. Hopefully, one day, these pods will be rev erted back to the function (double occ upancy) that they were constructed for.
3

Each hous ing floor of the Main Jail also contains its own v isiting area. The public accesses this area through a dedicated “non-secure” space and is direc ted to the proper floor. The inmates are escorted to the secure area on each floor and provided their visits. “Bringing the services to the inmates” is a cost effective and s afe way to perform these activities and eliminates the need to escort these inmates between floors using the stairwell or elevators.
The outdoor exercis e area is located on the roof of the facility . This exercise area is sub-divided into s maller exercise yards to afford exercise to different classifications of inmates at the same time. Unfortunately, this area does not take advantage of bringing the services to the inmates with the inmates needing to be escorted up floors to access this area.
Also locate d in the M ain Ja il, is the main control room. Here one or two staff controls all access doors and elevators. All security systems and fire alarm s are als o controlled here. This is an extremely busy area during most of the day and night and only s lows down briefly dur ing e arly morning hours.
4

NORTH ANNEX JAIL

The North Anne x Ja il is the ne west facilit y in the Fresno County Ja il System. It was initially co nstructed adjacent to the Main Jail and opened with two fl oors in 1993. In December 2002, three more floors were opened giv ing it a total rated capacity (by the Corrections Standar ds Authority) of 1104 beds . Similar to the Main Jail, the second, third, forth and fifth floors eac h have second housing tier s. Pictured on the right are the Main Jail on the left and the North Annex jail directly next to it.

The first floor of the North Annex Jail c ontains a public lobby, staff locker rooms, and most importantly, two courtroom s – Division # 95 and 96. These courtrooms provide excellent sec urity for the inmates whose cases are assigned there.

The second, third, forth and fifth floors consists of six pods of dormitories with triple bunk s on a main level and a second tier level. While eac h pod has 72 beds , they are only rated for 48 inmates. These dormitories represent relatively inexpensive construction of a hardened jail environment. The difficulty with this type of housing is that “like classified inmates” of lower levels (medium security) must be identified to be hous ed in eac h pod. This limits the ability to house higher securit y inmates incidents.

without risking adv erse

These triple bunks not only create an extremely close housi ng environment, they limit the visibility of inmate areas by staff when they are occupied. It should als o be noted that upon exam ination, these bunks were not “ correctional grade” fixtures that do not allow tampering.

5

Each floor has an elevated “security station” (or control room) that sits in a raised portion in the center of each floor. There is an intervening room between the security station and the dorm/dayroom space that can be des cribed as a “staging area.” Staff is generally afforded good sightlines into the dorm/dayroom areas and can monitor inmate activities. When this area is crowded, however, good sightlines are diminished.
Each floor on the North Annex Jail has it s own dedic ated “outdoor” exercise yard. Inmates are escorted to these y ards from their housing units wit hout the need to use stairwells or elevator s. This is another example of bringing the servic es to the inmates that allows much safer inmate movement activities.

In addition to the exercis e areas and visiting, each floor has its own medica l exam room. Again, the services are brought to the inmate providing less inmate movement between floors. Inmates are triaged here and the more seri ous cases are transferred to the infirmary and/or hospital.

Inmate meals for all four of the detention

facilities are prepa

red off-site

(approximately two miles away) in a

commercial kitchen by a privat e vendor.

Hot meals are deliver ed via insulated trays

on carts to the inmates in their respective

housing units. This is a very cost-efficient

system, as valuable security areas of the

jail are not used for the preparation of

meals.

6

Underground tunnels connect all three of

the detention facilities located in close

proximity in downtown Fresno. Inmates are

escorted to and between the detention

facilities a s well as courts that also have

access to the tunnels. This is a very

efficient system that, combined wit

h

adequate staffing, provides s afety and

security to the public, inmates and staff.

As with the Main Jail, the North Annex Jail has a well-equipped c entral control room. This spac e contains the heart of all security, fire, video and door systems fo r the facility. It is design ed to provide maximum security for the facility, its staff and the inmates while allowing for the timely movement of staff and inmates through the facility. All elevators are als o controlled within this space. T he two staff assigned to this spac e are extremely busy monitoring and operating the various systems of the jail.

SOUTH ANNEX JAIL
The South Annex Jail is the original main jail for Fresno County. The core of the facility was opened in 1947 and additional space was provided in the early 1970s. This is the third of three detention facilities located in downtown Fresno that are connected by underground tunnels. Alth ough this building appears to be a “normal county building” constructed several decades ago, its interior is worn out from conti nuous “hard” use. This facility is four stories tall (without tiers) with additional space in a basement level fo r court holding, a laundry, and program space.

7

Although c ounty staff have made heroic efforts to maintain this facility, it represents obsolete “linear type” construction that is very staff intensive and unsafe. The door hardware, security systems, electronics and all other integral systems are considere d antique requiring frequent timely and costly repairs to keep the facility functioning. Instead of using glazing (glass) where inmates are readily visible to staff, bars are used to provide security.
The cells and dormitories are loc ated off of long corridors. Staff mu st walk to the end of each corridor to observe the inmates during their security checks. Inmates fro m the middle to the end of the “cell block” are provided plenty of notice that staff are making their checks and can easily cease or hide illegal activ ity. This jeopardizes the safety on staff, and especially s ome of the inmates.
For staff to open eac h cell, they must first operate an antique system of door controls. These controls stopped being made decades ago and their replacement parts are non-existent. Consequently, if parts break down (something that renders the entire cell or cell block unusable), parts must be custom fabricated. This is extremely expensiv e and time c onsuming (staff intensive).
Conversely, staff operating electronic controls (such as in the Main Jail pictured on the left) can observe the doors and the inmates while the doors are being operated. Additionally, replacement parts are much quicker to install and are readily available.
8

Although many of the spac es in this facility have received replacement systems and have been remodeled over the years, the basic structure – and indeed many of these systems - is fundamentally flawed. The control rooms on each floor have no visibility int o the housing un its and very limited v isibility of in mates who pass the ir stations.
Even when staff accesses the dayrooms of a cellb lock, visibility into eac h cell is severely restricted due to the us e of bars. Although each cell in the picture to the left is full, it is very difficult to observe the inmates. One other re ason that bars are no longer used in jail construction is that they provide easy “tie off” points for nooses for inmates who are intent on hanging themselves – a frequent means of committing suicide in jails.
Another design flaw of this facility that causes security and safety problems for staff and inmates is t he size of the doors leading int o cells and dayrooms. An average sized staff member may barely be able to nor mally acc ess a door, but larger and taller staff must duck and/or turn sideways to enter and exit the r oom. This poses a dangerous situation should an inmate become combative at this opening. It is als o very d ifficult to transport unconscious or injured inmates through these openings.
9

During the on-site visit, a freshwater plumbing line burst in this cell c hase. This line was encased in concrete and required many staff hours to repair – during which time all water to the cells in this block were cut off. With water unavailable th e inmates were unable to flush their toilets. Should there have been c omplications to this situation, the inmates would have needed to be moved to another space – a very difficult and time-consuming process given the overcrowded nature of the jail system. This highlights the fact that the core systems in this building are falling apart and many are past their useful lifespan.
To be fair, some of the space in this facility has been remodeled using current technology including this high security disciplinary isolati on/ administrativ e segregation area. Ho wever, this area represents a very sm all (and very staffintensive) portion of th is jail. It is an example of where considerable public funds have been inv ested into an obsolete facility with a qu estionable life spa n remaining.
The medical exam room and pharmacy are located on the second floor of this facility. Unlike the newer facility where services are delivered to where the inmates are housed, all inmates in this facility must be escorted to the sole space in this building used for this purpos e. The medical space is als o vastly undersized for the inmate population that it serves.
10

The outdoor exercise area for the facility is located on the roof. An observation station is located above and to the side of the yard for staff to supervise t he exercise activity . Inmates must be escorted up elevators or stairwells t o reach this area – a practice that is staff intensive and potentially dangerous.

Visiting is accomplished on the first floor of

this facility with inma tes remaining in th e

secure portion of the building and the

visitors on the non-secure side. Again,

inmates must be escorted down one or

more floors to access this area - a staff

intensive and potentially

dangerous

process.

One of the few spaces in this building that appears to be well planned in the laundr y that is located in the basement. Here, all of the laundry for the jail system is washed and dried. The equipm ent looks relatively new and is very well maintained. Should this facility be replaced, it is possible to move this equipment to a newer location.

11

SATELLITE JAIL
The final facility in the Fresno County Jail System is known as t he Satellite Jail. This facility is located ap proximately two miles south of the downtown jail com plex in an industrial area. Orig inally opened in 1986 as a “temporary facility” to house overflo w inmates from the overcrowded old Main Jail (now the South A nnex) while the new Main Jail was being constructed, this jail has become a permanent fixture in the jail system.
This “minimum security jail” is made up of four “mobile home type” dorm units (two to each s ide) with a covered common dayroom in the middle. Additionally, there is a staff administrative “trailer” located in the front of the complex to provide necessary support area for staff.

This facility is rated to hold no more than 96 inmates, yet has enough bed space for over three times this number – 300. These beds are often filled. Staff must have a very difficult time entering each of these dorm units to conduc t security checks.

Although these inmates are considered t o

be “minimum security” ten years ago they

would hav e been a much higher security

level (due to the release of

all truly

minimum security

inmates due to

crowding). This cr eates a v ery volatile

environment.

12

FACILITY ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Fresno County Jail System – consisting of four jails – is operating beyond its

intended capacity. Despite this problem, the management and staff of the jail are

doing an excellent job at operating a professional system . Incidents of litigation

in the jail, one measurement of the success or failure to successfully operate a

jail, are very minimal. Despite the

efforts by staff, however, the age and

architecture of one of the facilities (Sout h Anne x) po ses a significant risk to the

safety and security of staff, inmates and the citizens of Fresno County.

The following outlines the observations and recommendations f or the physica l plants:
• The jail sy stem is crowded bey ond th e capacity that it was intended t o safely operate. The Satellite Jail o ften operates above 300% of its rated capacity. Although the Main Jail was designed and constructed to operate as a jail wit h double occupancy c ells, because of crowding, it operates as modified dorm units. The jail crowding diminishes the staff’s ability to safely and securely operate the system.
• While two j ail buildings are of new er podular design and conta in modern electronics, the South Annex jail is operating far beyond its useful life. Any funds identifie d to improve the facility shoul d only be spent to keep the facility operationa l until a new fac ility can be cons tructed and this jail closed. Since it takes from five to eight years to fund, design, construct and open a new jail, we strongly recommend that this process begin immediately. At the sa me time, firm plans should be made to close and tear down the obsolete S outh Annex Jail as soon as the new facility opens.
• The new jail designed to replace t he South Annex s hould be constructed with single and double occupancy cells to provide staff with the necessary tools to saf ely house inmates wit h the many class ification levels found in the Fresno system.

13

• The Main Jail should eventually reve rt back to its original intended purpose of providing double and single occ upancy cells where inmates of varying classifications may be housed in the same building, but kept physically separate.
• The population of the Sate llite Jail should be reduced as soon as possible to its rated capacity. True minimu m-security facilities are relatively inexpensive to construct, however even a minimum-security facility can be dangerously crowded as is the Satellite Ja il. Potential future use of the Satellite Jail includes operating as a “day reporting center”, a work releas e center, an electronic home monitoring center, or any out-of-custody minimum security program.
14

. /)-9-06

rntwSf,[/e- (c!h-~. /14 )
pr£flltJ Jkk @hfn J;1JY N rr/11I ~j' /} D
I~, ~- tC..5 0-~. \
~~.- ~IM.V\\i\IQ-'

-

- ---

.1 I

-

-