Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:151

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) MARGOT MENDELSON (SBN 268583)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE
3 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Fax: (510) 280-2704 dspecter@prisonlaw.com
6 mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

7

SEP 30, 2016

8

9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, on behalf of
10 himself and others similarly situated
11

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE

16

17 RAHSHUN TURNER,
18 on behalf of himself and all others 19 similarly situated, 20 v. Plaintiffs, 21 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 22 Defendant.
23

Case No. 5:16ícví00355íVAPíDTB CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:152

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. San Bernardino County is violating the constitutional rights of the

3 nearly 6,000 people it incarcerates in its jails. Jail medical, mental health, and

4 dental care is so deficient that it is harming the people it aims to serve. Jail staff

5 uses excessive force against people they are charged with protecting, and fails to

6 take even the most basic steps to prevent violence. Jail staff discriminates against

7 people with disabilities by locking them in housing units that don’t have accessible

8 toilets and showers, and by locking people with mental health problems in tiny cells

9 for 22 to 24 hours a day, which only worsens their psychiatric conditions.

10

2. County officials have known for years that the conditions in the jails

11 are so deplorable that people housed there are at significant risk of harm. Yet the

12 County has failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of harm faced by

13 people entirely dependent on the County for basic health care, disability

14 discrimination, safety, and security.

15

3. Plaintiff Rahshun Turner and the class he represents seek a declaration

16 that San Bernardino County’s ongoing practices violate their constitutional and

17 statutory rights, and seek injunctive relief compelling Defendant to provide

18 constitutionally adequate health care, to protect people from violence, to provide

19 equal access to programs, services, and activities, and to cease the unnecessary and

20 excessive use of force.

21

JURISDICTION

22

4. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

23 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the

24 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504

25 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

26

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

27 1343, and 1367. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§

28 1343, 2201, and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:153

1

VENUE

2

6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

3 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

4 claims brought by Plaintiff and the class have occurred in this District and

5 Defendant is located in this District.

6

PARTIES

7 Plaintiff

8

7. Rahshun Turner is a pretrial detainee in custody at High Desert

9 Detention Center. Mr. Turner has been housed in an administrative segregation unit

10 for over a year. On a typical day, Mr. Turner is locked in his cell for twenty three

11 and a half hours. Mr. Turner is experiencing anxiety, agitation, and depression as a

12 result of the long-term isolation.

13 Defendant

14

8. Defendant County of San Bernardino operates four jail facilities – West

15 Valley Detention Center, Central Detention Center, High Desert Detention Center,

16 and the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center – that incarcerate approximately 6,000

17 people. Defendant also operates several detention facilities that incarcerate people

18 for 96 hours or less. The County is responsible for ensuring that the basic human

19 needs of individuals in its custody are met, and for ensuring that individuals are not

20 at risk of serious harm, including by providing appropriate funding, oversight, and

21 corrective action to ensure adequate conditions.

22

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

23 I. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FAILS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE.
24 9. Defendant subjects all people confined in the jails, including Plaintiff,
25 to a substantial risk of injury or death by failing to provide adequate medical, mental
26 health, and dental care. Individuals in the jails are entirely dependent on Defendant
27 for their basic health care needs. Defendant has a policy and practice of
28

2
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:154

1 inadequately screening for serious health care conditions and disabilities, delaying

2 access to clinicians and medications, understaffing health care professionals,

3 delaying access to specialty care, and failing to provide the full array of services

4 necessary to meet minimum standards of care. Defendant is deliberately indifferent

5 to the risk of harm caused by these serious health care deficiencies.

6

A. Mental Health Care Is Inadequate.

7

10. Defendant’s mental health care delivery system is deficient in staffing,

8 screening, therapeutic treatment, suicide prevention, medication management,

9 timely evaluations, recordkeeping, and confidentiality.

10

11. There are not enough psychiatrists and therapists to meet the demands

11 of the current jail population. As a result, Defendant cannot implement the essential

12 components of an adequate mental health delivery system.

13

12. Upon arrival, untrained correctional officers, and not health care

14 professionals, screen people for health care symptoms, including for mental illness

15 and suicidality. If the screening correctional officer manages to identify an

16 individual as mentally ill, he or she is referred to mental health staff for an

17 evaluation. However, this evaluation is often delayed, incomplete, and inadequate.

18 The focus of the clinical evaluation is centered on any history of psychiatric

19 medications, and the other necessary components of an adequate assessment (e.g.,

20 current symptoms, substance abuse, social history, and suicide history) are given

21 short-shrift.

22

13. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure timely access

23 to mental health care. Once housed, the primary method for people to request health

24 care is to give a Health Service Request form (“HSR”) to a correctional officer.

25 This practice deters people from asking for help because custody staff may review

26 their personal information, and many HSRs are lost or destroyed before reaching

27 health care staff.

28

14. For those individuals who manage to transmit a request for help to

3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:155

1 mental health staff, the treatment options are extremely limited. There is no therapy.

2 Instead, Defendant provides a brief, non-confidential, cell-front visit by a clinician,

3 flanked by at least one correctional officer, typically several weeks after the

4 individual first requested help, to assess if there are acute mental health symptoms.

5 There is no effort to explore or treat the underlying mental health condition. There

6 is no effort to provide people with practical skills to help them cope with their

7 symptoms or living conditions, including being locked in their cells for 23 or more

8 hours a day, as is common practice. Indeed, in August 2015, a jail therapist

9 documented that former plaintiff Zachery Shovey, who is no longer in Defendant’s

10 custody, was depressed and sleeping poorly, but the only treatment plan was to

11 provide him with a list of outpatient clinics. The brief cell-front visits often do not

12 even address the symptoms described in the HSR that prompted the visit. For

13 example, even though a transgender woman had turned in at least two HSRs

14 describing gender dysphoria in October 2015, the clinician who evaluated her in

15 November 2015 did not discuss gender dysphoria symptoms with her.

16

15. Moreover, because these visits occur at cell-front within earshot of

17 other prisoners and custody staff, people are reasonably hesitant to divulge personal

18 information that may result in stigmatization and abuse. Mr. Shovey, for example,

19 had an extensive psychiatric history that includes multiple suicide attempts,

20 psychiatric medications, and a nine-month stay in a state psychiatric hospital. He

21 did not feel comfortable and did not disclose all of his mental health symptoms to

22 jail clinicians because officers were present and other people could hear their

23 interactions. Mr. Shovey had no history of violence or violent charges, and did not

24 pose any security threat that required custody officers to stand next to his clinicians,

25 especially when they were speaking to him through a cell door. For individuals in

26 administrative segregation, jail clinicians stoop over and speak to patients through

27 the food tray slot in the cell door even when there is no security risk involved in

28 opening the cell door and moving the patient to an appropriate clinical space.

4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:156

1

16. Defendant has a policy and practice of denying or delaying access to

2 psychiatrists. Therapists generally operate as gatekeepers, and, based on

3 assessments they are not qualified to make, deny access to psychiatrists. Defendant

4 denied Mr. Shovey access to a psychiatrist for over a year after his arrest, despite

5 serious mental health symptoms, because a therapist decided medications were not

6 warranted since he had not been receiving them in the months before he was

7 arrested. Individuals who are referred to a psychiatrist must often wait several

8 weeks to be seen. Once a jail clinician finally referred Mr. Shovey to a psychiatrist

9 because of symptoms including paranoia and mania, he had to wait five weeks and

10 file two grievance before a psychiatrist evaluated him. People who are suffering

11 from severe symptoms must wait weeks or months before receiving psychiatric

12 medications.

13

17. If and when Defendant provides psychiatry services, the treatment is

14 often haphazard and inconsistent. Many people are denied medications entirely

15 until and unless they either threaten or attempt suicide. Defendant does not always

16 provide a comprehensive psychiatry evaluation before prescribing or changing

17 powerful psychiatric medications, and fails to adequately monitor people prescribed

18 such medications for side effects, drug interactions, and effectiveness.

19

18. Defendant’s suicide prevention practices are dangerous and ineffective.

20 If and when Defendant identifies an individual at risk of suicide, correctional

21 officers force the individual to strip naked and lock him or her in a “safety cell,”

22 which is nothing more than a small jail cell with rubber coated walls, no furniture,

23 and a hole in the floor to use as a toilet. The individual is left in this cell for many

24 hours, sometimes days, without any meaningful treatment until Defendant receives

25 some assurance that the individual is no longer suicidal. However, Defendant then

26 abruptly releases such individuals back to their housing units without close

27 monitoring of their symptoms and a without a timely follow-up appointment with a

28 clinician. People quickly cycle in and out of safety cells because they remain

5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:157

1 untreated.

2

19. Defendant worsens people’s psychiatric conditions by locking them in

3 small cells for 22 hours or more a day, also known as “solitary confinement.”1 As a

4 result, they suffer from acute anxiety, depression, withdrawal, psychosis, agitation,

5 and an increased risk of suicide or violence. Defendant does not assess people with

6 mental illness before placing them in solitary confinement to ensure their symptoms

7 are not exacerbated or if they can be safely and adequately managed in such

8 conditions. Defendant also fails to monitor them or provide mental health services

9 once they are locked in solitary confinement despite the well-known risks inherent

10 in locking people in their cells for prolonged periods of time.

11

B. Medical Care is Inadequate.

12

20. As described above, Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to

13 adequately complete the most important encounter in a medical care delivery system

14 – the intake screening. An adequate intake screening is integral because it identifies

15 medications, infectious diseases, and health care conditions that must be addressed

16 to prevent injury and death. Defendant assigns correctional officers to conduct the

17 majority of the intake screenings. These correctional officers are not qualified to

18 recognize and respond to the signs and symptoms of serious medical conditions such

19 as substance withdrawal or infectious diseases. They are not qualified to identify,

20 nor does Defendant verify, prescribed medications for individuals entering the jail,

21

22 1 See U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of State Correctional Institution at 23 Cresson, May 13, 2013, p. 5, available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf 24 (“terms ‘isolation’ or ‘solitary confinement’ mean the state of being confined to 25 one’s cell for approximately 22 hours per day or more, alone or with other prisoners,
that limits contact with other.”); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214, 224, 125 26 S.Ct. 2384, 2389, 2394 (2005) (describing solitary confinement as limiting human 27 contact for 23 hours per day); Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 1990) 28 (21 to 22 hours per day).

6
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:158

1 especially for those who are in extreme distress or under the influence of substances.

2 They are not qualified, and the intake screening does not require them, to take vital

3 signs (e.g., blood pressure and temperature). Defendant also fails to conduct an

4 intake screening for individuals who are transferred from other facilities to West

5 Valley Detention Center for medical treatment, and instead sends them straight to

6 housing units without any contact with medical staff. Consequently, many people

7 are later hospitalized for conditions that could have been prevented if appropriately

8 identified and addressed at the intake screening.

9

21. Defendant does not conform to the professional standard of care in the

10 prevention and control of infectious diseases. It fails to adequately screen for

11 tuberculosis, a highly contagious and deadly disease with a high prevalence rate

12 among people in Defendant’s custody. Defendant fails to provide adequate soap

13 and sanitizers to staff and prisoners. Defendant also does not adequately sanitize

14 shavers and hair clippers that are shared by dozens of individuals. Defendant’s

15 policies and practices create an unreasonable risk of the spread of infectious

16 diseases.

17

22. Defendant does not adequately assess, manage, or treat individuals

18 suffering from substance withdrawal complications, and its policies and practices

19 regarding withdrawal do not conform to the professional standards of care.

20

23. Defendant does not consistently respond in a timely manner, it if

21 responds at all, to individuals who submit HSRs regarding serious medical

22 conditions. For example, Mr. Shovey submitted HSRs on February 22 and March 1,

23 2015, reporting recent seizures and that his seizure meds may need to be adjusted.

24 Medical staff did not respond to either HSR. Indeed, Defendant did not evaluate

25 him until April 3, 3015, when custody staff made an emergency call to nursing staff

26 because Mr. Shovey was having a seizure. Many of these types of emergencies,

27 including those that require hospitalizations, could be avoided if Defendant had a

28 policy and practice of timely responding to HSRs.

7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:159

1

24. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure that people

2 receive timely access to specialty care and that specialists’ treatment

3 recommendations are provided. Defendant provides many specialty services on site

4 at the West Valley Detention Center, but then fails to arrange transportation to those

5 services for individuals housed at the other jail facilities. Those individuals wait

6 months or are never rescheduled for the specialty services because Defendant does

7 not have a tracking system to identify missed appointments. In addition, the jail

8 providers responsible for the overall care of the individuals needing specialty

9 services fail to monitor them once referred, and thus do nothing when a specialty

10 appointment is missed or when a specialist recommends treatment that must be

11 ordered by the jail provider. Similarly, Defendant does not have an effective system

12 to timely receive diagnostic test results that are necessary for adequate treatment of

13 serious medical conditions.

14

25. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to adequately review,

15 document, or correct any deficiencies in care. For individuals who die in custody,

16 Defendant’s practice is to gather records for at least eight to 12 months regarding the

17 death, and then confer with its attorneys. There are no documented findings or

18 conclusions from the records. There are no psychological autopsies of suicides.

19 Defendant does not interview or meet with custody and health care staff who may

20 have been involved in a death. There is no documented plan for corrective action.

21 For individuals who do not die in custody, there is no assessment or evaluation of

22 the overall quality of care, identification of problems or shortcomings in the delivery

23 of care, corrective action to overcome these deficiencies, or follow-up monitoring to

24 ensure corrective steps are effective. Defendant’s failure to implement an effective

25 death review and quality assurance program results in a substantial risk of harm of

26 preventable injury and death.

27

C. Dental Care is Inadequate.

28

Defendant has a policy and practice of denying the full range of dental

8
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:160

1 services that is necessary to maintain dental health. It does not, for example,

2 provide root canals, dentures, or dental floss, even for those people who will be

3 incarcerated for several years. For those patients who require root canals, Defendant

4 offers to extract teeth at no cost or refers the patient to a private dentist who charges

5 the patient for hundreds or thousands of dollars for root canals and other treatment

6 alternatives to save the teeth. This practice forces many indigent people to extract

7 teeth that might otherwise be saved. Many people who do not have access to money

8 in jail refuse extraction and wait in pain and discomfort with the hope that they can

9 pay for the appropriate treatment alternative once released. Those individuals, who

10 may be incarcerated for long periods of time, are at risk of infection and further

11 complications as a result of Defendant’s policies and practices. Defendant also fails

12 to timely respond to HSRs describing serious dental symptoms.

13

D. Health Care Records are Inadequate.

14

26. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to maintain accurate,

15 complete, and organized medical, mental health, and dental records. Defendant uses

16 paper, instead of electronic, records that are not in chronological order or organized

17 in such a way that providers can find essential information about their patients.

18 Some of the providers’ handwriting is illegible, and many psychiatry records are

19 unintelligible. Defendant loses, misfiles, or inappropriately destroys essential

20 records, including HSRs. The records are not always available during health care

21 appointments, especially when individuals are transferred to different jail facilities.

22 As a result of Defendant’s failure to maintain adequate records, individuals suffer

23 from a substantial risk of misdiagnosis, dangerous mistakes, and unnecessary delays

24 in care.

25

27. Defendant also has a policy and practice of denying people copies of

26 their own jail health care records in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.524.

27

28

9
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:161

1 II. 2

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HAS A POLICY AND PRACTICE OF USING EXCESSIVE FORCE

3

28. Defendant has a policy and practice of using excessive force in the jails

4 that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious injury. Correctional

5 officers tase, fire non-lethal weapons at close range, punch, push, stomp, slam, or

6 restrain individuals when it is not necessary to ensure safety and security. These

7 assaults result in broken bones, dislocated joints, swelling, bruising, and

8 hemorrhaging.

9

29. Defendant has a pattern of using force as a first resort in reaction to any

10 behavior that might possibly be interpreted as aggressive. Force is used on people

11 who are deemed, correctly or not, to have disrupted jail operations, disobeyed jail

12 rules, complained about conditions, or disrespected jail staff. In many instances, the

13 use of force is completely unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the

14 jails. In some instances, the use of force may be necessary initially, but after the

15 need for force has passed, the individual is subjected to retaliatory assault.

16

30. These patterns of excessive force occur because Defendant does not

17 adequately train, supervise, and discipline correctional officers. These patterns also

18 occur because Defendant’s written policies and procedures are inadequate. For

19 example, Defendant’s policies do not require that officers first attempt to verbally

20 resolve or use only the minimum force necessary to stop or control a potentially

21 dangerous interaction. Officers are not required to document every use of force

22 incident, and not all use of force incidents are reviewed by supervisory staff.

23 Defendant’s policies do not include any limitations on the use of force against

24 people who are unable to comply with commands due to severe mental illness, or

25 the use of restraints on people who are vulnerable to injuries, including pregnant

26 women. There is no system for people in custody to confidentially report excessive

27 use of force.

28

31. All people in the jail, including Plaintiff, are at risk of harm due to

10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:162

1 Defendant’s policies and practices regarding the use of force.

2 III. SAN BERNARDINO FAILS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE

3

32. People in Defendant’s custody face a substantial risk of harm from

4 violence at the hands of other incarcerated people due to its policy and practice of

5 failing to adequately supervise and classify people in its custody. Vulnerable

6 individuals are regularly assaulted and victimized by other individuals in the

7 facilities or during transportation because Defendant has failed to take reasonable

8 measures to protect them. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the danger of

9 assault faced by people in its custody.

10

33. Given the structural design of the housing units, there are not enough

11 correctional officers assigned to each unit to adequately supervise people. In West

12 Valley Detention Center, officers are stationed in an enclosed control booth that

13 overlooks several separate housing pods. Officers cannot see all areas of the

14 housing pods from the control booth, and there are substantial periods of time when

15 there are no officers in the pods. As a result, people are often assaulted in the

16 housing units when officers are not looking or present. In February 2015, former

17 plaintiff George Topete, who is no longer in Defendant’s custody, was assaulted

18 during a riot in his housing unit when there were no officers present. Defendant

19 knew the riot was going to happen because an individual wrote a note to correctional

20 officers about the planned riot, but nothing was done to prevent it. During the riot,

21 Mr. Topete tried to avoid the fighting by standing next to the door where the officers

22 would enter. While he stood there, he was punched in the face, hit with a milk crate,

23 and hit with a plastic bedframe before he finally used his cane to keep attackers

24 away from him. Correctional officers did not enter the housing pod until several

25 minutes later.

26

34. Defendant does not adequately classify and assign people to housing

27 locations where they will be safe from injury and violence. Individuals who are

28 incompatible are regularly housed together. For example, in September 2015, a

11
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:163

1 gang member was stabbed repeatedly in his cell by a rival gang member. Defendant

2 moved the victim to another housing unit for a few days, but then moved him back

3 to the same housing unit where he was again stabbed repeatedly. Defendant knew

4 that one or both of these assaults was going to occur because correctional officers

5 intercepted a note discussing the planned attack. In other instances, people who

6 notify staff that they are gang “drop-outs” are housed with the general population,

7 instead of in protective custody, where they are attacked by active gang members.

8 People who are obviously psychotic and unstable are also housed with the general

9 population where they assault or are assaulted by other individuals.

10

35. Even when Defendant properly classifies people, they face an

11 unreasonable risk of violence when they leave their housing units. Individuals with

12 different classifications are placed together in holding cells when they wait for court

13 hearings or other appointments and in vehicles when they are transported to other

14 locations such as the courthouse, hospital, or other jail facilities. What is more,

15 individuals with different classifications are chained together in these holding cells

16 and vehicle transports. A significant percentage of assaults occur outside of the

17 housing units.

18

36. When individuals notify staff members that they are at risk of assault,

19 Defendant fails to adequately respond and ameliorate the risk. Correctional officers

20 laugh at or ignore them, tell them that they have no choice but to “get along,” or in

21 some instances even encourage them to fight when they notify them of a risk of

22 violence. Correctional officers do not arrive on the scene of an attack until it is

23 completed, if they are ever aware of an attack at all.

24

37. As a result of these policies and practices, there is a high rate of

25 violence, and people are suffering from serious injuries. In fact, most people who

26 are assaulted require medical attention, oftentimes at an off-site emergency room.

27 Defendant has failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate this harm, and, as a

28 result, a culture of violence between incarcerated individuals flourishes.

12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:164

1 IV. DEFENDANT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

2

38. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to ensure that people

3 with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, and activities in the jails.

4

39. At the time of intake, Defendant does not appropriately identify

5 individuals’ disabilities and needed assistive devices. Defendant’s intake screening

6 form does not include any questions about physical disabilities, and there is no place

7 to document if an individual requires a cane, wheelchair, walker, or accessible

8 housing.

9

40. Defendant does not timely provide appropriate assistive devices,

10 including but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, and

11 hearing aids, to people who require them, if they ever provide them at all. For

12 example, a jail physician ordered a four-wheeled walker for a woman with a

13 mobility impairment in March 2015. She did not receive the walker until over three

14 months later, and then only after Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly asked Defendant to

15 provide it.

16

41. After intake, Defendant does not house people with physical disabilities

17 in locations where they can safely programs and services. For example, Defendant

18 did not house Mr. Topete, who uses a wheelchair, in an accessible housing unit. His

19 wheelchair did not fit through his cell door, which meant that he had to stand up,

20 fold his wheelchair, push it through the doorframe, and then unfold the wheelchair

21 again once inside. There were no grab bars next to the toilet inside his cell or the

22 shower. Defendant forced him to go up and down stairs, without any assistance, to

23 access the visiting room to visit his family. Once he reached the top of these stairs,

24 Defendant did not provide him with his wheelchair that remained on the floor

25 below. Mr. Topete fell and was at risk of serious injury as a result of Defendant’s

26 failure to accommodate him. Defendant does not have enough housing units

27 equipped with accessible features to meet the needs of its current jail population.

28

42. Defendant violates the rights of people with psychiatric and/or

13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:165

1 intellectual disabilities by housing them in solitary confinement. Solitary

2 confinement, or locking people in their cells for 22 hours a day or longer, can be

3 traumatic for everyone, but even more traumatic for people with psychiatric and/or

4 intellectual disabilities. Defendant has not modified its policies and procedures to

5 accommodate people with such disabilities so that they do not suffer harm from

6 solitary confinement. Defendant locks people with psychiatric and/or intellectual

7 disabilities in solitary confinement for nonconforming and erratic behaviors related

8 to their conditions, some of which could have been avoided if Defendant provided

9 adequate mental health care or accommodations. The harsh conditions and the lack

10 of mental health care or accommodations cause them to continue and escalate these

11 symptomatic behaviors. In response, Defendant locks them in solitary confinement

12 for longer periods of time. Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people with

13 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement, based on their

14 disabilities, inappropriately deprives them of access to programs, services, and

15 activities that are only available in less restrictive settings.

16

43. Defendant does not provide timely or adequate access to medical

17 supplies or equipment for people with physical disabilities. People who require

18 colostomy supplies are at risk of infections because Defendant does not consistently

19 deliver the appropriate supplies. Mr. Topete, in addition to a wheelchair, required

20 the use of a C-PAP machine to sleep at night. Defendant housed him in a cell that

21 did not have an electrical outlet, and required him to sleep in the dayroom if he

22 wanted to plug in his C-PAP machine. Defendant also required Mr. Topete to drag

23 a plastic bedframe and mattress to and from storage, without assistance, many

24 evenings and the following mornings. Once Mr. Topete managed to get his bed into

25 the dayroom, he had difficulty getting in and out of the bed because the frame sat

26 directly on the ground and it was difficult for him to bend and stoop. At least a few

27 times a month, Mr. Topete woke up choking and gasping for air because

28 correctional officers had turned off the power in the dayroom and he could not

14
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:166

1 breathe through his C-PAP machine without electricity.

2

44. Defendant does not have an effective complaint procedure for people to

3 contest disability discrimination. The only mechanism Defendant provides to raise

4 disability issues is the jail grievance form. However, individuals must ask

5 correctional officers for grievance forms who often refuse to provide them.

6 Defendant requires correctional officers to review and sign any grievances before

7 they are processed, but many officers attempt to dissuade prisoners from filing them,

8 threaten retaliation for use of the grievance process, or refuse to sign or process the

9 forms. Moreover, many people with disabilities are unaware of Defendant’s

10 obligation to ensure equal access to programs, services, and activities because

11 Defendant has failed to provide notice of their disability related rights as required by

12 federal law.

13

45. Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding screening, housing,

14 assistive devices and medical supplies, grievances, and the use of solitary

15 confinement for people with disabilities is a direct violation of the ADA and Section

16 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

17 V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

18

46. Plaintiff Rahshun Turner brings this action on his own behalf and,

19 pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on

20 behalf of all people who are or will in the future be incarcerated in the San

21 Bernardino County Jail.

22

47. All class members are at risk of harm due to the following policies and

23 practices:

24

(a) Using force that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of

25 serious injury even when it is unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in

26 the jails;

27

(b) Denying minimally adequate health care including identification

28 and monitoring of serious conditions, sufficient staffing levels, timely access to

15
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 17 of 24 Page ID #:167

1 appropriate clinicians, medications, and treatment plans, effective suicide prevention

2 practices, and the complete range of health care services necessary to maintain

3 health;

4

(c) Failing to adequately supervise and classify individuals to ensure

5 that they do not face an unreasonable risk of injury and violence from other

6 incarcerated individuals.

7

People with disabilities also face the additional risk of disability

8 discrimination due to Defendant’s inadequate policies and practices regarding

9 solitary confinement, assistive devices and medical supplies, accessible housing, and

10 grievances.

11

48. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including

12 whether Defendant by its policy and practice of (1) denying minimally adequate

13 mental health, medical, and dental care violates the Due Process Clause of the

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

15 Amendment; (2) using excessive force violates the Due Process Clause of the

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

17 Amendment; (3) denying adequate supervision and classification to protect people

18 from violence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and

19 the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (4) denying

20 assistive devices, medical supplies, and accessible housing to people with physical

21 disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (4)

22 locking people with psychiatric disabilities and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary

23 confinement based on their disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the

24 Rehabilitation Act.

25

49. Since there are thousands of class members, separate actions by

26 individuals would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions,

27 which in turn would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for

28 Defendant.

16
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 18 of 24 Page ID #:168

1

50. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds that apply generally to

2 the class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate

3 respecting the class as a whole.

4

51. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class, since his claims

5 arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct and his claims are

6 based on the same theories of law as the class’s claims.

7

52. The named Plaintiff, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect

8 the interests of the class. Plaintiff does not have any interests antagonistic to the

9 plaintiff class. Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the

10 unlawful acts and omissions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiff is represented by

11 counsel experienced in prisoners’ rights litigation and complex class action

12 litigation.

13

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14

First Cause of Action

15 (Fourteenth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

17 in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

18

54. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects

19 Plaintiff and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from

20 inadequate health care, violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has

21 violated their right to basic human dignity and to be free from cruel and unusual

22 conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

23 These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by

24 Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert

25 under color of state law, in their official capacity, and are the proximate cause of the

26 Plaintiff’s and the class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured under the Fourteenth

27 Amendment.

28

55. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained

17
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:169

1 of herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It

2 should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions

3 imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

4 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has

5 repeatedly been made aware, through administrative grievances and written

6 complaints, that class members are currently experiencing, or are at risk of,

7 significant and lasting injury.

8

Second Cause of Action

(Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

9

10

56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

11 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

12

57. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects

13 Plaintiff and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from

14 inadequate health care, violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has

15 violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

16 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These policies and practices have

17 been and continue to be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials,

18 employees, and all persons acting in concert under color of state law, in their official

19 capacity, and are the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s and the class’s ongoing

20 deprivation of rights secured under the Eighth Amendment.

21

58. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained

22 of herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It

23 should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions

24 imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

25 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has

26 repeatedly been made aware, through administrative grievances and written

27 complaints, that class members are currently experiencing, or are at risk of,

28 significant and lasting injury.

18
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 20 of 24 Page ID #:170

1

Third Cause of Action

(Americans with Disabilities Act) 2

3

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

4 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

5

60. Plaintiff Turner and other class members with physical, psychiatric, or

6 intellectual disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the

7 ADA. They have an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life

8 activities, they have a record of such impairment, or they are regarded as having

9 such an impairment. All people with disabilities in the jails meet the essential

10 eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or

11 activities provided by Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

12

61. Defendant is a public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A).

13

62. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to ensure that people with

14 disabilities have access to, are permitted to participate in, and are not denied the

15 benefits of, programs, services, and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §

16 35.152(b)(1).

17

63. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to make “reasonable

18 modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are

19 necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability . . . .” 28 C.F.R. Section

20 35.130(b)(7).

21

64. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “ensure that inmates or

22 detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to

23 the needs of the individuals.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2).

24

65. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary

25 aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal

26 opportunity to participate in … a service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 28

27 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1).

28

66. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to notify people about their

19
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 21 of 24 Page ID #:171

1 rights under the ADA while detained in its jails. 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

2

67. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “adopt and publish grievance

3 procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any

4 action that would be prohibited by … [the ADA].” 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b).

5

68. As a result of Defendant’s policies and practices regarding people with

6 disabilities in its jails, Plaintiff Turner and other class members with disabilities do

7 not have equal access to jail activities, programs, and services for which they are

8 otherwise qualified.

9

Fourth Cause of Action

(Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 10

11

69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

12 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

13

70. Plaintiff Turner and other class members with disabilities are qualified

14 individuals with disabilities as defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29

15 U.S.C. § 794.

16

71. Defendant receives federal funding within the meaning of the

17 Rehabilitation Act.

18

72. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by

19 discriminating against people with disabilities solely on the basis of their

20 disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

21

73. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to

22 reasonably accommodate people with disabilities in its facilities, programs,

23 activities, and services.

24

74. Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating against people with

25 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the use of solitary confinement is not

26 reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because (1) it worsens their

27 psychiatric conditions; (2) there are no alternative means for them to access

28 programs, services, and activities; (3) there are alternative means to safely and cost-

20
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 22 of 24 Page ID #:172

1 effectively house them in the jails; and (4) it is an exaggerated response as they do

2 not require restrictive housing on the basis of their disabilities.

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4

75. Plaintiff and the class he represents have no adequate remedy at law to

5 redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiff has suffered and

6 will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions,

7 policies, and practices of the Defendant as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are

8 granted the relief they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at

9 issue are paramount under the Constitution of the United States, the ADA, and

10 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

11

76. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the class he

12 represents, requests that this Court grant him the following relief:

13

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

14 of Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

15

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

16 practices of Defendant and its agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the

17 rights of Plaintiff and the class he represents under the Fourteenth and Eighth

18 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 of the

19 Rehabilitation Act;

20

C. Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting

21 in concert under color of state law or otherwise, from continuing the unlawful acts,

22 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;

23

D. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

24 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate mental

25 health, medical, and dental care, including but not limited to sufficient intake

26 screening, sufficient staffing, timely access to appropriate clinicians, timely

27 prescription and distribution of appropriate medications and supplies, timely access

28 to specialty care, and timely access to competent therapy, inpatient treatment, and

21
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 23 of 24 Page ID #:173

1 suicide prevention;

2

F. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

3 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

4 practical, a plan to eliminate the excessive use of force. Defendant’s plan at a

5 minimum must address deficiencies in use of force policies and procedures, training,

6 supervision, investigations, and disciplinary practices;

7

G. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

8 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

9 practical, a plan to reduce the risk of injury and violence between individuals in its

10 custody. Defendant’s plan at a minimum must address deficiencies in classification

11 policies and procedures, staffing levels, and policies and practices related to the

12 transportation of people in its custody;

13

H. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

14 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide equal access to programs,

15 services, and activities for people with disabilities, including but not limited to

16 housing people with physical disabilities in accessible housing appropriate to their

17 needs, timely delivery of and appropriate access to assistive devices and medical

18 supplies, housing people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the least

19 restrictive and most integrated settings appropriate to their needs, providing an

20 effective grievance system to contest disability discrimination, and notifying people

21 with disabilities their rights under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

22 Act.;

23

I. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 12205,

24 and 12133, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation

25 expenses;

26

J. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendant has fully complied with the

27 orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendant will continue

28 to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

22
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 29 Filed 09/30/16 Page 24 of 24 Page ID #:174

1

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

2

3

Dated: September 28, 2016

PRISON LAW OFFICE

4

By: /s/ Margot Mendelson

5

MARGOT MENDELSON

6

DONALD SPECTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:275

1

DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) MARGOT MENDELSON (SBN 268583)

2 PRISON LAW OFFICE

1917 Fifth Street 3 Berkeley, California 94710

4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704

5 dspecter@prisonlaw.com

6 mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

NOV 18, 2016

7

8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE
15

16 RAHSHUN TURNER, MONIQUE 17 LEWIS, JAIME JARAMILLO, and
JOSHUA MILLS on behalf of themselves 18 and all others similarly situated,
19 Plaintiffs, 20 v.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 21
Defendant. 22

Case No. 5:16ícví00355íVAPíDTB
CLASS ACTION
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:276

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. San Bernardino County is violating the constitutional rights of the nearly

3 6,000 people it incarcerates in its jails. Jail medical, mental health, and dental care is so

4 deficient that it is harming the people it aims to serve. Jail staff uses excessive force

5 against people they are charged with protecting, and fails to take even the most basic steps

6 to prevent violence. Jail staff discriminates against people with disabilities by locking

7 them in housing units that don’t have accessible toilets and showers, and by locking people

8 with mental health problems in tiny cells for 22 to 24 hours a day, which only worsens

9 their psychiatric conditions.

10

2. County officials have known for years that the conditions in the jails are so

11 deplorable that people housed there are at significant risk of harm. Yet the County has

12 failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of harm faced by people entirely

13 dependent on the County for basic health care, prevent disability discrimination, and

14 ensure safety and security.

15

3. Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, and Joshua

16 Mills and the class they represent seek a declaration that San Bernardino County’s ongoing

17 practices violate their constitutional and statutory rights, and seek injunctive relief

18 compelling Defendant to provide constitutionally adequate health care, to protect people

19 from violence, to provide equal access to programs, services, and activities, and to cease

20 the unnecessary and excessive use of force and the harmful, excessive use of solitary

21 confinement.

22

JURISDICTION

23

4. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth

24 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with

25 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

26 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

27

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

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

1
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:277

1 2201, and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2

VENUE

3

6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

4 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

5 brought by Plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District and Defendant is located

6 in this District.

7

PARTIES

8 Plaintiffs

9

7. Rahshun Turner is a pretrial detainee in custody at High Desert Detention

10 Center. Mr. Turner has been housed in an administrative segregation unit for over a year.

11 On a typical day, Mr. Turner is locked in his cell for twenty three and a half hours. Mr.

12 Turner is experiencing anxiety, agitation, and depression as a result of the long-term

13 isolation.

14

8. Monique Lewis is a convicted prisoner in custody at West Valley Detention

15 Center. Ms. Lewis has an extensive psychiatric history that includes suicide attempts,

16 psychiatric medications, and placement in a state psychiatric hospital. Ms. Lewis has an

17 intellectual disability. She also suffers from Type 2 diabetes.

18

9. Jaime Jaramillo is a pretrial detainee in custody at West Valley Detention

19 Center. Mr. Jaramillo has an extensive psychiatric history, including suicide attempts,

20 psychiatric medications, and involuntary placement in an Idaho state psychiatric hospital.

21

10. Joshua Mills is a pretrial detainee in custody at West Valley Detention

22 Center. Mr. Mills has an extensive psychiatric history that includes suicide attempts and

23 psychiatric medications.

24 Defendant

25

11. Defendant County of San Bernardino operates four jail facilities – West

26 Valley Detention Center, Central Detention Center, High Desert Detention Center, and the

27 Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center – that incarcerate approximately 6,000 people.

28 Defendant also operates several detention facilities that incarcerate people for 96 hours or

2
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:278

1 less. The County is responsible for ensuring that the basic human needs of individuals in

2 its custody are met, and for ensuring that individuals are not at risk of serious harm,

3 including by providing appropriate funding, oversight, and corrective action to ensure

4 adequate conditions.

5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6 I.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FAILS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE.

7

12. Defendant subjects all people confined in the jails, including Plaintiffs, to a

8 substantial risk of injury or death by failing to provide adequate medical, mental health,

9 and dental care. Individuals in the jails are entirely dependent on Defendant for their basic

10 health care needs. Defendant has a policy and practice of inadequately screening for

11 serious health care conditions and disabilities, delaying access to clinicians and

12 medications, understaffing health care professionals, delaying access to specialty care, and

13 failing to provide the full array of services necessary to meet minimum standards of care.

14 Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm caused by these serious health care

15 deficiencies.

16

A. Mental Health Care Is Inadequate.

17

13. Defendant’s mental health care delivery system is deficient in staffing,

18 screening, therapeutic treatment, suicide prevention, medication management, timely

19 evaluations, recordkeeping, and confidentiality.

20

14. There are not enough psychiatrists and therapists to meet the demands of the

21 current jail population. As a result, Defendant cannot implement the essential components

22 of an adequate mental health delivery system.

23

15. Upon arrival, untrained correctional officers, and not health care

24 professionals, screen people for health care symptoms, including for mental illness and

25 suicidality. If the screening correctional officer manages to identify an individual as

26 mentally ill, he or she is referred to mental health staff for an evaluation. However, this

27 evaluation is often delayed, incomplete, and inadequate. The focus of the clinical

28 evaluation is centered on any history of psychiatric medications, and the other necessary

3
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:279

1 components of an adequate assessment (e.g., current symptoms, substance abuse, social

2 history, and suicide history) are given short-shrift.

3

16. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure timely access to

4 mental health care. Once housed, the primary method for people to request health care is

5 to give a Health Service Request form (“HSR”) to a correctional officer. This practice

6 deters people from asking for help because custody staff may review their personal

7 information, and many HSRs are lost or destroyed before reaching health care staff.

8

17. For those individuals who manage to transmit a request for help to mental

9 health staff, the treatment options are extremely limited. There is no counseling or

10 therapy. Instead, Defendant provides a brief, non-confidential, cell-front visit by a

11 clinician, flanked by at least one correctional officer, typically several weeks after the

12 individual first requested help, to assess if there are acute mental health symptoms. There

13 is no effort to explore or treat the underlying mental health condition. There is no effort to

14 provide people with practical skills to help them cope with their symptoms or living

15 conditions, including being locked in their cells for 23 or more hours a day, as is common

16 practice. Mr. Turner, for example, has experienced agitation, irritability, and despair as a

17 result of his prolonged placement in solitary confinement at High Desert Detention Center.

18 In February 2016, jail staff documented that Mr. Turner requested mental health

19 counseling services. The only treatment plan for Mr. Turner was to provide him with a list

20 of outpatient clinics and encourage him to seek mental health treatment upon release. The

21 brief cell-front visits often do not even address the symptoms described in the HSR that

22 prompted the visit. For example, even though a transgender woman had turned in at least

23 two HSRs describing gender dysphoria in October 2015, the clinician who evaluated her in

24 November 2015 did not discuss gender dysphoria symptoms with her.

25

18. Moreover, because these visits occur at cell-front within earshot of other

26 prisoners and custody staff, people are reasonably hesitant to divulge personal information

27 that may result in stigmatization and abuse. Mr. Mills, for example, has an extensive

28 psychiatric history and experiences serious auditory and visual hallucinations. His only

4
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:280

1 opportunities to interact with mental health clinicians at the jail take place through a locked

2 cell door within earshot of custody officers and other prisoners. For individuals in

3 administrative segregation, jail clinicians stoop over and speak to patients through the food

4 tray slot in the cell door even when there is no security risk involved in opening the cell

5 door and moving the patient to an appropriate clinical space.

6

19. Defendant has a policy and practice of denying or delaying access to

7 psychiatrists. Therapists generally operate as gatekeepers, and, based on assessments they

8 are not qualified to make, deny access to psychiatrists. For example, former plaintiff

9 Zachery Shovey, who is no longer in Defendant’s custody, had a serious psychiatric

10 condition that led to placement in state psychiatric hospital for nine months. When Mr.

11 Shovey was in Defendant’s custody, he was denied access to a psychiatrist for over a year

12 after his arrest, despite serious mental health symptoms, because a therapist decided

13 medications were not warranted since he had not been receiving them in the months before

14 he was arrested. Individuals who are referred to a psychiatrist must often wait several

15 weeks to be seen. Once a jail clinician finally referred Mr. Shovey to a psychiatrist

16 because of symptoms including paranoia and mania, he had to wait five weeks and file two

17 grievance before a psychiatrist evaluated him. People who are suffering from severe

18 symptoms must wait weeks or months before receiving psychiatric medications.

19

20. If and when Defendant provides psychiatry services, the treatment is often

20 haphazard and inconsistent. Many people are denied medications entirely until and unless

21 they either threaten or attempt suicide. Defendant does not always provide a

22 comprehensive psychiatry evaluation before prescribing or changing powerful psychiatric

23 medications, and fails to adequately monitor people prescribed such medications for side

24 effects, drug interactions, and effectiveness.

25

21. Defendant’s suicide prevention practices are dangerous and ineffective. For

26 example, Defendant did not conduct a mental health screening of Mr. Jaramillo for over a

27 week after a Court ordered that he be evaluated by a psychologist for suicidal thoughts. If

28 and when Defendant identifies an individual at risk of suicide, correctional officers force

5
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:281

1 the individual to strip naked and lock him or her in a “safety cell,” which is nothing more

2 than a small jail cell with rubber coated walls, no furniture, and a hole in the floor to use as

3 a toilet. The individual is left in this cell for many hours, sometimes days, without any

4 meaningful treatment until Defendant receives some assurance that the individual is no

5 longer suicidal. However, Defendant then abruptly releases such individuals back to their

6 housing units without close monitoring of their symptoms and a without a timely follow-

7 up appointment with a clinician. People quickly cycle in and out of safety cells because

8 they remain untreated.

9

22. Conditions in the designated mental health units are deplorable. Some days,

10 raw sewage spews from the toilets and floods the cells. Some people with inadequately

11 treated mental illness smear themselves and the walls of their cell with excrement. The

12 smell of feces pervades the units.

13

23. Many individuals in the designated mental health units are incoherent,

14 unresponsive, or actively delusional. Some are partially or fully naked in their cells. Some

15 scream repeatedly in anguish, or are so consumed by auditory or visual hallucinations that

16 they are unable to communicate. Even for this highly acute population, no individual

17 mental health treatment or counseling is provided. Psychiatric medications are the only

18 form of treatment provided, and many individuals in designated mental health units report

19 great difficulty accessing a psychiatrist when they have concerns about their medications..

20

B. Medical Care is Inadequate.

21

24. As described above, Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to

22 adequately complete the most important encounter in a medical care delivery system – the

23 intake screening. An adequate intake screening is integral because it identifies

24 medications, infectious diseases, and health care conditions that must be addressed to

25 prevent injury and death. Defendant assigns correctional officers to conduct the majority

26 of the intake screenings. These correctional officers are not qualified to recognize and

27 respond to the signs and symptoms of serious medical conditions such as substance

28 withdrawal or infectious diseases. They are not qualified to identify, nor does Defendant

6
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:282

1 verify, prescribed medications for individuals entering the jail, especially for those who are

2 in extreme distress or under the influence of substances. Defendant also fails to conduct an

3 intake screening for individuals who are transferred from other facilities to West Valley

4 Detention Center for medical treatment, and instead sends them straight to housing units

5 without any contact with medical staff. Consequently, many people are later hospitalized

6 for conditions that could have been prevented if appropriately identified and addressed at

7 the intake screening.

8

25. Defendant does not conform to the professional standard of care in the

9 prevention and control of infectious diseases. It fails to adequately screen for tuberculosis,

10 a highly contagious and deadly disease with a high prevalence rate among people in

11 Defendant’s custody. Defendant fails to provide adequate soap and sanitizers to staff and

12 prisoners. Defendant also does not adequately sanitize shavers and hair clippers that are

13 shared by dozens of individuals. Defendant’s policies and practices create an unreasonable

14 risk of the spread of infectious diseases.

15

26. Defendant does not adequately assess, manage, or treat individuals suffering

16 from substance withdrawal complications, and its policies and practices regarding

17 withdrawal do not conform to the professional standards of care.

18

27. Defendant does not consistently respond in a timely manner, it if responds at

19 all, to individuals who submit HSRs regarding serious medical conditions. For example,

20 Mr. Shovey submitted HSRs on February 22 and March 1, 2015, reporting recent seizures

21 and that his seizure meds may need to be adjusted. Medical staff did not respond to either

22 HSR. Indeed, Defendant did not evaluate him until April 3, 3015, when custody staff

23 made an emergency call to nursing staff because Mr. Shovey was having a seizure. Many

24 of these types of emergencies, including those that require hospitalizations, could be

25 avoided if Defendant had a policy and practice of timely responding to HSRs.

26

28. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure that people receive

27 timely access to specialty care and that specialists’ treatment recommendations are

28 provided. Defendant provides many specialty services on site at the West Valley

7
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:283

1 Detention Center, but then fails to arrange transportation to those services for individuals

2 housed at the other jail facilities. Those individuals wait months or are never rescheduled

3 for the specialty services because Defendant does not have a tracking system to identify

4 missed appointments. In addition, the jail providers responsible for the overall care of the

5 individuals needing specialty services fail to monitor them once referred, and thus do

6 nothing when a specialty appointment is missed or when a specialist recommends

7 treatment that must be ordered by the jail provider. Similarly, Defendant does not have an

8 effective system to timely receive diagnostic test results that are necessary for adequate

9 treatment of serious medical conditions.

10

29. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to adequately review,

11 document, or correct any deficiencies in care. For individuals who die in custody,

12 Defendant’s practice is to gather records for at least eight to 12 months regarding the

13 death, and then confer with its attorneys. There are no documented findings or conclusions

14 from the records. There are no psychological autopsies of suicides. Defendant does not

15 interview or meet with custody and health care staff who may have been involved in a

16 death. There is no documented plan for corrective action. For individuals who do not die

17 in custody, there is no assessment or evaluation of the overall quality of care, identification

18 of problems or shortcomings in the delivery of care, corrective action to overcome these

19 deficiencies, or follow-up monitoring to ensure corrective steps are effective. Defendant’s

20 failure to implement an effective death review and quality assurance program results in a

21 substantial risk of harm of preventable injury and death.

22

C. Dental Care is Inadequate.

23

30. Defendant has a policy and practice of denying the full range of dental

24 services that is necessary to maintain dental health. It does not, for example, provide root

25 canals, dentures, or dental floss, even for those people who will be incarcerated for several

26 years. For those patients who require root canals, Defendant offers to extract teeth at no

27 cost or refers the patient to a private dentist who charges the patient for hundreds or

28 thousands of dollars for root canals and other treatment alternatives to save the teeth. This

8
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:284

1 practice forces many indigent people to extract teeth that might otherwise be saved. Many

2 people who do not have access to money in jail refuse extraction and wait in pain and

3 discomfort with the hope that they can pay for the appropriate treatment alternative once

4 released. Those individuals, who may be incarcerated for long periods of time, are at risk

5 of infection and further complications as a result of Defendant’s policies and practices.

6 Defendant also fails to timely respond to HSRs describing serious dental symptoms.

7

D. Health Care Records are Inadequate.

8

31. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to maintain accurate, complete,

9 and organized medical, mental health, and dental records. Defendant uses paper, instead

10 of electronic, records that are not in chronological order or organized in such a way that

11 providers can find essential information about their patients. Some of the providers’

12 handwriting is illegible, and many psychiatry records are unintelligible. Defendant loses,

13 misfiles, or inappropriately destroys essential records, including HSRs. The records are

14 not always available during health care appointments, especially when individuals are

15 transferred to different jail facilities. As a result of Defendant’s failure to maintain

16 adequate records, individuals suffer from a substantial risk of misdiagnosis, dangerous

17 mistakes, and unnecessary delays in care.

18

32. Defendant also has a policy and practice of denying people copies of their

19 own jail health care records in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.524.

20 II.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HAS A POLICY AND PRACTICE OF USING EXCESSIVE FORCE

21

22

33. Defendant has a policy and practice of using excessive force in the jails that

23 subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious injury. Correctional officers tase, 24 fire non-lethal weapons at close range, punch, push, stomp, slam, or restrain individuals

25 when it is not necessary to ensure safety and security. These assaults result in broken

26 bones, dislocated joints, swelling, bruising, and hemorrhaging.

27

34. Defendant has a pattern of using force as a first resort in reaction to any

28 behavior that might possibly be interpreted as aggressive. Force is used on people who are

9
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:285

1 deemed, correctly or not, to have disrupted jail operations, disobeyed jail rules, complained

2 about conditions, or disrespected jail staff. In many instances, the use of force is

3 completely unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the jails. In some

4 instances, the use of force may be necessary initially, but after the need for force has

5 passed, the individual is subjected to retaliatory assault.

6

35. These patterns of excessive force occur because Defendant does not

7 adequately train, supervise, and discipline correctional officers. These patterns also occur

8 because Defendant’s written policies and procedures are inadequate. For example,

9 Defendant’s policies do not require that officers first attempt to verbally resolve or use

10 only the minimum force necessary to stop or control a potentially dangerous interaction.

11 Officers are not required to document every use of force incident, and not all use of force

12 incidents are reviewed by supervisory staff. Defendant’s policies do not include any

13 limitations on the use of force against people who are unable to comply with commands

14 due to severe mental illness, or the use of restraints on people who are vulnerable to

15 injuries, including pregnant women. There is no system for people in custody to

16 confidentially report excessive use of force.

17

36. All people in the jail, including Plaintiffs, are at risk of harm due to

18 Defendant’s policies and practices regarding the use of force.

19 III. SAN BERNARDINO FAILS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE

20

37. People in Defendant’s custody face a substantial risk of harm from

21 violence at the hands of other incarcerated people due to its policy and practice of failing

22 to adequately supervise and classify people in its custody. Vulnerable individuals are

23 regularly assaulted and victimized by other individuals in the facilities or during

24 transportation because Defendant has failed to take reasonable measures to protect them.

25 Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the danger of assault faced by people in its custody.

26

38. Given the structural design of the housing units, there are not enough

27 correctional officers assigned to each unit to adequately supervise people. In West Valley

28 Detention Center, officers are stationed in an enclosed control booth that overlooks several

10
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:286

1 separate housing pods. Officers cannot see all areas of the housing pods from the control

2 booth, and there are substantial periods of time when there are no officers in the pods. As

3 a result, people are often assaulted in the housing units when officers are not looking or

4 present. In February 2015, former plaintiff George Topete, who is no longer in

5 Defendant’s custody, was assaulted during a riot in his housing unit when there were no

6 officers present. Defendant knew the riot was going to happen because an individual

7 wrote a note to correctional officers about the planned riot, but nothing was done to

8 prevent it. During the riot, Mr. Topete tried to avoid the fighting by standing next to the

9 door where the officers would enter. While he stood there, he was punched in the face, hit

10 with a milk crate, and hit with a plastic bedframe before he finally used his cane to keep

11 attackers away from him. Correctional officers did not enter the housing pod until several

12 minutes later.

13

39. Defendant does not adequately classify and assign people to housing

14 locations where they will be safe from injury and violence. Individuals who are

15 incompatible are regularly housed together. For example, in September 2015, a gang

16 member was stabbed repeatedly in his cell by a rival gang member. Defendant moved the

17 victim to another housing unit for a few days, but then moved him back to the same

18 housing unit where he was again stabbed repeatedly. Defendant knew that one or both of

19 these assaults was going to occur because correctional officers intercepted a note

20 discussing the planned attack. In other instances, people who notify staff that they are

21 gang “drop-outs” are housed with the general population, instead of in protective custody,

22 where they are attacked by active gang members. People who are obviously psychotic and

23 unstable are also housed with the general population where they assault or are assaulted by

24 other individuals. In July 2016, while housed in the Unusual Behavior unit, Ms. Lewis

25 was punched in the face by her cellmate while she was sleeping. Ms. Lewis lost

26 consciousness, sustained swelling to her cheek and nose, and was sent to the emergency

27 room.

28

40. Even when Defendant properly classifies people, they face an unreasonable

11
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:287

1 risk of violence when they leave their housing units. Individuals with different

2 classifications are placed together in holding cells when they wait for court hearings or

3 other appointments and in vehicles when they are transported to other locations such as the

4 courthouse, hospital, or other jail facilities. What is more, individuals with different

5 classifications are chained together in these holding cells and vehicle transports. A

6 significant percentage of assaults occur outside of the housing units.

7

41. When individuals notify staff members that they are at risk of assault,

8 Defendant fails to adequately respond and ameliorate the risk. Correctional officers laugh

9 at or ignore them, tell them that they have no choice but to “get along,” or in some

10 instances even encourage them to fight when they notify them of a risk of violence.

11 Correctional officers do not arrive on the scene of an attack until it is completed, if they are

12 ever aware of an attack at all.

13

42. As a result of these policies and practices, there is a high rate of violence,

14 and people are suffering from serious injuries. In fact, most people who are assaulted

15 require medical attention, oftentimes at an off-site emergency room. Defendant has failed

16 to take reasonable measures to mitigate this harm, and, as a result, a culture of violence

17 between incarcerated individuals flourishes.

18 IV. DEFENDANT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

19

43. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to ensure that people with

20 disabilities have equal access to programs, services, and activities in the jails.

21

44. At the time of intake, Defendant does not appropriately identify individuals’

22 disabilities and needed assistive devices. Defendant routinely fails to collect critical

23 information about individuals’ physical disabilities at the time of intake, including whether

24 the individual requires a cane, wheelchair, walker, or accessible housing.

25

45. Defendant does not timely provide appropriate assistive devices, including

26 but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, and hearing aids, to people

27 who require them, if they ever provide them at all. For example, a jail physician ordered a

28 four-wheeled walker for a woman with a mobility impairment in March 2015. She did not

12
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:288

1 receive the walker until over three months later, and then only after Plaintiffs’ counsel

2 repeatedly asked Defendant to provide it.

3

46. After intake, Defendant does not house people with physical disabilities in

4 locations where they can safely programs and services. For example, Defendant did not

5 house Mr. Topete, who uses a wheelchair, in an accessible housing unit. His wheelchair

6 did not fit through his cell door, which meant that he had to stand up, fold his wheelchair,

7 push it through the doorframe, and then unfold the wheelchair again once inside. There

8 were no grab bars next to the toilet inside his cell or the shower. Defendant forced him to

9 go up and down stairs, without any assistance, to access the visiting room to visit his

10 family. Once he reached the top of these stairs, Defendant did not provide him with his

11 wheelchair that remained on the floor below. Mr. Topete fell and was at risk of serious

12 injury as a result of Defendant’s failure to accommodate him. Defendant does not have

13 enough housing units equipped with accessible features to meet the needs of its current jail

14 population.

15

47. Defendant does not provide timely or adequate access to medical supplies or

16 equipment for people with physical disabilities. People who require colostomy supplies

17 are at risk of infections because Defendant does not consistently deliver the appropriate

18 supplies. Mr. Topete, in addition to a wheelchair, required the use of a C-PAP machine to

19 sleep at night. Defendant housed him in a cell that did not have an electrical outlet, and

20 required him to sleep in the dayroom if he wanted to plug in his C-PAP machine.

21 Defendant also required Mr. Topete to drag a plastic bedframe and mattress to and from

22 storage, without assistance, many evenings and the following mornings. Once Mr. Topete

23 managed to get his bed into the dayroom, he had difficulty getting in and out of the bed

24 because the frame sat directly on the ground and it was difficult for him to bend and stoop.

25 At least a few times a month, Mr. Topete woke up choking and gasping for air because

26 correctional officers had turned off the power in the dayroom and he could not breathe

27 through his C-PAP machine without electricity.

28

48. Defendant does not have an effective complaint procedure for people to

13
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:289

1 contest disability discrimination. The only mechanism Defendant provides to raise

2 disability issues is the jail grievance form. However, individuals must ask correctional

3 officers for grievance forms who often refuse to provide them. Defendant requires

4 correctional officers to review and sign any grievances before they are processed, but

5 many officers attempt to dissuade prisoners from filing them, threaten retaliation for use of

6 the grievance process, or refuse to sign or process the forms. Moreover, many people with

7 disabilities are unaware of Defendant’s obligation to ensure equal access to programs,

8 services, and activities because Defendant has failed to provide notice of their disability

9 related rights as required by federal law.

10

49. Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding screening, housing, assistive

11 devices and medical supplies, grievances, and the use of solitary confinement for people

12 with disabilities is a direct violation of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

13 V. DEFENDANT SUBJECTS PEOPLE TO HARMFUL, INHUMANE CONDITIONS OF

14 SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

15

50. Defendant, by policy and practice, locks hundreds of people in small cells for

16 at least 23 hours a day for months or years at time. Over the last several decades, mental

17 health and correctional experts have documented the harmful effects of prolonged solitary

18 confinement. Prolonged solitary confinement is defined as any period of time over three to 19 four weeks.1 Common side effects of prolonged solitary confinement include anxiety,

20 panic, withdrawal, hallucinations, self-mutilation, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

21 Davis v. Ayala, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Grassian,

22 Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 325 (2006)).

23 Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the substantial and obvious risk of harm caused by

24 its policy and practice of locking people in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of

25

26 1 American Psychiatric Association, Position statement on segregation of people 27 with mental illness (2012), available from 28 http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/.

14
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:290

1 time.

2

51. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement in various areas of the jails,

3 including lockdown units and mental health units, for 23 hours or more per day.

4

52. Many prisoners in the jails report that most days they get of their locked cells

5 no more than 30 minutes. Their opportunity to use the dayroom may take place at 1 am or

6 2 am.

7

53. In some housing units, that scant dayroom time is the only chance people

8 have to shower, watch TV, or socialize with others.

9

54. Prisoners in some housing units report that they are only permitted to go to

10 outdoor yard once a week, and that this opportunity is provided only in the early hours of

11 the morning.

12

55. Due to frequent lockdowns, people in the jails may go several days without

13 ever leaving their cells.

14

56. People in solitary confinement eat all of their meals inside their cells, usually

15 sitting on their beds.

16

57. Defendant restricts their property such that many people in these housing

17 units spend hours in their locked cells without external stimulation.

18

58. Defendant prohibits them from attending any structured group recreational,

19 religious, educational, or vocational programs.

20

59. Defendant shackles people in these units every time they have contact with

21 officers outside of their cells.

22

60. Most people are locked in single-occupancy cells and cannot have normal

23 human conversations with other individuals. Their only avenues of communication are to

24 speak through the vents in their cells, or to yell loudly enough for people to hear through

25 the cell walls and doors. Any communication with another suspected gang member, even

26 just a greeting, may be and has been used by Defendant to justify retention in solitary

27 confinement.

28

61. Some people are double-celled, but being locked up with a cellmate in a fifty

15
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:291

1 square foot cell does not compensate for the severe isolation in solitary confinement.

2 Instead, double-celling requires two strangers to live around-the-clock in intolerably

3 cramped conditions, in a cell barely large enough for a single human being to stand or sit.

4

62. Defendant subjects some people in its jails to extreme forms of segregation.

5 At West Valley Detention Center, some of the cells are located outside of the main housing

6 unit. These cells are separated by a hallway and a closed door, such that individuals

7 cannot hear or see activity in the housing unit. Officers have no line of sight into these

8 cells, and people locked in the cells experience serious sensory deprivation.

9

63. Despite the harmful and punitive conditions in these units, Defendant lacks

10 an effective, accurate classification system to determine who gets placed in solitary

11 confinement. In some cases, people may spend months in solitary confinement purely on

12 the basis of their pending criminal charges – even if those charges do not involve violence.

13 As a result, many people are separated from the general population and subjected to the

14 harms of solitary confinement even though they pose no risk to safety or security of others.

15

64. Prolonged solitary confinement can be harmful for anyone, but it is

16 particularly traumatic for people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities.

17 Defendant has not modified its policies and procedures to accommodate people with such

18 disabilities so that they do not suffer harm from solitary confinement. Defendant locks

19 people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement for

20 nonconforming and erratic behaviors related to their conditions, some of which could have

21 been avoided if Defendant provided adequate mental health care or accommodations. The

22 harsh conditions and the lack of mental health care or accommodations in lockdown units

23 cause them to continue and escalate these symptomatic behaviors. In response, Defendant

24 locks them in solitary confinement for longer periods of time.

25

65. Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people with psychiatric and/or

26 intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement, based on their disabilities, inappropriately

27 deprives them of access to programs, services, and activities that are only available in less

28 restrictive settings.

16
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:292

1

66. Defendant does not exclude people with mental illness being housed in

2 solitary confinement. Defendant also fails to monitor people with and without psychiatric

3 disabilities or provide sufficient mental health services once they are locked in solitary

4 confinement despite the well-known medical and mental health risks inherent in locking

5 people in their cells for prolonged periods of time.

6 VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

7

67. Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, and Joshua

8 Mills bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1), and (b)(2) of

9 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all people who are or will in the future

10 be incarcerated in the San Bernardino County Jail.

11

68. All class members are at risk of harm due to the following policies and

12 practices:

13

(a) Using force that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious

14 injury even when it is unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the jails;

15

(b) Denying minimally adequate health care including identification and

16 monitoring of serious conditions, sufficient staffing levels, timely access to appropriate

17 clinicians, medications, and treatment plans, effective suicide prevention practices, and the

18 complete range of health care services necessary to maintain health;

19

(c) Failing to adequately supervise and classify individuals to ensure that

20 they do not face an unreasonable risk of injury and violence from other incarcerated

21 individuals.

22

People with disabilities also face the additional risk of disability discrimination due

23 to Defendant’s inadequate policies and practices regarding solitary confinement, assistive

24 devices and medical supplies, accessible housing, and grievances.

25

69. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including whether

26 Defendant by its policy and practice of (1) denying minimally adequate mental health,

27 medical, and dental care violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

28 and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (2) using

17
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:293

1 excessive force violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the

2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (3) denying adequate

3 supervision and classification to protect people from violence violates the Due Process

4 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the

5 Eighth Amendment; (4) denying assistive devices, medical supplies, and accessible

6 housing to people with physical disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the

7 Rehabilitation Act; and (4) locking people with psychiatric disabilities and/or intellectual

8 disabilities in solitary confinement based on their disabilities violates the ADA and Section

9 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

10

70. Since there are thousands of class members, separate actions by individuals

11 would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in turn would

12 result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

13

71. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds that apply generally to the

14 class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting

15 the class as a whole.

16

72. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class, since his claims arise

17 from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct and his claims are based on the

18 same theories of law as the class’s claims.

19

73. The named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the

20 interests of the class. Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the plaintiff class.

21 Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and

22 omissions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in

23 prisoners’ rights litigation and complex class action litigation.

24

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

25

First Cause of Action

(Fourteenth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 26

27

74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

28 preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

18
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:294

1

75. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects Plaintiffs

2 and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate health care,

3 violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has violated their right to basic

4 human dignity and to be free from cruel and unusual conditions under the Fourteenth

5 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These policies and practices have been and

6 continue to be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all

7 persons acting in concert under color of state law, in their official capacity, and are the

8 proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ and the class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured

9 under the Fourteenth Amendment.

10

76. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained of

11 herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It should be

12 obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions imposed on class

13 members for many months or years cause tremendous mental anguish, suffering, and pain

14 to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly been made aware, through

15 administrative grievances and written complaints, that class members are currently

16 experiencing, or are at risk of, significant and lasting injury.

17

Second Cause of Action

(Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 18

19

77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

20 Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

21

78. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects Plaintiffs

22 and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate health care,

23 violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has violated their right to be free

24 from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States

25 Constitution. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by

26 Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert under

27 color of state law, in their official capacity, and are the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’

28 and the class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured under the Eighth Amendment.

19
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:295

1

79. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained of

2 herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It should be

3 obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions imposed on class

4 members for many months or years cause tremendous mental anguish, suffering, and pain

5 to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly been made aware, through

6 administrative grievances and written complaints, that class members are currently

7 experiencing, or are at risk of, significant and lasting injury.

8

Third Cause of Action

(Americans with Disabilities Act) 9

10

80. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

11 Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

12

81. Plaintiffs Lewis, Jaramillo, Mills, and Turner and other class members with

13 physical, psychiatric, or intellectual disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as

14 defined in the ADA. They have an impairment that substantially limits one or more major

15 life activities, they have a record of such impairment, or they are regarded as having such

16 an impairment. All people with disabilities in the jails meet the essential eligibility

17 requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities

18 provided by Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

19

82. Defendant is a public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A).

20

83. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to ensure that people with disabilities

21 have access to, are permitted to participate in, and are not denied the benefits of, programs,

22 services, and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(1).

23

84. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to make “reasonable modifications in

24 policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid

25 discrimination on the basis of disability . . . .” 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(7).

26

85. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “ensure that inmates or detainees

27 with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the

28 individuals.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2).

20
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:296

1

86. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids

2 and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to

3 participate in … a service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. §

4 35.160(b)(1).

5

87. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to notify people about their rights

6 under the ADA while detained in its jails. 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

7

88. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “adopt and publish grievance

8 procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action

9 that would be prohibited by … [the ADA].” 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b).

10

89. As a result of Defendant’s policies and practices regarding people with

11 disabilities in its jails, Plaintiffs Turner, Lewis, Jaramillo, and Mills and other class

12 members with disabilities do not have equal access to jail activities, programs, and services

13 for which they are otherwise qualified.

14

Fourth Cause of Action

(Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 15

16

90. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

17 Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

18

91. Plaintiffs Turner, Lewis, Jaramillo, and Mills and other class members with

19 disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in Section 504 of the

20 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

21

92. Defendant receives federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation

22 Act.

23

93. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating

24 against people with disabilities solely on the basis of their disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

25

94. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to

26 reasonably accommodate people with disabilities in its facilities, programs, activities, and

27 services.

28

95. Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating against people with

21
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:297

1 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the use of solitary confinement is not

2 reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because (1) it worsens their

3 psychiatric conditions; (2) there are no alternative means for them to access programs,

4 services, and activities; (3) there are alternative means to safely and cost-effectively house

5 them in the jails; and (4) it is an exaggerated response as they do not require restrictive

6 housing on the basis of their disabilities.

7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8

96. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to

9 redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will

10 continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies,

11 and practices of the Defendant as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief

12 they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under

13 the Constitution of the United States, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

14

97. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the class they

15 represents, requests that this Court grant them the following relief:

16

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

17 Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

18

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

19 of Defendant and its agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the rights of

20 Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the

21 U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

22

C. Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

23 concert under color of state law or otherwise, from continuing the unlawful acts,

24 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;

25

D. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

26 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate mental health,

27 medical, and dental care, including but not limited to sufficient intake screening, sufficient

28 staffing, timely access to appropriate clinicians, timely prescription and distribution of

22
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:298

1 appropriate medications and supplies, timely access to specialty care, and timely access to

2 competent therapy, inpatient treatment, and suicide prevention;

3

F. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

4 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

5 practical, a plan to eliminate the excessive use of force. Defendant’s plan at a minimum

6 must address deficiencies in use of force policies and procedures, training, supervision,

7 investigations, and disciplinary practices;

8

G. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

9 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

10 practical, a plan to reduce the risk of injury and violence between individuals in its

11 custody. Defendant’s plan at a minimum must address deficiencies in classification

12 policies and procedures, staffing levels, and policies and practices related to the

13 transportation of people in its custody;

14

H. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

15 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide equal access to programs,

16 services, and activities for people with disabilities, including but not limited to housing

17 people with physical disabilities in accessible housing appropriate to their needs, timely

18 delivery of and appropriate access to assistive devices and medical supplies, housing

19 people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the least restrictive and most

20 integrated settings appropriate to their needs, providing an effective grievance system to

21 contest disability discrimination, and notifying people with disabilities their rights under

22 the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.;

23

I. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 12205, and

24 12133, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;

25

J. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendant has fully complied with the orders

26 of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendant will continue to comply in

27 the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

28

23
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:299

1

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

2

3

Dated: November 10, 2016

PRISON LAW OFFICE

4

By: /s/ Margot Mendelson

5

DONALD SPECTER

MARGOT MENDELSON

6

1917 Fifth Street

7

Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621

8

Fax: (510) 280-2704

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:362

United States District Court Central District of California

1

United States District Court

2

Central District of California JAN 27, 2017

3

BH

4

5 George Topete et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,

EDCV 16-355-VAP (DTBx)

7

v.

8 County of San Bernardino,

Order Granting Joint Motion to Certify Class

9

Defendant.

10

11

Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, and Rahshun Turner

12 (“Plaintiffs”) and the County of San Bernardino (“Defendant”) ﬁled their Joint

13 Motion to Certify Class on December 1, 2016 (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 44.) No party 14 opposed the motion. After consideration of the papers in support of the Motion and 15 arguments advanced at the hearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as follows.

16

17

I. BACKGROUND

18

On November 11, 2016, Plaintiffs ﬁled their Second Amended Class Action

19 Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief on their own behalf and on behalf of

20 those similarly situated. (Doc. No 41.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s jails provide

21 inadequate mental health care for inmates by failing to adequately screen incoming

22 inmates for mental illness, belatedly and inadequately evaluating inmates for mental

23 health symptoms, providing inadequate mental health care once care is requested by 24 inmates, and improperly placing inmates with mental disabilities in solitary 25 conﬁnement, among other things. (Id. ¶¶ 13–23.) Defendant’s jails allegedly 26 provide inadequate medical care to inmates by, among other things, failing to screen

1

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:363

United States District Court Central District of California

1 inmates adequately for health care conditions upon intake, failing to conform with 2 professional standards of care for preventing and controlling infectious diseases, 3 failing to assess and treat adequately inmates with substance withdrawal 4 complications, and failing to provide timely access to specialty care. (Id. ¶¶ 24–29.) 5 Defendant also allegedly provides inadequate dental care by not providing root 6 canals, dentures, or dental ﬂoss. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff also claims Defendant fails to 7 keep adequate health care records, which puts inmates at risk of “misdiagnosis, 8 dangerous mistakes, and unnecessary delays in care,” and Defendant denies inmates 9 copies of their health records. (Id. ¶¶ 31–32.)

10

11

Defendant allegedly has a policy and practice of using excessive force against

12 inmates. (Id. ¶¶ 33–36.) Plaintiffs state, “[f ]orce is used on people who are deemed,

13 correctly or not, to have disrupted jail operations, disobeyed jail rules, complained

14 about conditions, or disrespected jail staff,” and this pattern of excessive force

15 occurs because (1) “Defendant does not adequately train, supervise, and discipline

16 correctional officers” and (2) “Defendant’s written policies and procedures are

17 inadequate.” (Id. ¶¶ 34–35.)

18

19

Plaintiffs also claim Defendant fails to protect inmates from violence. (Id.

20 ¶¶ 37–42.) There are not enough correctional officers to ensure inmates’ safety, and

21 Defendant does not “classify and assign people to housing locations where they will

22 be safe from injury and violence.” (Id. ¶¶ 38–39.) When inmates notify

23 Defendant’s staff they are at risk of assault, Defendant allegedly does not respond

24 adequately to protect inmates. (Id. ¶ 41.)

25

26

2

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:364

United States District Court Central District of California

1

Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s policies and practices discriminate against

2 inmates with disabilities. (Id. ¶¶ 43–49.) Upon intake, Defendant fails to identify

3 inmates’ disabilities and required assistive devices, and Defendant does not provide

4 required assistive devices or medical supplies to inmates in a timely fashion. (Id.

5 ¶¶ 45, 47.) Defendant also fails to house inmates with disabilities where they can 6 safely gain access to programs and services, and Defendant does not have effective 7 procedures for inmates to contest disability discrimination. (Id. ¶ 46, 48.)

8

9

Plaintiffs claim Defendant’s policies and practices subject inmates to harmful

10 and inhumane solitary conﬁnement. (Id. ¶¶ 50–66.) Defendant uses “small cells for

11 solitary conﬁnement, in which inmates stay for anywhere from 23 hours per day to

12 months or years at a time, causing substantial risk of anxiety, panic, withdrawal,

13 hallucinations, self-mutilation, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors.” (Id. ¶ 50; see

14 Doc. No. 45 ¶¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff alleges this is especially harmful for inmates with

15 mental disabilities, and Defendant “locks people with psychiatric and/or intellectual 16 disabilities in solitary conﬁnement for nonconforming and erratic behaviors related 17 to their conditions.” (Doc. No. 41 ¶ 64.)

18

19

The parties propose two classes of plaintiffs: (1) a class consisting of “[a]ll

20 people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino

21 County jails” (the “Plaintiff Class”) and (2) “[a]ll people who are now, or in the

22 future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a

23 psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as deﬁned under the Americans with

24 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the

25 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794” (the “Plaintiff Subclass”). (Doc. No. 44 at 7– 26 8.)

3

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:365

United States District Court Central District of California

1

2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

3

Recognizing that “[t]he class action is an exception to the usual rule that

4 litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only,”

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 demands two requirements be met before a court 6 certiﬁes a class. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013).

7

8

A party ﬁrst must meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), which demands the

9 party “prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions

10 of law or fact, typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation.” Id.

11 Although not mentioned in Rule 23(a), the moving party must also demonstrate the

12 class is ascertainable. Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 284 F.R.D. 405, 521 (C.D.

13 Cal. 2012); Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D.

14 159, 163 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“Prior to class certiﬁcation, plaintiffs must ﬁrst deﬁne an

15 ascertainable and identiﬁable class.”).

16

17

If a party meets Rule 23(a)’s requirements, the proposed class must also

18 satisfy at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiff invokes Rule

19 23(b)(1)(A) (Doc. No. 44 at 12). Under 23(b)(1)(A), class certiﬁcation is appropriate

20 if the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would

21 create the risk of “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual

22 members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for

23 the party opposing the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). A “core example” of an

24 action under 23(b)(1)(A) is the “situation in which many individuals, all challenging

25 a single government policy, bring separate suits for injunctive relief.” William B. 26 Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11 (5th ed. 2016)

4

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:366

United States District Court Central District of California

1

2

District courts are given broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for class

3 certiﬁcation. Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2010).

4 The party seeking class certiﬁcation bears the burden of showing affirmative

5 compliance with Rule 23. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 6 (2011) (“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class 7 certiﬁcation must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule.”). This 8 requires a district court to conduct a “rigorous analysis” that frequently “will entail 9 some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Id. Nevertheless,

10 the merits can be considered only to the extent they are “relevant to determining

11 whether the Rule 23 prerequisites to class certiﬁcation are satisﬁed.” Amgen Inc. v.

12 Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1195 (2013).

13

14

III. DISCUSSION

15 A. Ascertainable Class

16

Before establishing numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, “the

17 party seeking class certiﬁcation must demonstrate that an identiﬁable and

18 ascertainable class exists.” Mazur v. eBay Inc., 257 F.R.D. 563, 567 (N.D. Cal.

19 2009). “A class deﬁnition should be precise, objective, and presently ascertainable,”

20 though “the class need not be so ascertainable that every potential member can be

21 identiﬁed at the commencement of the action.” O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc.,

22 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). “As long as the

23 general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of the

24 litigation, a class will be deemed to exist.” Id.

25

26

5

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:367

United States District Court Central District of California

1

Courts will deny certiﬁcation if it is difficult to determine class members at

2 the outset. See Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 09-288, 2013 WL 1303100,

3 at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) (denying certiﬁcation where “ascertaining class

4 membership would require unmanageable individualized inquiry”); Bruton v.

5 Gerber Products Co., No. 12-CV-02412-LHK, 2014 WL 2860995, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. 6 June 23, 2014) (denying certiﬁcation when proposed class members would have to 7 submit affidavits describing what products they purchased); Jones v. ConAgra 8 Foods, Inc., No. C 12-01633 CRB, 2014 WL 2702726, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 9 2014) (“Even assuming that all proposed class members would be honest, it is hard

10 to imagine that they would be able to remember which particular Hunt’s products

11 they purchased from 2008 to the present, and whether those products bore the

12 challenged label statements.”).

13

14

Here, the parties seek to certify two separate classes: (1) All people who are

15 now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails (the 16 “Plaintiff Class”) and (2) all people who are now, or in the future will be, 17 incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or 18 intellectual disability, as deﬁned under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 19 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794

20 (the “Plaintiff Subclass”). (Doc. No. 44 at 7–8.) By ﬁling a joint motion for class

21 certiﬁcation, the parties agree that both the Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiff Subclass

22 are sufficiently ascertainable. (See id.) Also, as prison records are readily available

23 to identify who is currently incarcerated in Defendant’s jails and the jails’ medical

24 records can establish which inmates have psychiatric or intellectual disabilities, the

25 proposed class deﬁnitions are “precise, objective, and presently ascertainable.”

26 Although the identities of future inmates who will be incarcerated in Defendant’s

6

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:368

United States District Court Central District of California

1 jails are not currently ascertainable, courts frequently allow class action plaintiffs to 2 represent others who may be damaged by a defendant’s acts in the future. Parsons v. 3 Ryan, 289 F.R.D. 513, 525 (D. Ariz. 2013), aff’d, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014); Piva v. 4 Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 378, 388 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (“Courts have further allowed 5 former employees to challenge discriminatory practices in hiring by permitting them 6 to represent future employees.”); Long v. Sapp, 502 F.2d 34, 42 (5th Cir. 1974) 7 (“this court held a former black employee to be a proper representative in a Title VII 8 suit of the class of present and potential future black employees of the defendant”). 9 Thus, the Court ﬁnds the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff Subclass are sufficiently 10 ascertainable.

11

12 B. Rule 23(a)

13

a. Numerosity

14

To satisfy the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1), joinder of all class

15 members must be “impracticable,” but not necessarily impossible. Parkinson v.

16 Hyundai Motor Am., 258 F.R.D. 580, 588 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Courts have not

17 required evidence of a speciﬁc class size or identity of class members to satisfy the

18 requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993).

19 Although there is no “precise threshold,” Courts have routinely found the

20 numerosity requirement is met when a proposed class comprises “40 or more

21 members.” Berry v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 398, 403 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

22

23

Here, both parties allege there are currently approximately 6,000 prisoners

24 housed in Defendant’s jails, and each of these prisoners is subject to Defendant’s

25 policies and practices within the jails. (Doc. No. 44 at 12.) Further, Defendant’s

26 jails house “hundreds of prisoners” who have either psychiatric or intellectual

7

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:369

United States District Court Central District of California

1 disabilities, or both. (Id. at 12–13.) As the Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiff Subclass 2 consist of a large number of prisoners, there is “no doubt that joinder of all members 3 of the potential Class and Subclass would be impracticable, if not impossible.” 4 Parsons v. Ryan, 289 F.R.D. 513, 516 (D. Ariz. 2013), aff’d, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 5 2014). Accordingly, the Court ﬁnds Rule 23(a)’s numerosity requirement is met.

6

7

b. Commonality

8

Commonality “requir[es] a plaintiff to show that ‘there are questions of law

9 or fact common to the class.’” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 23(a)(2)). Even a single common question will suffice. Id. at 2556.

11

12

“Rule 23(a)(2) is not ‘a mere pleading standard,’ so establishing commonality

13 sometimes requires affirmative evidence, which the courts must subject to ‘rigorous

14 analysis.’” Stockwell v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 749 F. 3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.

15 2014) (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351). This “rigor often ‘will entail some overlap

16 with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.’” Id. “Merits questions may be

17 considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to

18 determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certiﬁcation are satisﬁed.”

19 Amgen Inc., 133 S. Ct. at 1195. “‘[W]hether class members could actually prevail on

20 the merits of their claims’ is not a proper inquiry in determining the preliminary

21 question ‘whether common questions exist.’” Stockwell, 749 F.3d at 1112 (quoting

22 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F. 3d 970, 983 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court,

23 therefore, is mindful that the proper inquiry here is “whether the questions

24 presented, whether meritorious or not, [are] common to the members of the putative

25 class.” Id. at 1113–14. In class action suits involving inmates challenging a county’s

26 prison conditions, “[n]umerous courts have concluded that the commonality

8

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:370

United States District Court Central District of California

1 requirement can be satisﬁed by proof of the existence of systemic policies and

2 practices that allegedly expose inmates to a substantial risk of harm.” Parsons v.

3 Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 681 (9th Cir. 2014).

4

5

The parties allege a common issue of law for both the Plaintiff Class and

6 Plaintiff Subclass is “whether [Defendant] is deliberately indifferent to the class

7 members’ health and safety in the application of its policies and practices.” (Doc.

8 No. 44 at 14.) The parties also allege common questions of fact include questions

9 regarding “the content of [Defendant’s] policies governing prisoners’ conditions of

10 confinement” and assumedly, the actual conditions of prisoners’ confinement. (Id.)

11 Thus, “[t]he putative class and subclass members [present] common contentions

12 whose truth or falsity can be determined in one stroke: whether the specified . . .

13 policies and practices to which they are all subjected by [Defendant] expose them to

14 a substantial risk of harm.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014).

15 Accordingly, the Court finds the commonality requirement is satisfied.

16

17

c. Typicality

18

The Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998),

19 explained, “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive

20 with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Id. at

21 1020. Thus, to ﬁnd typicality, a “court does not need to ﬁnd that the claims of the

22 purported class representatives are identical to the claims of the other class

23 members.” Haley v. Medtronic, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 643, 649 (C.D. Cal. 1996). “In

24 other words, a claim is typical if it: (1) arises from the same event or practice or

25 course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members; and (2) is

26 based on the same legal theory as their claims.” Id. Rule 23(a)’s commonality and

9

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:371

United States District Court Central District of California

1 typicality requirements occasionally merge: “Both serve as guideposts for 2 determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class 3 action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims 4 are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and 5 adequately protected in their absence.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 6 338, 349 n.5 (2011).

7

8

Here, the parties allege Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime

9 Jaramillo, and Joshua Mills all are exposed to the same policies and practices within

10 Defendant’s jails. (Doc. No. 44 at 17; Doc. No. 45 ¶¶ 7–13.) All the other members

11 of the Plaintiff Class and the Plaintiff Subclass are also incarcerated, or will be

12 incarcerated, in the same jails and thus are, or will be, exposed to the same policies

13 and practices. (Doc. No. 44 at 7–8, 17.) As Defendant’s policies and practices are

14 the same for all of its jails, Plaintiffs and all members of the Plaintiff Class and

15 Plaintiff Subclass claim they are “exposed to an ongoing risk of injury under current

16 policies and practices in the event that they are housed in solitary conﬁnement or in

17 a location where their physical safety is in jeopardy, that they need medical, mental,

18 or dental healthcare, or that they require accommodations for disabilities.” (Id. at

19 17.) Also, as discussed above, the fact that Plaintiffs assert common issues of law

20 and fact exist tends to show their claims are typical of the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff

21 Subclass. (Id. at 14.)

22

23

d. Adequacy of Representation

24

Rule 23(a)(4) demands that “representative parties will fairly and adequately

25 protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This determination “is a

26 question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each case.” In re Nat’l W.

10

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:372

United States District Court Central District of California

1 Life Ins. Deferred Annuities Litig., 2010 WL 2735732, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2010) 2 (citing McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F.2d 554, 559 (5th Cir. 1981)). 3 “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs 4 and their counsel have any conﬂicts of interest with other class member[s], and (2) 5 will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf 6 of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. “Class representatives have less risk of 7 conﬂict with unnamed class members when they seek only declaratory and 8 injunctive relief.” Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 160 (N.D. Cal. 9 2015).

10

11

Here, the parties assert Plaintiffs are adequate representatives for the Plaintiff

12 Class and Plaintiff Subclass because Plaintiffs’ “interests are in fact identical to the

13 interests of the proposed Class and Subclass: all seek declaratory and injunctive

14 relief compelling defendant to change its policies and practices related to conditions

15 of conﬁnement, prisoner classiﬁcation, protection from violence, healthcare, and

16 reasonable accommodations in the San Bernardino County jails.” (Doc. No. 44 at

17 18.) Further, courts have routinely held prisoners requesting relief from allegedly

18 inadequate system-wide policies and practices are adequate named plaintiffs to

19 represent the interests of similarly situated prisoners. E.g., Hernandez, 305 F.R.D.

20 at 160; Parsons, 754 F.3d at 681; Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 879 (9th Cir.

21 2001).

22

23

Here, the parties state counsel has no conﬂicts of interest with Plaintiffs or

24 any of the proposed class members. (Doc. No. 44 at 19.) Plaintiffs’ counsel, Donald

25 Specter of The Prison Law Office, states his ﬁrm has committed signiﬁcant

26 resources to this case by “interviewing Plaintiffs and other members of the Class and

11

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:373

United States District Court Central District of California

1 subclass to develop the factual record and legal issues underlying this case, 2 performing legal research about potential claims and relief available to the Class,” 3 drafting a complaint and class certiﬁcation motion, and negotiating the substance of 4 remedial plans with Defendant. (Doc. No. 46 ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states he has 5 “litigated numerous large-scale prisoner and parolee class actions for the last 30 6 years, including successfully arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court” on two 7 occasions. (Id. ¶ 4) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel promises his ﬁrm will continue to 8 “dedicate substantial resources” in order to prosecute the action vigorously on 9 behalf of the class. (Id. ¶ 6.)

10

11

Accordingly, the Court ﬁnds Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and

12 adequately protect the interests of the class.

13

14

As Plaintiffs have met all the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Court now turns to

15 the Rule 23(b) requirements.

16

17 C. Rule 23(b)

18

Under 23(b)(1)(A), class certiﬁcation is appropriate if the prosecution of

19 separate actions by individual members of the class would create the risk of

20 “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

21 class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party

22 opposing the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). A “core example” of an action

23 under 23(b)(1)(A) is the “situation in which many individuals, all challenging a

24 single government policy, bring separate suits for injunctive relief.” William B.

25 Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11 (5th ed. 2016).

26

12

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:374

United States District Court Central District of California

1

Here, the parties assert there are approximately 6,000 inmates housed in

2 Defendant’s jails, and because each one is subjected to Defendant’s policies and

3 practices, each one could ﬁle suit requesting injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 44 at 20;

4 see Doc. No. 45 ¶¶ 7–13.) If each suit were litigated independently, the rulings

5 could conﬂict with one another and impose inconsistent standards, according to 6 which Defendant would be required to tailor its policies and practices. Thus, 7 certiﬁcation is appropriate under 23(b)(1)(A) because if the members of the 8 proposed class litigated their claims individually there would be a risk that each 9 individual case would impose a different standard on Defendant. See Ashker, 2014

10 WL 2465191 at *7 (certifying class of inmates claiming prison policy violated the

11 Eighth Amendment pursuant to 23(b)(1)(A)). Accordingly, the requirements for

12 certiﬁcation under 23(b)(1)(A) are met.

13

14

IV. CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint Motion.

16 Accordingly the Court certiﬁes two classes: (1) a Plaintiff Class of “[a]ll people who

17 are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails”

18 and (2) a Plaintiff Subclass of “all people who are now, or in the future will be,

19 incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or

20 intellectual disability, as deﬁned under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

21 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

22 794.” (Doc. No. 44 at 7–8.) Further, the Court certiﬁes plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo,

23 Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, and Rahshun Turner as representatives of the

24 Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff Subclass, and the Court certiﬁes The Prison Law Office

25 as counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff Subclass.

26

13

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 50 Filed 01/27/17 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:375

United States District Court Central District of California

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated:
3

1/27/17

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Virginia A. Phillips Chief United States District Judge 14

 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SETTLEMENT REACHED IN SAN BERNARDINO JAIL CLASS ACTION

Contacts:

Don Specter, Prison Law Office, (510) 280-2621 Lt. Sarkis Ohannessian, Sheriff’s Department Public Affairs Division, 909387-3700

San Bernardino, California (March XX, 2018) –A settlement has been reached in a class action case filed against San Bernardino County regarding the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement in the county jails. Under the settlement county officials have agreed to make improvements in certain areas of jail operations that affect the health and well-being of those who are incarcerated in the county’s jails.

Under the settlement:

 jail officials will substantially increase the amount of time that most inmates are permitted to be out of their cells;

 jail deputies will be required to follow a revised policy regulating the use of force;

 individuals with disabilities will receive reasonable accommodations that will offer them equal access to activities and programs;

 access to healthcare will be expanded;

 experts and the Prison Law Office will monitor the County’s compliance with the settlement, which can be enforced in federal court, if necessary.

A copy of the Consent Decree is available at: www.prisonlaw.com.

The settlement is the result of a lengthy investigation undertaken by the Prison Law Office into conditions in the jails and several years of negotiations with the Sheriff and his staff. “Sheriff John McMahon has been transparent about the conditions in the jails and has negotiated in good faith,” said Donald Specter, Executive Director of the Prison Law Office. “We believe that this settlement will allow people incarcerated in the jail to receive essential health care and accommodations for their disabilities,” said Specter. “The revised use of force policy will emphasize de-escalation techniques that will reduce the need for deputies to use force, making the jail a safer place for the staff and the individuals who are incarcerated,” Specter added.

The County denies that existing conditions in the jails are unlawful. Even so, Sheriff McMahon
noted, “Since prison realignment brought about by AB109, all counties in California have been faced with many significant challenges. In San Bernardino County, we are now tasked with housing inmates with longer sentences who previously would have served their sentences in state prison. This has caused us to have to adapt: we have increased the medical and mental health services we provide to the inmate population, we have given inmates greater access to services and programs, and we have hired additional deputies and medical personnel, and will continue our recruiting efforts, so that we can ensure the safety and well-being of inmates and staff.”
The County has devoted significant resources over the last several years to ensure conditions in
the jails meet all relevant constitutional, statutory and regulatory standards. As part of that
ongoing effort, the County chose to work cooperatively with the Prison Law Office for several
years to address the claims alleged in the lawsuit. “We have appreciated the willingness of the
Prison Law Office to work constructively with the County. We look forward to continuing
cooperative discussions, and are glad the case has been resolved amicably,” said Sheriff McMahon.
The federal court is scheduled to decide whether to give preliminary approval to the settlement at
a hearing on April 16, 2018.

 
 1 DONALD SPECTER (83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com
2 MARGOT MENDELSON (268583) mmendelson@prisonlaw.com
3 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
On behalf of themselves and others 7 similarly situated
8 9 10 11 12

MARTIN H. DODD (104363) mdodd@fddcm.com JAMIE L. DUPREE (158105) jdupree@fddcm.com JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE (233187) jtouchstone@fddcm.com FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 399-3840 Facsimile: (415) 399-3838 In Association with: MILES KOWALSKI, Deputy County Counsel (257269) Miles.Kowalski@cc.sbcounty.gov MICHELLE BLAKEMORE, County Counsel (110474) 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 4th Fl. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0140 Telephone: (909) 387-5455 Facsimile: (909) 387-3070

13

Attorneys for Defendant

San Bernardino County

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE

18 RAHSHUN TURNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
19 situated,

Case No. 5:16-CV-00355-VAP (DTBx) [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

20

Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips

23

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow

24

25 A. Introduction

26

1. The parties to this Consent Decree are Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner,

27 Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, Joshua Mills and the class and subclasses of

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

inmates they represent (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendant
1 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 County of San Bernardino (“Defendant”), on the other hand. The parties enter into

2 this Consent Decree to ensure the provision of constitutional medical, dental and

3 mental health care, to ensure non-discrimination for inmates with disabilities and

4 to address uses of force and restrictive housing in the San Bernardino County

5 Jails.1

6

2. Plaintiffs filed this Action on February 29, 2016 and filed a Second

7 Amended Complaint on November 18, 2016. The Action alleges that Defendant

8 fails to provide minimally adequate medical, dental and mental health care to the

9 people incarcerated in its jails, fails to prevent unnecessary and excessive uses of

10 force against inmates and imposes on inmates the harmful and excessive use of

11 solitary confinement in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

12 United Constitution, as well as discrimination against certain inmates with

13 disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of

14 the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant has denied liability. On January 27, 2017, the

15 Court granted the parties’ joint motion for class certification.

16

3. The Plaintiff class consists of “all people who are now, or in the

17 future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails” and a subclass of

18 “all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San

19 Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability,

20 as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.,

21 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794.”

22 ///

23
24
25
26
27
28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

1 For the purposes of this Consent Decree, references to the San Bernardino Jails include the Type I and II jails as well as the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, to the extent it houses inmates under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Sheriff, and any new structures designated to house prisoners under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Sheriff subsequent to the date of this Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that, because Type I jails are very short-term holding facilities, certain provisions of Remedial Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A will apply only to Type II jails at which inmates are housed for longer periods of time.
2
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1

4. Commencing in January 2015, prior to the initiation of this Action,

2 the parties undertook settlement negotiations to address Plaintiffs’ claims and

3 those negotiations have continued. To aid in settlement negotiations, the parties

4 agreed to hire neutral experts to investigate and opine on the adequacy of medical

5 and mental health care delivered in the San Bernardino jails, as well as the extent

6 and propriety of uses of force against inmates incarcerated by Defendant. The

7 parties jointly selected Todd Wilcox, M.D., as the expert on medical care; Roberta

8 Stellman, M.D., as the expert on mental health care; and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D.,

9 and Gary Raney, former Sheriff of Boise County, Idaho, as experts with regard to

10 use of force in the jails.

11

5. The experts conducted extensive tours and reviews of the jail

12 facilities, policies and procedures and interviewed staff and inmates. They drafted

13 preliminary reports setting forth their findings and recommendations, and both

14 parties were given the opportunity to review the reports and make comments. The

15 experts thereafter submitted their final reports setting forth their respective

16 findings and making recommendations for remedial action.

17

6. With respect to dental care in the jails, alleged discrimination against

18 inmates with disabilities and policies governing restrictive housing in the jails, the

19 parties engaged in direct discussions without benefit or need of joint experts or

20 expert reports or findings.

21

7. The parties thereafter negotiated individual remedial plans pertaining

22 to the matters alleged in the Action and those individual plans have been

23 incorporated into a single, global Remedial Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24

8. Each party to this Consent Decree was represented by counsel during

25 its negotiation and execution. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff classes and subclasses are

26 represented by Donald Specter, Margot Mendelson and Sara Norman, Prison Law

27 Office. Defendant is represented by Martin H. Dodd, Futterman Dupree Dodd

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

Croley Maier, LLP, and Miles Kowalski, Deputy County Counsel for the County
3 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 of San Bernardino.

2

9. Through this Consent Decree, Defendant agrees to implement the

3 measures set forth in the Remedial Plan, subject to monitoring by the Court

4 experts and Plaintiffs' counsel, negotiation between the parties, and if necessary,

5 enforcement by the Court.

6 B. Remedial Plan

7

10. Defendant shall fully implement all of the remedial measures,

8 according to the specified timeframes, set forth in the Remedial Plan. The

9 Remedial Plan is designed to meet the minimum level of health care necessary to

10 fulfill Defendant’s obligations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to

11 ensure that unlawful force is not utilized in the jails, to avoid the unlawful use of

12 segregated or restrictive housing in the jails and to ensure compliance with the

13 ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

14

11. Defendant shall, in consultation and collaboration with Plaintiffs’

15 counsel, develop and implement appropriate and adequate plans, policies, and

16 practices to ensure compliance with the Remedial Plan. At least 30 days prior to

17 finalizing or implementing any new plans or policies developed to meet the terms

18 of the Remedial Plan, Defendant will submit such plans or policies to Plaintiffs’

19 counsel for their review and comments. Disagreements about the adequacy of such

20 plans or policies shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set

21 forth paragraphs 28-31, below.

22

12. Not less than 90 days, and not more than 120 days, after this Consent

23 Decree is approved by the Court, Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel

24 and the Court experts a Status Report stating whether it is complying with the

25 terms of this Consent Decree. The Status Report shall include a description of the

26 steps that Defendant has taken to implement the Remedial Plan. Not later than the

27 end of each subsequent 120-day period during the term of this Consent Decree,

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court experts a Status
4 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 Report addressing each item of the Remedial Plan and shall specify whether it

2 believes it is or is not in substantial compliance with each material component of

3 the Remedial Plan.2

4 C. Court Experts

5

13. Pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the parties

6 jointly request the appointment of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D.,

7 and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court

8 on the County's compliance or non-compliance with the medical care, mental

9 health care and use of force provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to

10 assist with dispute resolution matters addressed in paragraphs 28-31, and to

11 provide testimony, if required, in any proceedings before the Court.

12

14. Within 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree, and then every

13 180 days thereafter during the term of this Consent Decree, the Court experts shall

14 each complete comprehensive reviews and reports (“180-Day Reports”) to advise

15 the parties and the Court on Defendant's compliance or non-compliance with the

16 Remedial Plan.

17

15. In each 180-Day Report the experts shall state their opinion as to

18 whether Defendant is or is not in substantial compliance with each material

19 component of the Remedial Plan within the expert’s area of expertise. These

20 opinions are hereinafter referred to as “Substantial Compliance Determinations.”

21 The 180-Day Reports shall be considered separate and apart from any evaluations

22 and reports prepared as part of the dispute resolution process described below and

23 shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before the Court.

24

16. The experts’ duties specified in Exhibit B shall be provided to the

25 experts pursuant to Rule 706(b). The Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable

26 compensation in an amount approved by the Court, which shall be paid by

27
28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

2 For purposes of this Consent Decree a “material component” of the Remedial Plan shall be any of the subparts of the Remedial Plan identified by a capital letter (e.g., “D. Medical Records”).
5
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 Defendant.

2

17. With appropriate notice, the Court experts shall have reasonable

3 access to all parts of any San Bernardino Jail and access to the facilities will not be

4 unreasonably restricted. The experts shall have access to correctional and health

5 care staff and inmates, including confidential and voluntary interviews as they

6 deem appropriate. The experts shall also have access to documents, including

7 budgetary, custody, and health care documents, and institutional meetings,

8 proceedings, and programs to the extent the experts determine such access is

9 needed to fulfill their obligations. The experts’ tours shall be undertaken in a

10 manner that does not unreasonably interfere with jail operations as reasonably

11 determined by jail administrators.

12

18. The parties agree that they are each entitled to engage in ex parte

13 communications with the Court experts. However, all of the experts’ findings and

14 recommendations shall be set forth in writing in their reports.

15

19. If, for any reason, a designated Court expert can no longer serve or

16 the parties wish to engage any additional expert(s), the parties shall attempt to

17 agree on who shall be appointed to serve as a new or additional expert. If the

18 parties are unable to agree, Defendant and Plaintiffs shall each nominate and

19 submit two potential experts for the Court’s consideration and selection.

20 D. Notice to Class Members

21

20. Defendant shall post notices to class members of this Action in a

22 manner agreed upon by the parties. Such notices shall include a brief statement

23 that includes a description of Plaintiffs’ claims, the definition of the classes and

24 subclasses, notice that the parties have entered into this Consent Decree, a

25 description of the subject areas covered by the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan,

26 and the contact information for the Prison Law Office to allow inmates to contact

27 Plaintiffs’ counsel.

28 ///
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

6
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 E. Plaintiffs’ Monitoring and Access to Information

2

21. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to monitor Defendant’s compliance with

3 the Remedial Plan. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with access to all such San

4 Bernardino Jail facilities, documents, records, and staff that Plaintiffs believe in

5 good faith is necessary to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the Remedial Plan

6 subject, where applicable, to the protective order agreed upon by the parties,

7 entered by the Court on October 18, 2016, and attached hereto as Exhibit C.

8 Plaintiffs shall not be entitled to personnel records, including records and

9 information deemed confidential pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7. From

10 and after the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, Defendant shall

11 provide Plaintiffs with access to such information within 21 calendar days of their

12 request. If Defendant believes that the information requested by Plaintiffs is not

13 necessary to monitor compliance with the Remedial Plan, the parties shall engage

14 in the dispute resolution process described in paragraphs 28-31, below, before

15 seeking any relief from the Court.

16

22. In each of the first two years following the date on which this

17 Consent Decree is entered, Plaintiffs and their consultants shall be permitted the

18 opportunity to conduct three tours of the San Bernardino Jails for the purpose of

19 monitoring compliance with the Remedial Plan. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall have

20 the opportunity to conduct up to two tours of the jails per year, provided however,

21 that Plaintiffs may bring a motion seeking authorization from the Court to conduct

22 a third monitoring tour in any given year. Before bringing such a motion,

23 Plaintiffs shall have complied with the dispute resolution process described in

24 Paragraphs 28-31, below. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by

25 the Court, monitoring tours by Plaintiffs and/or their consultants shall be separated

26 by a period of no less than 90 days.

27

23. Monitoring tours shall include reasonable access to all of the jail

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

facilities, including all housing units, facilities where health care services are
7 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 provided, facilities where inmates with disabilities are or may be housed and

2 provided programming, and any other facilities where services are provided

3 pursuant to the Remedial Plan. During the tours, Defendant shall make available

4 for interview any supervisory, clinical, custodial, and program staff that have

5 direct or supervisory responsibility for health care and disability accommodations.

6 Defendant shall provide a Sheriff’s Department contact person to ensure

7 cooperation of institution staff with Plaintiffs in obtaining information they

8 request during the tours. During the tours, Defendant shall permit and facilitate

9 Plaintiffs having confidential and voluntary discussions with any inmate identified

10 by Plaintiffs. Upon request by Plaintiffs and pursuant to the protective order

11 entered in this case, Defendant shall make available for inspection and/or copying

12 the health care and/or custody files of specified inmates. Disputes that may arise

13 over Plaintiffs’ access to jail information or personnel shall be addressed in the

14 first instance by the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraphs 28-31,

15 below, before the parties may seek relief from the Court.

16

24. If Plaintiffs form the good faith belief that Defendant is not

17 substantially compliant with any material component of the Remedial Plan then

18 subject to monitoring, Plaintiffs shall so inform Defendant and any relevant Court

19 expert of the alleged noncompliance and identify the material component of the

20 Remedial Plan alleged to be noncompliant.

21

Defendant shall investigate the alleged noncompliance and provide

22 Plaintiffs with a response in writing within 30 calendar days, provided however,

23 that if the notice from Plaintiffs is provided to Defendant (i) less than 45 days

24 before the next anticipated Status Report, then Defendant may elect to include its

25 response in the next Status Report; or (ii) less than 45 days before the next

26 anticipated 180-Day Report from a relevant Court expert, Defendant may elect to

27 defer responding until the expert has made a Substantial Compliance

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

Determination applicable to the material component of the Remedial Plan alleged
8 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 to be noncompliant.

2

25. Plaintiffs’ counsel retain the ability to interview their clients pursuant

3 to regular attorney-client visiting procedures established by the Sheriff’s

4 Department. The parties will attempt to establish an efficient means to allow

5 Plaintiffs’ counsel to interview clients and conduct confidential telephonic

6 interviews with individual inmates, with reasonable notice, in a manner that does

7 not disrupt jail operations.

8

26. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be allowed to send postage pre-paid

9 envelopes to their clients in the San Bernardino Jails.

10 F. Individual Advocacy

11

27. Plaintiffs may bring individual inmates’ health care, use of force,

12 restricted housing or disability accommodation concerns to the attention of

13 Defendant's counsel, or their designee, who shall respond in writing within 14

14 days. This process is not meant to replace or circumvent the existing processes for

15 requesting medical or mental health services or submitting grievances to jail

16 authorities. Inmates will be encouraged to make use of those processes except

17 where exigent circumstances or failures of those processes have occurred.

18 G. Dispute Resolution

19

28. Either party may initiate the dispute resolution process with respect to

20 a matter covered by this Consent Decree by providing written notice of a dispute

21 (“Dispute Notice”) to the other party and to mediator Debra Mellinkoff or such

22 other mediator as the parties may have selected (“Mediator”). The Dispute Notice

23 shall request that the Mediator schedule a date for mediation that is not less than

24 90, and not more than 120, days after the Dispute Notice.

25

29. Following service of the Dispute Notice, the parties shall undertake

26 good faith negotiations at such times and places as they deem sufficient in an

27 effort to resolve the dispute informally between them. If, within 30 days after

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

service of the Dispute Notice, the parties have failed to resolve the dispute, either
9 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 party may request that the relevant Court expert evaluate the issue in dispute and

2 prepare a report. The expert must provide the report regarding the area of

3 disagreement to the parties and the Mediator within 45 days of the request.

4 Defendant will pay the experts’ reasonable fees for any reports prepared by a

5 Court expert at the request of a party about a disputed issue, as contemplated by

6 this paragraph.

7

30. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, they shall

8 attempt to resolve the dispute through the scheduled mediation before the

9 Mediator. The parties and the Mediator shall conduct the mediation at such place

10 and in such manner as they shall have agreed upon.

11

31. Mediation shall be deemed to have concluded with respect to an issue

12 in dispute if i) the parties agree in writing that mediation is concluded; or ii) upon

13 the request of a party, the Mediator determines and so notifies the parties in

14 writing that the parties are at impasse, a party is not negotiating in good faith or

15 further negotiation would be futile.

16

32. With the exception of any report prepared by a Court expert, as

17 contemplated by Paragraph 29, above, and any notice that mediation is concluded,

18 nothing said and no document prepared in connection with the mediation shall be

19 offered in evidence in any subsequent judicial proceeding in this case.

20 H. Enforcement

21

33. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent

22 Decree and shall have the power to enforce the agreement through specific

23 performance and all other remedies permitted by law until Defendant fulfills its

24 obligations under this Consent Decree.

25 I. Duration and Termination

26

34. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for four years from the

27 date it is entered by the Court, unless it is earlier terminated pursuant to Paragraph

28 35, below.
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

10
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1

35. Defendant may seek termination of this Consent Decree by bringing a

2 termination motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(i), provided however,

3 that (i) Defendant shall not bring any such motion for a period of two years from

4 the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court; (ii) any termination motion

5 shall be based on a record of no less than one year of substantial compliance with

6 all the requirements of this Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan; and, (iii) prior

7 to bringing such a motion, Defendant shall have complied with the dispute

8 resolution process described in Paragraphs 28-31, above.

9

36. Defendant may request a finding by the Court that it is in substantial

10 compliance with one or more material components of the Remedial Plan and shall

11 base such request on evidence that it has maintained such substantial compliance

12 for a period of at least twelve months, provided that, before requesting such a

13 finding, Defendant shall have complied with the dispute resolution process

14 described in Paragraphs 28-31, above. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,

15 such a finding shall result in a suspension of monitoring of any such material

16 component(s) by the relevant Court expert and Plaintiffs.

17

37. If Plaintiffs form the good faith belief that Defendant is no longer in

18 substantial compliance with any material component(s) of the Remedial Plan

19 previously found to be in substantial compliance and as to which monitoring has

20 been suspended, Plaintiffs shall promptly so notify Defendant in writing and

21 present a summary of the evidence upon which such belief is based. Within 30

22 days thereafter, Defendant shall serve a written response stating whether it agrees

23 or disagrees that it is no longer in substantial compliance with respect to that

24 material component of the Remedial Plan. In the event that Defendant agrees,

25 monitoring by the Court experts and Plaintiffs pursuant to this Consent Decree

26 shall resume. In the event Defendant disagrees, Plaintiffs may bring a motion

27 before the Court seeking such relief as may be appropriate, including but not

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

limited to reinstating full monitoring, provided that, before bringing such a
11 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 motion, Plaintiffs shall have complied with the dispute resolution process

2 described in Paragraphs 28-31, above.

3 J. Costs and Fees

4

38. The parties agree that, by entry of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs

5 shall be considered the prevailing party in this litigation. The Prison Litigation

6 Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, would limit the hourly rates at which

7 Plaintiffs’ counsel can be compensated in connection with certain claims in the

8 Action, while other claims are not subject to such statutory limits.

9 Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to Court approval, the Parties have reached

10 a compromise and Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $350,000 as

11 their reasonable fees and expenses incurred from the date of filing of the

12 Complaint in this Action through Final Approval of the Consent Decree, including

13 approval of the Remedial Plan pursuant to the following rates: $420 per hour for

14 attorneys and $200 per hour for paralegals.

15

39. Plaintiffs shall be compensated for their reasonable time and

16 reasonable expenses (including the costs of any consultants Plaintiffs may retain)

17 relating to monitoring this Consent Decree and Remedial Plan, including any time

18 and expenses incurred in connection with the resolution of any dispute pertaining

19 to such monitoring. Subject to both Court approval and Defendant’s right to

20 object either to the payment of all or any portion of the fees or to the

21 reasonableness of the number of hours for which Plaintiffs may seek

22 compensation, and notwithstanding the rates that Plaintiffs potentially could

23 request or would be limited to in any proceedings before the Court, the parties

24 have agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be compensated for monitoring services

25 at the following rates: $420 per hour for attorneys and $200 per hour for

26 paralegals. Plaintiffs shall submit a detailed invoice for their fees and expenses

27 (including the date, amount of time spent, and a general description of each task)

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

at the end of every quarter and Defendant shall pay the amount requested by
12 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 Plaintiffs within 60 calendar days of receipt of each invoice, provided that

2 Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses shall be capped at $150,000 per calendar year. Two

3 years after the approval of this Consent Decree Plaintiffs may request that the

4 yearly cap on fees and expenses should be increased. That request shall be subject

5 to the dispute resolution process set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31, and, if

6 necessary, resolution by the Court. The yearly cap on fees and expenses described

7 in the previous sentence shall not apply to any fees and costs that Plaintiffs may

8 incur in enforcing or defending the Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan in

9 court.

10 K. Effect of Consent Decree in Other Actions.

11

40. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree nor any statement of claims

12 contained herein shall be used in any other case, claim, or administrative

13 proceedings, except that Defendant and its employees and agents may use this

14 Consent Decree and any statement contained herein to assert issue preclusion or

15 res judicata.

16

41. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to modify, revise or

17 change any existing court orders or decrees applicable to Defendant or to

18 operations at or inmates housed in the San Bernardino County Jails including, but

19 not limited to, any orders and decrees in Haas et al. v. Board of Supervisors of San

20 Bernardino County et al., San Bernardino Superior Court No. WHC 4010.

21 L. Liability and Necessity for Relief

22

42. Defendant admits for the purpose of this lawsuit only that there exists

23 probable cause to believe that violations of the federal rights of plaintiffs have

24 occurred sufficient to warrant the relief contained herein. The parties agree that the

25 relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

26 ensure the protection of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs,

27 and is the least intrusive means necessary to accomplish those objectives.

28 ///
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

13
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1 IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

2

Respectfully submitted,

3

4 Dated: March 29, 2018
5 6 7 8 9

PRISON LAW OFFICE
By: /s/ Donald Specter Donald Specter Margot Mendelson Sara Norman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

10 Dated: March 29, 2018
11 12 13 14

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
By: /s/ Martin H. Dodd Martin H. Dodd
Attorneys for Defendant San Bernardino County

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

14
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

1

ORDER

2

The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated Consent Decree,

3 hereby approves and adopts the Consent Decree as the Order of the Court and, in

4 so doing, finds that the relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no

5 further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal constitutional and

6 statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

7 accomplish those objectives.

8

The Court specifically authorizes the appointment, pursuant to FRE 706(b),

9 of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D., and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and

10 Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court on the County's compliance or

11 non-compliance with the medical care, mental health care and use of force

12 provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to assist with dispute resolution

13 matters as prescribed in the Consent Decree, and to provide testimony, if required,

14 in any proceedings before the Court. Subject to the approval of the Court, the

15 Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation at the rates set forth in

16 Exhibit B to the Consent Decree and to reimbursement for reasonable expenses

17 incurred in connection with their duties, which shall be paid by Defendant.

18

19 Dated: ________, 2018
20 21

_______________________ Honorable Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP

15 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

TOPETE v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DUTIES OF RULE 706 EXPERTS
Pursuant to Rule 706(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the parties set forth the duties of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D., and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and Gary Raney.
1. The Court experts shall advise the parties and the Court on the County's compliance or non-compliance with the medical care (Dr. Wilcox), mental health care (Dr. Stellman) and use of force provisions (Dr. Schwartz and Mr. Raney), of the Remedial Plan, to assist with dispute resolution matters and to provide testimony, if required, in any proceedings before the Court.
2. Within 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree, and then every 180 days thereafter during the term of this Consent Decree, the Court experts shall each complete comprehensive reviews and reports (“180-Day Reports”) to advise the parties and the Court on Defendant's compliance or non-compliance with the Remedial Plan.
3. In each 180-Day Report the experts shall state their opinion as to whether Defendant is or is not in substantial compliance with each material component of the Remedial Plan within the expert’s area of expertise. These opinions are referred to in the Consent Decree as “Substantial Compliance Determinations.” The 180-Day Reports shall be considered separate and apart from any evaluations and reports prepared as part of the dispute resolution process set forth in the Consent Decree and shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before the Court.
4. The Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred plus the following hourly and/or daily rates, which shall be paid by Defendant: Dr. Wilcox: $3,600 per day for onsite monitoring and $450 per hour for offsite review, analysis and

related tasks and for a nurse assistant: $2,000 per day for onsite monitoring and $250 for offsite review, analysis and related tasks; Dr. Stellman: $425 per hour plus $175 per hour for travel time; Dr. Schwartz: $225 per hour and Mr. Raney: $200 per hour.
5. With appropriate notice, the Court experts shall have reasonable access to all parts of any San Bernardino Jail and access to the facilities will not be unreasonably restricted. The experts shall have access to correctional and health care staff and inmates, including confidential and voluntary interviews as they deem appropriate. The experts shall also have access to documents, including budgetary, custody, and health care documents, and institutional meetings, proceedings, and programs to the extent the experts determine such access is needed to fulfill their obligations. The experts’ tours shall be undertaken in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with jail operations as reasonably determined by jail administrators.
6. The Court experts may engage in ex parte communications with the parties, as requested. However, all of the experts’ findings and recommendations shall be set forth in writing in their reports.
7. Pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Consent Decree either party may request that the relevant Court expert evaluate the issue in dispute and prepare a report. The expert must provide the report regarding the area of disagreement to the parties and the Mediator within 45 days of the request. Defendant will pay the experts’ reasonable fees for any reports prepared by a Court expert at the request of a party about a disputed issue, as contemplated by this paragraph.

EXHIBIT C

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:175

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)

2

dspecter@prisonlaw.com MARGOT MENDELSON (SBN 268583)

3 mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

4

PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street

5 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
6 Fax: (510) 280-2704

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 8 and others similarly situated

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

12

EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE

13 RAHSHUN TURNER,

14

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

15 Plaintiff,

16 v.

17 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 18 Defendant.

Case No. 5:16−cv−00355−VAP−DTB STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

19

20

21

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

22

Discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of confidential,

23 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure

24 and/or use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

25 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following

26 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer

27 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it

28 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:176

1 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. Civil Local

2 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be

3 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.

4

B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

5

This action is likely to involve the need for access to confidential health records

6 concerning prisoners in the custody of the San Bernardino County Jails. Records relevant

7 to the resolution of this class action case may include medical, dental, and mental health

8 records, appointment schedules, sick call slips, intake screening forms, and other

9 documents containing protected health information. The parties agree that it is impractical

10 to obtain authorizations or issue subpoenas to individual inmates for the disclosure of

11 health records and that given the scope of the allegations in this class action, the volume of

12 potentially relevant records is substantial. The parties further agree that spending time and

13 limited resources obtaining authorizations or issuing subpoenas will slow the progress of

14 discovery and increase the costs of litigation.

15

Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt resolution of

16 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect the confidential

17 health information of prisoners at the San Bernardino County Jails, ensure that the parties

18 are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the

19 conduct of trial, address the handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and serve

20 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter.

21

It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential

22 for tactical reasons and that nothing will be so designated without a good faith belief that it

23 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it

24 should not be part of the public record of this case

25

C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL

26

The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this

27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under

28 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the

2
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:177

1 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material

2 under seal.

3

There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial

4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good

5 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of

6 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d

7 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577

8 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a

9 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and

10 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to

11 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as

12 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by

13 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as

14 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause.

15

Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then

16 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief

17 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v.

18 Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of

19 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection

20 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling

21 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order.

22 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be

23 provided by declaration.

24

Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its

25 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If

26 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the

27 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed.

28 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an

3
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:178

1 explanation of why redaction is not feasible.

2

2. DEFINITIONS

3

2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of

4 information or items under this Order.

5

2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is

6 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal

7 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) including, but not limited to, inmate medical, mental health,

8 and dental records and/or documents referencing personnel-related matters that are

9 protected from disclosure by state or federal law.

10

2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel

11 (as well as their support staff).

12

2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items

13

2.5 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as

14 “CONFIDENTIAL.”

15

2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the

16 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other

17 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in

18 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

19

2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter

20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an

21 expert witness or as a consultant in this action.

22

2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House

23 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.

24

2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other

25 legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

26

2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this

27 action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in

28

4
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:179

1 this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on

2 behalf of that party.

3

2.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors,

4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support

5 staffs).

6

2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery

7 Material in this action.

8

2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support

9 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or

10 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and

11 their employees and subcontractors.

12

2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as

13 “CONFIDENTIAL.”

14

2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a

15 Producing Party.

16

3. SCOPE

17

The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected

18 Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from

19 Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected

20 Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel

21 that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this

22 Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in

23 the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the

24 public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not

25 involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through

26 trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the

27 disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who

28 obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the

5
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:180

1 Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate

2 agreement or order.

3

4. DURATION

4

Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed

5 by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or

6 a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1)

7 dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final

8 judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,

9 trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or

10 applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law.

11

5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL

12

5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each

13 Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order

14 must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the

15 appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those

16 parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so

17 that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which

18 protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

19

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that

20 are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g.,

21 to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose

22 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to

23 sanctions.

24

If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it

25 designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must

26 promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation.

27

5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this

28 Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or

6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:181

1 ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order

2 must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced.

3

Designation in conformity with this Order requires:

4

(a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but

5 excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the

6 Producing Party affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” to each page that contains protected

7 material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the

8 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making

9 appropriate markings in the margins).

10

A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for

11 inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has

12 indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and

13 before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed

14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants

15 copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions

16 thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before producing the specified

17 documents, the Producing Party must affix the “CONFIDENTIAL” legend to each page

18 that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page

19 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

20 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

21

(b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, that

22 the Designating Party identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or

23 other proceeding, all protected testimony.

24

(c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for any

25 other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of

26 the container or containers in which the information or item is stored the legend

27 “CONFIDENTIAL.” If only a portion or portions of the information or item warrant

28

7
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:182

1 protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the protected

2 portion(s).

3

5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent failure to

4 designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the Designating

5 Party’s right to secure protection under this Order for such material. Upon timely

6 correction of a designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable efforts to assure

7 that the material is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order.

8

5.4 Failure to Designate Inmate Medical, Mental Health, and Dental Records.

9 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, any inmate, medical, mental

10 health, or dental records produced pursuant to this Protective Order shall be deemed

11 Confidential without regard to whether they have been so designated by the Producing

12 Party, unless the inmate specifically waiver his/her rights to medical privacy in writing

13 with respect to the record(s) at issue or the court orders otherwise.

14

6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

15

6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of

16 confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s

17 confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness,

18 unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party

19 does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount

20 a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed.

21

6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute resolution

22 process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the

23 basis for each challenge. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the

24 written notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance

25 with this specific paragraph of the Protective Order. The parties shall attempt to resolve

26 each challenge in good faith and must begin the process by meeting and conferring in

27 accordance with the process and timeframes set forth in Civil Local Rule 37-1.

28

6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court

8
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:183

1 intervention, they shall formulate a written stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by the

2 Court. The joint stipulation shall be filed and served with the notice of motion, in

3 accordance with Civil Local Rule 37-2.

4

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the

5 Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to

6 harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the

7 Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived the

8 confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion to retain confidentiality as described

9 above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to

10 which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until the court rules on the

11 challenge.

12

7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

13

7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is

14 disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only

15 for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected Material

16 may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in

17 this Order. When the litigation has been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with

18 the provisions of section 13 below (FINAL DISPOSITION).

19

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location

20 and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under

21 this Order.

22

7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise

23 ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party

24 may disclose any information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to:

25

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this action, as well as

26 employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to

27 disclose the information for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and

28 Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A;

9
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:184

1

(b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the

2 Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who

3 have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

4

(c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure

5 is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and

6 Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

7

(d) the court and its personnel;

8

(e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, mock

9 jurors, and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this

10 litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound”

11 (Exhibit A);

12

(f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is

13 reasonably necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be

14 Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the

15 court. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal

16 Protected Material must be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be

17 disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective Order.

18

(g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a

19 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information.

20

8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED

21

IN OTHER LITIGATION

22

If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that

23 compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this action as

24 “CONFIDENTIAL,” that Party must:

25

(a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall

26 include a copy of the subpoena or court order;

27

(b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue

28 in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is

10
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:185

1 subject to this Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Stipulated

2 Protective Order; and

3

(c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by

4 the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.

5

If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with the

6 subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action as

7 “CONFIDENTIAL” before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order

8 issued, unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating

9 Party shall bear the burden and of seeking protection in that court of its confidential

10 material – and nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or

11 encouraging a Receiving Party in this action to disobey a lawful directive from another

12 court.

13

9. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE

14 PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION

15

(a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-

16

Party

17 in this action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” Such information produced by Non-

18 Parties in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief provided by

19 this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party

20 from seeking additional protections.

21

(b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a

22 Non-Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an

23 agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information,

24 then the Party shall:

25

(1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that

26 some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a

27 Non-Party;

28

11
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:186

1

(2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective

2 Order in this litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific

3 description of the information requested; and

4

(3) make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party.

5

(c) If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court

6 within 14 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party

7 may produce the Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request.

8 If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any

9 information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with

10 the Non-Party before a determination by the court. Absent a court order to the contrary, the

11 Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in this court of its

12 Protected Material.

13

10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

14

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed

15 Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this

16 Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the

17 Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all

18 unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom

19 unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such

20 person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is

21 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

22

11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE

23

PROTECTED MATERIAL

24

When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently

25 produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of

26 the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

27 This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-

28 discovery order that provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to

12
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:187

1 Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the

2 effect of disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client

3 privilege or work product protection, the parties may incorporate their agreement in the

4 stipulated protective order submitted to the court.

5

12. MISCELLANEOUS

6

12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person

7 to seek its modification by the court in the future.

8

12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Protective

9 Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or

10 producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulated

11 Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in

12 evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order.

13

12.3 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating

14 Party or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may

15 not file in the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file

16 under seal any Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected

17 Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of

18 the specific Protected Material at issue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing order

19 will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged,

20 protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. If a

21 Receiving Party's request to file Protected Material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule

22 79-5(d) is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the

23 public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) unless otherwise instructed by the court.

24

13. FINAL DISPOSITION

25

Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4,

26 each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy

27 such material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies,

28 abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of

13
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30 Filed 10/06/16 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:188

1 the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the

2 Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the

3 same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies

4 (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed

5 and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts,

6 compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected

7 Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of

8 all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,

9 correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and

10 consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any

11 such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this

12 Protective Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION).

13

14 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

15

16 Dated: October 6, 2016 17 18 19

PRISON LAW OFFICE By: /s/ Margot Mendelson Margot Mendelson Donald Specter
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20 Dated: October 6, 2016 21 22 23 24

FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP By: /s/ Martin Dodd Martin H. Dodd
Attorneys for Defendant
San Bernardino County

25 I hereby attest that all other signatories listed on this document, and on whose behalf the 26 filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.

27

/s/ Margot Mendelson

Margot Mendelson

28

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 30-1 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:189

1

EXHIBIT A

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

3

4 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of

5 _________________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury

6 that I have read in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that

7 was issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California

8 on [date] in the case of ___________ [insert formal name of the case and the

9 number and initials assigned to it by the court]. I agree to comply with and to be

10 bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and

11 acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment

12 in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner

13 any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any

14 person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.

15 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

16 Central District of California for enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective

17 Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.

18 I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of

19 _______________________________________ [print or type full address and

20 telephone number] as my California agent for service of process in connection with

21 this action or any proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective

22 Order.

23 Date: ______________________________________

24 City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________

25

26 Printed name: _______________________________

27

28 Signature: __________________________________ 16

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 32 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:205

1

DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com

2 MARGOT MENDELSON (SBN 268583)

mmendelson@prisonlaw.com 3 PRISON LAW OFFICE

4 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710

5 Telephone: (510) 280-2621

6 Fax: (510) 280-2704

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 8 and others similarly situated

9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13

EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE

14 RAHSHUN TURNER,
15 on behalf of himself and all others 16 similarly situated,

Case No. 5:16−cv−00355−VAP−DTB [PROPOSED] ORDER

17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 20 Defendant.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 32 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:206

1

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’

2 stipulated protective order (Dkt #30) shall take effect.

3 DATED: October 18, 2016 4 5 6

THE HONORABLE DAVID T. BRISTOW United States Magistrate Court Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 
 Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1117

1

DONALD SPECTER (83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com

2

MARGOT MENDELSON (268583) mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

PRISON LAW OFFICE

3 1917 Fifth Street

Berkeley, California 94710

4

Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

7

8

9

10

11

12

MARTIN H. DODD (104363) mdodd@fddcm.com JAMIE L. DUPREE (158105) jdupree@fddcm.com JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE (233187) jtouchstone@fddcm.com FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 399-3840 Facsimile: (415) 399-3838 In Association with: MILES KOWALSKI, Deputy County Counsel (257269) Miles.Kowalski@cc.sbcounty.gov MICHELLE BLAKEMORE, County Counsel (110474) 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 4th Fl. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0140 Telephone: (909) 387-5455 Facsimile: (909) 387-3070 Attorneys for Defendant San Bernardino County

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE

16

RAHSHUN TURNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

17

Plaintiffs,

18 v.

Case No. 5:16-CV-00355-VAP (DTBx) [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

19 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips

20

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow

21

22 A. Introduction 1. The parties to this Consent Decree are Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner,
23
Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, Joshua Mills and the class and subclasses of
24 inmates they represent (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendant

25

1

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1118

1 County of San Bernardino (“Defendant”), on the other hand. The parties enter into

2 this Consent Decree to ensure the provision of constitutional medical, dental and mental health care, to ensure non-discrimination for inmates with disabilities and
3
to address uses of force and restrictive housing in the San Bernardino County 4 Jails.1

5

2. Plaintiffs filed this Action on February 29, 2016 and filed a Second

6 Amended Complaint on November 18, 2016. The Action alleges that Defendant

7 fails to provide minimally adequate medical, dental and mental health care to the

8 people incarcerated in its jails, fails to prevent unnecessary and excessive uses of
9 force against inmates and imposes on inmates the harmful and excessive use of solitary confinement in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
10
United Constitution, as well as discrimination against certain inmates with 11 disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of
12 the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant has denied liability. On January 27, 2017, the

13 Court granted the parties’ joint motion for class certification.

14

3. The Plaintiff class consists of “all people who are now, or in the future

15 will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails” and a subclass of “all
16 people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined
17
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 18 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794.”

19

20 1 For the purposes of this Consent Decree, references to the San Bernardino Jails include the Type I and II jails as well as the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center,

21 to the extent it houses inmates under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County

Sheriff, and any new structures designated to house prisoners under the jurisdiction 22 of the San Bernardino County Sheriff subsequent to the date of this Consent

23

Decree. The parties acknowledge that, because Type I jails are very short-term holding facilities, certain provisions of Remedial Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A

24 will apply only to Type II jails at which inmates are housed for longer periods of

time.

25

2

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1119

1 ///

2

4. Commencing in January 2015, prior to the initiation of this Action,

the parties undertook settlement negotiations to address Plaintiffs’ claims and those
3
negotiations have continued. To aid in settlement negotiations, the parties agreed 4 to hire neutral experts to investigate and opine on the adequacy of medical and

5 mental health care delivered in the San Bernardino jails, as well as the extent and

6 propriety of uses of force against inmates incarcerated by Defendant. The parties

7 jointly selected Todd Wilcox, M.D., as the expert on medical care; Roberta

8 Stellman, M.D., as the expert on mental health care; and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D.,
9 and Gary Raney, former Sheriff of Boise County, Idaho, as experts with regard to use of force in the jails.
10
5. The experts conducted extensive tours and reviews of the jail 11 facilities, policies and procedures and interviewed staff and inmates. They drafted
12 preliminary reports setting forth their findings and recommendations, and both

13 parties were given the opportunity to review the reports and make comments. The

14 experts thereafter submitted their final reports setting forth their respective findings

15 and making recommendations for remedial action.

16

6. With respect to dental care in the jails, alleged discrimination against

inmates with disabilities and policies governing restrictive housing in the jails, the
17
parties engaged in direct discussions without benefit or need of joint experts or

18 expert reports or findings.

19

7. The parties thereafter negotiated individual remedial plans pertaining

20 to the matters alleged in the Action and those individual plans have been

21 incorporated into a single, global Remedial Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

22

8. Each party to this Consent Decree was represented by counsel during

its negotiation and execution. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff classes and subclasses are
23
represented by Donald Specter, Margot Mendelson and Sara Norman, Prison Law 24 Office. Defendant is represented by Martin H. Dodd, Futterman Dupree Dodd

25

3

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1120

1 Croley Maier, LLP, and Miles Kowalski, Deputy County Counsel for the County
2 of San Bernardino. 9. Through this Consent Decree, Defendant agrees to implement the
3
measures set forth in the Remedial Plan, subject to monitoring by the Court experts 4 and Plaintiffs' counsel, negotiation between the parties, and if necessary, 5 enforcement by the Court.

6 B. Remedial Plan

7

10. Defendant shall fully implement all of the remedial measures,

8 according to the specified timeframes, set forth in the Remedial Plan. The
9 Remedial Plan is designed to meet the minimum level of health care necessary to fulfill Defendant’s obligations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to
10
ensure that unlawful force is not utilized in the jails, to avoid the unlawful use of 11 segregated or restrictive housing in the jails and to ensure compliance with the
12 ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

13

11. Defendant shall, in consultation and collaboration with Plaintiffs’

14 counsel, develop and implement appropriate and adequate plans, policies, and

15 practices to ensure compliance with the Remedial Plan. At least 30 days prior to
16 finalizing or implementing any new plans or policies developed to meet the terms of the Remedial Plan, Defendant will submit such plans or policies to Plaintiffs’
17
counsel for their review and comments. Disagreements about the adequacy of such 18 plans or policies shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set
19 forth paragraphs 28-31, below.

20

12. Not less than 90 days, and not more than 120 days, after this Consent

21 Decree is approved by the Court, Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel and

22 the Court experts a Status Report stating whether it is complying with the terms of

this Consent Decree. The Status Report shall include a description of the steps that
23
Defendant has taken to implement the Remedial Plan. Not later than the end of 24 each subsequent 120-day period during the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant

25

4

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1121

1 shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court experts a Status Report

2 addressing each item of the Remedial Plan and shall specify whether it believes it is or is not in substantial compliance with each material component of the
3
Remedial Plan.2 4 C. Court Experts

5

13. Pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the parties

6 jointly request the appointment of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D.,

7 and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court

8 on the County's compliance or non-compliance with the medical care, mental

9 health care and use of force provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to assist

with dispute resolution matters addressed in paragraphs 28-31, and to provide
10
testimony, if required, in any proceedings before the Court.

11

14. Within 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree, and then every

12 180 days thereafter during the term of this Consent Decree, the Court experts shall

13 each complete comprehensive reviews and reports (“180-Day Reports”) to advise

14 the parties and the Court on Defendant's compliance or non-compliance with the

15 Remedial Plan.

16

15. In each 180-Day Report the experts shall state their opinion as to

whether Defendant is or is not in substantial compliance with each material

17
component of the Remedial Plan within the expert’s area of expertise. These

18 opinions are hereinafter referred to as “Substantial Compliance Determinations.”

19 The 180-Day Reports shall be considered separate and apart from any evaluations

20 and reports prepared as part of the dispute resolution process described below and

21 shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before the Court.

22

16. The experts’ duties specified in Exhibit B shall be provided to the

experts pursuant to Rule 706(b). The Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable
23

2 For purposes of this Consent Decree a “material component” of the Remedial 24 Plan shall be any of the subparts of the Remedial Plan identified by a capital letter
(e.g., “D. Medical Records”).

25

5

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1122

1 compensation in an amount approved by the Court, which shall be paid by
2 Defendant. 17. With appropriate notice, the Court experts shall have reasonable
3
access to all parts of any San Bernardino Jail and access to the facilities will not be 4 unreasonably restricted. The experts shall have access to correctional and health 5 care staff and inmates, including confidential and voluntary interviews as they

6 deem appropriate. The experts shall also have access to documents, including

7 budgetary, custody, and health care documents, and institutional meetings,

8 proceedings, and programs to the extent the experts determine such access is

9 needed to fulfill their obligations. The experts’ tours shall be undertaken in a

manner that does not unreasonably interfere with jail operations as reasonably
10
determined by jail administrators.

11

18. The parties agree that they are each entitled to engage in ex parte

12 communications with the Court experts. However, all of the experts’ findings and

13 recommendations shall be set forth in writing in their reports.

14

19. If, for any reason, a designated Court expert can no longer serve or the

15 parties wish to engage any additional expert(s), the parties shall attempt to agree on

16 who shall be appointed to serve as a new or additional expert. If the parties are unable to agree, Defendant and Plaintiffs shall each nominate and submit two
17
potential experts for the Court’s consideration and selection.
18 D. Notice to Class Members

19

20. Defendant shall post notices to class members of this Action in a

20 manner agreed upon by the parties. Such notices shall include a brief statement

21 that includes a description of Plaintiffs’ claims, the definition of the classes and

22 subclasses, notice that the parties have entered into this Consent Decree, a

description of the subject areas covered by the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan,
23
and the contact information for the Prison Law Office to allow inmates to contact 24 Plaintiffs’ counsel.

25

6

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1123

1 ///
2 E. Plaintiffs’ Monitoring and Access to Information 21. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to monitor Defendant’s compliance with
3
the Remedial Plan. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with access to all such San 4 Bernardino Jail facilities, documents, records, and staff that Plaintiffs believe in 5 good faith is necessary to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the Remedial Plan

6 subject, where applicable, to the protective order agreed upon by the parties,

7 entered by the Court on October 18, 2016, and attached hereto as Exhibit C.

8 Plaintiffs shall not be entitled to personnel records, including records and
9 information deemed confidential pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7. From and after the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, Defendant shall
10
provide Plaintiffs with access to such information within 21 calendar days of their 11 request. If Defendant believes that the information requested by Plaintiffs is not
12 necessary to monitor compliance with the Remedial Plan, the parties shall engage

13 in the dispute resolution process described in paragraphs 28-31, below, before

14 seeking any relief from the Court.

15

22. In each of the first two years following the date on which this Consent

16 Decree is entered, Plaintiffs and their consultants shall be permitted the opportunity to conduct three tours of the San Bernardino Jails for the purpose of
17
monitoring compliance with the Remedial Plan. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall have
18 the opportunity to conduct up to two tours of the jails per year, provided however,

19 that Plaintiffs may bring a motion seeking authorization from the Court to conduct

20 a third monitoring tour in any given year. Before bringing such a motion,

21 Plaintiffs shall have complied with the dispute resolution process described in

22 Paragraphs 28-31, below. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by

the Court, monitoring tours by Plaintiffs and/or their consultants shall be separated
23

by a period of no less than 90 days.

24

23. Monitoring tours shall include reasonable access to all of the jail

25

7

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1124

1 facilities, including all housing units, facilities where health care services are
2 provided, facilities where inmates with disabilities are or may be housed and provided programming, and any other facilities where services are provided
3
pursuant to the Remedial Plan. During the tours, Defendant shall make available 4 for interview any supervisory, clinical, custodial, and program staff that have direct 5 or supervisory responsibility for health care and disability accommodations.

6 Defendant shall provide a Sheriff’s Department contact person to ensure

7 cooperation of institution staff with Plaintiffs in obtaining information they request

8 during the tours. During the tours, Defendant shall permit and facilitate Plaintiffs
9 having confidential and voluntary discussions with any inmate identified by Plaintiffs. Upon request by Plaintiffs and pursuant to the protective order entered in
10
this case, Defendant shall make available for inspection and/or copying the health 11 care and/or custody files of specified inmates. Disputes that may arise over
12 Plaintiffs’ access to jail information or personnel shall be addressed in the first

13 instance by the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraphs 28-31, below,

14 before the parties may seek relief from the Court.

15

24. If Plaintiffs form the good faith belief that Defendant is not

16 substantially compliant with any material component of the Remedial Plan then subject to monitoring, Plaintiffs shall so inform Defendant and any relevant Court
17
expert of the alleged noncompliance and identify the material component of the
18 Remedial Plan alleged to be noncompliant.

19

Defendant shall investigate the alleged noncompliance and provide Plaintiffs

20 with a response in writing within 30 calendar days, provided however, that if the

21 notice from Plaintiffs is provided to Defendant (i) less than 45 days before the next

22 anticipated Status Report, then Defendant may elect to include its response in the

next Status Report; or (ii) less than 45 days before the next anticipated 180-Day
23
Report from a relevant Court expert, Defendant may elect to defer responding until 24 the expert has made a Substantial Compliance Determination applicable to the

25

8

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1125

1 material component of the Remedial Plan alleged to be noncompliant.

2

25. Plaintiffs’ counsel retain the ability to interview their clients pursuant

to regular attorney-client visiting procedures established by the Sheriff’s
3
Department. The parties will attempt to establish an efficient means to allow 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel to interview clients and conduct confidential telephonic

5 interviews with individual inmates, with reasonable notice, in a manner that does

6 not disrupt jail operations.

7

26. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be allowed to send postage pre-paid

8 envelopes to their clients in the San Bernardino Jails.
9 F. Individual Advocacy 27. Plaintiffs may bring individual inmates’ health care, use of force,
10
restricted housing or disability accommodation concerns to the attention of 11 Defendant's counsel, or their designee, who shall respond in writing within 14
12 days. This process is not meant to replace or circumvent the existing processes for

13 requesting medical or mental health services or submitting grievances to jail

14 authorities. Inmates will be encouraged to make use of those processes except

15 where exigent circumstances or failures of those processes have occurred.
16 G. Dispute Resolution 28. Either party may initiate the dispute resolution process with respect to
17
a matter covered by this Consent Decree by providing written notice of a dispute 18 (“Dispute Notice”) to the other party and to mediator Debra Mellinkoff or such
19 other mediator as the parties may have selected (“Mediator”). The Dispute Notice

20 shall request that the Mediator schedule a date for mediation that is not less than

21 90, and not more than 120, days after the Dispute Notice.

22

29. Following service of the Dispute Notice, the parties shall undertake

good faith negotiations at such times and places as they deem sufficient in an effort
23
to resolve the dispute informally between them. If, within 30 days after service of 24 the Dispute Notice, the parties have failed to resolve the dispute, either party may

25

9

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1126

1 request that the relevant Court expert evaluate the issue in dispute and prepare a

2 report. The expert must provide the report regarding the area of disagreement to the parties and the Mediator within 45 days of the request. Defendant will pay the
3
experts’ reasonable fees for any reports prepared by a Court expert at the request of 4 a party about a disputed issue, as contemplated by this paragraph.

5

30. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, they shall

6 attempt to resolve the dispute through the scheduled mediation before the

7 Mediator. The parties and the Mediator shall conduct the mediation at such place

8 and in such manner as they shall have agreed upon.

9

31. Mediation shall be deemed to have concluded with respect to an issue

in dispute if i) the parties agree in writing that mediation is concluded; or ii) upon
10
the request of a party, the Mediator determines and so notifies the parties in writing

11 that the parties are at impasse, a party is not negotiating in good faith or further

12 negotiation would be futile.

13

32. With the exception of any report prepared by a Court expert, as

14 contemplated by Paragraph 29, above, and any notice that mediation is concluded,

15 nothing said and no document prepared in connection with the mediation shall be
16 offered in evidence in any subsequent judicial proceeding in this case. H. Enforcement
17
33. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent 18 Decree and shall have the power to enforce the agreement through specific
19 performance and all other remedies permitted by law until Defendant fulfills its

20 obligations under this Consent Decree.

21 I. Duration and Termination

22

34. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for four years from the

date it is entered by the Court, unless it is earlier terminated pursuant to Paragraph
23

35, below.

24

35. Defendant may seek termination of this Consent Decree by bringing a

25

10

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1127

1 termination motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(i), provided however,
2 that (i) Defendant shall not bring any such motion for a period of two years from the date this Consent Decree is entered by the Court; (ii) any termination motion
3
shall be based on a record of no less than one year of substantial compliance with 4 all the requirements of this Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan; and, (iii) prior 5 to bringing such a motion, Defendant shall have complied with the dispute

6 resolution process described in Paragraphs 28-31, above.

7

36. Defendant may request a finding by the Court that it is in substantial

8 compliance with one or more material components of the Remedial Plan and shall
9 base such request on evidence that it has maintained such substantial compliance for a period of at least twelve months, provided that, before requesting such a
10
finding, Defendant shall have complied with the dispute resolution process 11 described in Paragraphs 28-31, above. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,
12 such a finding shall result in a suspension of monitoring of any such material

13 component(s) by the relevant Court expert and Plaintiffs.

14

37. If Plaintiffs form the good faith belief that Defendant is no longer in

15 substantial compliance with any material component(s) of the Remedial Plan
16 previously found to be in substantial compliance and as to which monitoring has been suspended, Plaintiffs shall promptly so notify Defendant in writing and
17
present a summary of the evidence upon which such belief is based. Within 30 18 days thereafter, Defendant shall serve a written response stating whether it agrees
19 or disagrees that it is no longer in substantial compliance with respect to that

20 material component of the Remedial Plan. In the event that Defendant agrees,

21 monitoring by the Court experts and Plaintiffs pursuant to this Consent Decree

22 shall resume. In the event Defendant disagrees, Plaintiffs may bring a motion

before the Court seeking such relief as may be appropriate, including but not
23
limited to reinstating full monitoring, provided that, before bringing such a motion, 24 Plaintiffs shall have complied with the dispute resolution process described in

25

11

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1128

1 Paragraphs 28-31, above.
2 J. Costs and Fees 38. The parties agree that, by entry of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall
3
be considered the prevailing party in this litigation. The Prison Litigation Reform 4 Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, would limit the hourly rates at which Plaintiffs’ 5 counsel can be compensated in connection with certain claims in the Action, while

6 other claims are not subject to such statutory limits. Notwithstanding the

7 foregoing, subject to Court approval, the Parties have reached a compromise and

8 Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $350,000 as their reasonable fees

9 and expenses incurred from the date of filing of the Complaint in this Action through Final Approval of the Consent Decree, including approval of the Remedial
10
Plan pursuant to the following rates: $420 per hour for attorneys and $200 per hour 11 for paralegals.

12

39. Plaintiffs shall be compensated for their reasonable time and

13 reasonable expenses (including the costs of any consultants Plaintiffs may retain)

14 relating to monitoring this Consent Decree and Remedial Plan, including any time

15 and expenses incurred in connection with the resolution of any dispute pertaining
16 to such monitoring. Subject to both Court approval and Defendant’s right to object either to the payment of all or any portion of the fees or to the
17
reasonableness of the number of hours for which Plaintiffs may seek 18 compensation, and notwithstanding the rates that Plaintiffs potentially could
19 request or would be limited to in any proceedings before the Court, the parties have

20 agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be compensated for monitoring services at the

21 following rates: $420 per hour for attorneys and $200 per hour for paralegals.

22 Plaintiffs shall submit a detailed invoice for their fees and expenses (including the

date, amount of time spent, and a general description of each task) at the end of
23
every quarter and Defendant shall pay the amount requested by Plaintiffs within 60

24 calendar days of receipt of each invoice, provided that Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses

25

12

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1129

1 shall be capped at $150,000 per calendar year. Two years after the approval of this
2 Consent Decree Plaintiffs may request that the yearly cap on fees and expenses should be increased. That request shall be subject to the dispute resolution process
3
set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31, and, if necessary, resolution by the Court. The 4 yearly cap on fees and expenses described in the previous sentence shall not apply 5 to any fees and costs that Plaintiffs may incur in enforcing or defending the

6 Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan in court.

7 K. Effect of Consent Decree in Other Actions.

8

40. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree nor any statement of claims

9 contained herein shall be used in any other case, claim, or administrative proceedings, except that Defendant and its employees and agents may use this
10
Consent Decree and any statement contained herein to assert issue preclusion or 11 res judicata.

12

41. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to modify, revise or

13 change any existing court orders or decrees applicable to Defendant or to

14 operations at or inmates housed in the San Bernardino County Jails including, but

15 not limited to, any orders and decrees in Haas et al. v. Board of Supervisors of San

16 Bernardino County et al., San Bernardino Superior Court No. WHC 4010.

L.
17

Liability and Necessity for Relief 42. Defendant admits for the purpose of this lawsuit only that there exists

18 probable cause to believe that violations of the federal rights of plaintiffs have

19 occurred sufficient to warrant the relief contained herein. The parties agree that the

20 relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

21 ensure the protection of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs,

22 and is the least intrusive means necessary to accomplish those objectives.

///
23

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

24

Respectfully submitted,

25

13

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1130

1
2 Dated: March 29, 2018
3 4 5 6 7
Dated: March 29, 2018
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

PRISON LAW OFFICE By: /s/ Donald Specter
Donald Specter Margot Mendelson Sara Norman Attorneys for Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP By: /s/ Martin H. Dodd Martin H. Dodd Attorneys for Defendant San Bernardino County
14 [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 106 Filed 12/14/18 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1131

1

ORDER

2

The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated Consent Decree,

hereby approves and adopts the Consent Decree as the Order of the Court and, in
3
so doing, finds that the relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no 4 further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal constitutional and

5 statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

6 accomplish those objectives.

7

The Court specifically authorizes the appointment, pursuant to FRE 706(b),

8 of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D., and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and
9 Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court on the County's compliance or non-compliance with the medical care, mental health care and use of force
10
provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to assist with dispute resolution 11 matters as prescribed in the Consent Decree, and to provide testimony, if required,
12 in any proceedings before the Court. Subject to the approval of the Court, the

13 Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation at the rates set forth in

14 Exhibit B to the Consent Decree and to reimbursement for reasonable expenses

15 incurred in connection with their duties, which shall be paid by Defendant.

16
17 Dated: December 14, 2018
18

_______________________ Honorable Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE

26

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

 
 Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 108 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1140

1 DONALD SPECTER (83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com
2 SOPHIE HART (321663) sophieh@prisonlaw.com
3 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
On behalf of themselves and others 7 similarly situated 8 9 10 11 12

MARTIN H. DODD (104363) mdodd@fddcm.com JAMIE L. DUPREE (158105) jdupree@fddcm.com JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE (233187) jtouchstone@fddcm.com FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 399-3840 Facsimile: (415) 399-3838 In Association with: MILES KOWALSKI, Deputy County Counsel (257269) Miles.Kowalski@cc.sbcounty.gov MICHELLE BLAKEMORE, County Counsel (110474) 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 4th Fl. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0140 Telephone: (909) 387-5455 Facsimile: (909) 387-3070

13

Attorneys for Defendant

San Bernardino County

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

EASTERN DIVISION

17 RAHSHUN TURNER, on behalf of

18 themselves and all others similarly

situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20 v.
21

22 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant.
23

Case No. 5:16-CV-00355-VAP (DTBx)
CLASS ACTION [Proposed] ORDER RE MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING
District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 108 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1141

1

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and the Court’s authority as set forth in

2 the Consent Decree (ECF No. 106), the Defendant shall take the following actions:

3

1. The Sheriff’s office shall use all reasonable means to recruit, hire and train

4 20 mental clinicians authorized by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors

5 (BOS) at its January 7, 2020 meeting.

6

2. The Sheriff’s office shall prioritize assigning these additional 20 mental

7 health clinicians to units with the most acute mental health needs.

8

3. The Sheriff’s office will provide and maintain sufficient correctional staff

9 to transport and escort inmates for mental health services in confidential settings, and to

10 provide direct security supervision in specialized mental health housing units during

11 programming and activity hours. The Sheriff’s office will assign 30 deputies to mental

12 health services, in addition to the two deputies currently assigned to each mental health

13 housing unit for general security purposes. The 30 additional deputies will be

14 reassigned to these duties as necessary as mental health staff are added.

15

4. The Sheriff’s office shall submit to the BOS during the Fiscal Year

16 2020/2021 budget process a proposal to fund the additional 39.81 mental health

17 positions, beginning July 1, 2020.

18

5. Concurrently with the efforts to recruit, hire and train the 20 mental health

19 clinicians authorized in January 2020 and continuing thereafter, the Sheriff’s office and

20 its contractor Liberty Health shall take all reasonable steps to recruit staff to fill the

21 proposed additional 39.81 mental health positions. The Sheriff’s office and Liberty

22 Health have as their goal recruiting and prospectively hiring staff to fill as many of the

23 additional positions as reasonably possible so that such staff are available to commence

24 work effective July 1, 2020 in the event the BOS approves the funding for such

25 positions.

26

27

28

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

Case 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB Document 108 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1142

1

6. The Sheriff’s office shall inform Plaintiffs’ counsel no later than June 9,

2 2020, whether the proposal to fund the additional 39.81 mental health positions has been

3 approved by the BOS.

4

7. If the Sheriff’s proposal for the additional 39.81 mental health positions is

5 approved, the Sheriff’s office and its contractor Liberty Health shall take all reasonable

6 steps to ensure that staff members hired to fill such positions are onboarded, commence

7 working and are trained as quickly as reasonably possible.

8

8. If the Sheriff’s proposal for the additional 39.81 mental health positions is

9 not approved, Plaintiffs shall retain all rights set forth in the Consent Decree to enforce

10 provisions of the Remedial Plan.

11

9. The Sheriff’s office retains all rights set forth in the Consent Decree to seek

12 modification of the provisions of the Remedial Plan.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15

Dated: February 20, 2020

16

17

______________________ Hon. Virginia A. Phillips United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00355 VAP (DTBX)

 
 1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE 3 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710 4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 5 Fax: (510) 280-2704
dspecter@prisonlaw.com 6 kknapp@prisonlaw.com
7

8

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, on behalf of
10 themselves and others similarly situated
11

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

EASTERN DIVISION - RIVERSIDE

16

17 GEORGE TOPETE AND ZACHERY

18 SHOVEY,

19 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

20

Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

23 Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-CV-355 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. San Bernardino County is violating the constitutional rights of the

3 nearly 6,000 people it incarcerates in its jails. Jail medical, mental health, and

4 dental care is so deficient that it is harming the people it aims to serve. Jail staff

5 uses excessive force against people they are charged with protecting, and fails to

6 take even the most basic steps to prevent violence. Jail staff discriminates against

7 people with disabilities by locking them in housing units that don’t have accessible

8 toilets and showers, and by locking people with mental health problems in tiny cells

9 for 22 to 24 hours a day, which only worsens their psychiatric conditions.

10

2. County officials have known for years that the conditions in the jails

11 are so deplorable that people housed there are at significant risk of harm. Yet the

12 County has failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of harm faced by

13 people entirely dependent on the County for basic health care, disability

14 discrimination, safety, and security.

15

3. Plaintiffs George Topete and Zachery Shovey, and the class they

16 represent, seek a declaration that San Bernardino County’s ongoing practices violate

17 their constitutional and statutory rights, and seek injunctive relief compelling

18 Defendant to provide constitutionally adequate health care, to protect people from

19 violence, to provide equal access to programs, services, and activities, and to cease

20 the unnecessary and excessive use of force.

21

JURISDICTION

22

4. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

23 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the

24 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504

25 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

26

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

27 1343, and 1367. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§

28 1343, 2201, and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

VENUE

2

6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

3 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

4 claims brought by Plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District and

5 Defendant is located in this District.

6

PARTIES

7 Plaintiffs

8

7. George Topete is a convicted prisoner and pretrial detainee who

9 transferred from state prison to the West Valley Detention Center on October 14,

10 2011, to face new charges. He has difficulty walking and using stairs due to a

11 physical disability. Mr. Topete requires the use of a cane, but Defendant has

12 periodically refused to provide him with one for months at a time. In June 2015,

13 Defendant provided Mr. Topete with a wheelchair, but does not house him in a

14 wheelchair accessible unit or cell. As a result, he has fallen and is at risk of falling

15 when trying to access the visiting area, his cell, and the toilet. Defendant also denies

16 Mr. Topete adequate access to a C-PAP machine that he requires to treat his sleep

17 apnea.

18

8. Zachary Shovey is a pretrial detainee in the West Valley Detention

19 Center who was arrested on July 8, 2014. He has an extensive psychiatric history

20 that includes multiple suicide attempts, psychiatric medications, and a nine-month

21 stay in a state psychiatric hospital. Defendant failed to provide him mental health

22 treatment and psychiatric medications for one year after his arrest despite symptoms

23 including hallucinations, delusions, anxiety, and insomnia. Defendant has also

24 failed to provide him with timely medical treatment for his seizure disorder.

25 Defendant

26

9. Defendant County of San Bernardino operates four jail facilities – West

27 Valley Detention Center, Central Detention Center, High Desert Detention Center,

28 and the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center -- that incarcerate approximately 6,000

2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 people. Defendant also operates several detention facilities that incarcerate people

2 for 96 hours or less. The County is responsible for ensuring that the basic human

3 needs of individuals in its custody are met, and for ensuring that individuals are not

4 at risk of serious harm, including by providing appropriate funding, oversight, and

5 corrective action to ensure adequate conditions.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7 I. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FAILS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE.
8 10. Defendant subjects all people confined in the jails, including Plaintiffs,
9 to a substantial risk of injury or death by failing to provide adequate medical, mental
10 health, and dental care. Individuals in the jails are entirely dependent on Defendant
11 for their basic health care needs. Defendant has a policy and practice of
12 inadequately screening for serious health care conditions and disabilities, delaying
13 access to clinicians and medications, understaffing health care professionals,
14 delaying access to specialty care, and failing to provide the full array of services
15 necessary to meet minimum standards of care. Defendant is deliberately indifferent
16 to the risk of harm caused by these serious health care deficiencies.
17 A. Mental Health Care Is Inadequate.
18 11. Defendant’s mental health care delivery system is deficient in staffing,
19 screening, therapeutic treatment, suicide prevention, medication management,
20 timely evaluations, recordkeeping, and confidentiality.
21 12. There are not enough psychiatrists and therapists to meet the demands
22 of the current jail population. As a result, Defendant cannot implement the essential
23 components of an adequate mental health delivery system.
24 13. Upon arrival, untrained correctional officers, and not health care
25 professionals, screen people for health care symptoms, including for mental illness
26 and suicidality. If the screening correctional officer manages to identify an
27 individual as mentally ill, he or she is referred to mental health staff for an
28

3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 evaluation. However, this evaluation is often delayed, incomplete, and inadequate.

2 The focus of the clinical evaluation is centered on any history of psychiatric

3 medications, and the other necessary components of an adequate assessment (e.g.,

4 current symptoms, substance abuse, social history, and suicide history) are given

5 short-shrift.

6

14. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure timely access

7 to mental health care. Once housed, the primary method for people to request health

8 care is to give a Health Service Request form (“HSR”) to a correctional officer.

9 This practice deters people from asking for help because custody staff may review

10 their personal information, and many HSRs are lost or destroyed before reaching

11 health care staff.

12

15. For those individuals who manage to transmit a request for help to

13 mental health staff, the treatment options are extremely limited. There is no therapy.

14 Instead, Defendant provides a brief, non-confidential, cell-front visit by a clinician,

15 flanked by at least one correctional officer, typically several weeks after the

16 individual first requested help, to assess if there are acute mental health symptoms.

17 There is no effort to explore or treat the underlying mental health condition. There

18 is no effort to provide people with practical skills to help them cope with their

19 symptoms or living conditions, including being locked in their cells for 23 or more

20 hours a day, as is common practice. Indeed, in August 2015, a jail therapist

21 documented that Mr. Shovey was depressed and sleeping poorly, but the only

22 treatment plan was to provide him with a list of outpatient clinics. The brief cell-

23 front visits often do not even address the symptoms described in the HSR that

24 prompted the visit. For example, even though a transgender woman had turned in at

25 least two HSRs describing gender dysphoria in October 2015, the clinician who

26 evaluated her in November 2015 did not discuss gender dysphoria symptoms with

27 her.

28

16. Moreover, because these visits occur at cell-front within earshot of

4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 other prisoners and custody staff, people are reasonably hesitant to divulge personal

2 information that may result in stigmatization and abuse. Mr. Shovey, for example,

3 does not feel comfortable and has not disclosed all of his mental health symptoms to

4 jail clinicians because officers are present and other people can hear their

5 interactions. Mr. Shovey has no history of violence or violent charges, and does not

6 pose any security threat that requires custody officers to stand next to his clinicians,

7 especially when they are speaking to him through a cell door. For individuals in

8 administrative segregation, jail clinicians stoop over and speak to patients through

9 the food tray slot in the cell door even when there is no security risk involved in

10 opening the cell door and moving the patient to an appropriate clinical space.

11

17. Defendant has a policy and practice of denying or delaying access to

12 psychiatrists. Therapists generally operate as gatekeepers, and, based on

13 assessments they are not qualified to make, deny access to psychiatrists. Defendant

14 denied Mr. Shovey access to a psychiatrist for over a year after his arrest, despite

15 serious mental health symptoms, because a therapist decided medications were not

16 warranted since he had not been receiving them in the months before he was

17 arrested. Individuals who are referred to a psychiatrist must often wait several

18 weeks to be seen. Once a jail clinician finally referred Mr. Shovey to a psychiatrist

19 because of symptoms including paranoia and mania, he had to wait five weeks and

20 file two grievance before a psychiatrist evaluated him. People who are suffering

21 from severe symptoms must wait weeks or months before receiving psychiatric

22 medications.

23

18. If and when Defendant provides psychiatry services, the treatment is

24 often haphazard and inconsistent. Many people are denied medications entirely

25 until and unless they either threaten or attempt suicide. Defendant does not always

26 provide a comprehensive psychiatry evaluation before prescribing or changing

27 powerful psychiatric medications, and fails to adequately monitor people prescribed

28 such medications for side effects, drug interactions, and effectiveness.

5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

19. Defendant’s suicide prevention practices are dangerous and ineffective.

2 If and when Defendant identifies an individual at risk of suicide, correctional

3 officers force the individual to strip naked and lock him or her in a “safety cell,”

4 which is nothing more than a small jail cell with rubber coated walls, no furniture,

5 and a hole in the floor to use as a toilet. The individual is left in this cell for many

6 hours, sometimes days, without any meaningful treatment until Defendant receives

7 some assurance that the individual is no longer suicidal. However, Defendant then

8 abruptly releases such individuals back to their housing units without close

9 monitoring of their symptoms and a without a timely follow-up appointment with a

10 clinician. People quickly cycle in and out of safety cells because they remain

11 untreated.

12

20. Defendant worsens people’s psychiatric conditions by locking them in

13 small cells for 22 hours or more a day, also known as “solitary confinement.”1 As a

14 result, they suffer from acute anxiety, depression, withdrawal, psychosis, agitation,

15 and an increased risk of suicide or violence. Defendant does not assess people with

16 mental illness before placing them in solitary confinement to ensure their symptoms

17 are not exacerbated or if they can be safely and adequately managed in such

18 conditions. Defendant also fails to monitor them or provide mental health services

19 once they are locked in solitary confinement despite the well-known risks inherent

20 in locking people in their cells for prolonged periods of time.

21

22 1 See U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of State Correctional Institution at 23 Cresson, May 13, 2013, p. 5, available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf 24 (“terms ‘isolation’ or ‘solitary confinement’ mean the state of being confined to 25 one’s cell for approximately 22 hours per day or more, alone or with other prisoners,
that limits contact with other.”); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214, 224, 125 26 S.Ct. 2384, 2389, 2394 (2005) (describing solitary confinement as limiting human 27 contact for 23 hours per day); Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 1990) 28 (21 to 22 hours per day).

6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

B. Medical Care is Inadequate.

2

21. As described above, Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to

3 adequately complete the most important encounter in a medical care delivery system

4 – the intake screening. An adequate intake screening is integral because it identifies

5 medications, infectious diseases, and health care conditions that must be addressed

6 to prevent injury and death. Defendant assigns correctional officers to conduct the

7 majority of the intake screenings. These correctional officers are not qualified to

8 recognize and respond to the signs and symptoms of serious medical conditions such

9 as substance withdrawal or infectious diseases. They are not qualified to identify,

10 nor does Defendant verify, prescribed medications for individuals entering the jail,

11 especially for those who are in extreme distress or under the influence of substances.

12 They are not qualified, and the intake screening does not require them, to take vital

13 signs (e.g., blood pressure and temperature). Defendant also fails to conduct an

14 intake screening for individuals who are transferred from other facilities to West

15 Valley Detention Center for medical treatment, and instead sends them straight to

16 housing units without any contact with medical staff. Consequently, many people

17 are later hospitalized for conditions that could have been prevented if appropriately

18 identified and addressed at the intake screening.

19

22. Defendant does not conform to the professional standard of care in the

20 prevention and control of infectious diseases. It fails to adequately screen for

21 tuberculosis, a highly contagious and deadly disease with a high prevalence rate

22 among people in Defendant’s custody. Defendant fails to provide adequate soap

23 and sanitizers to staff and prisoners. Defendant also does not adequately sanitize

24 shavers and hair clippers that are shared by dozens of individuals. Defendant’s

25 policies and practices create an unreasonable risk of the spread of infectious

26 diseases.

27

23. Defendant does not adequately assess, manage, or treat individuals

28 suffering from substance withdrawal complications, and its policies and practices

7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 regarding withdrawal do not conform to the professional standards of care.

2

24. Defendant does not consistently respond in a timely manner, it if

3 responds at all, to individuals who submit HSRs regarding serious medical

4 conditions. For example, Mr. Shovey submitted HSRs on February 22 and March 1,

5 2015, reporting recent seizures and that his seizure meds may need to be adjusted.

6 Medical staff did not respond to either HSR. Indeed, Defendant did not evaluate

7 him until April 3, 3015, when custody staff made an emergency call to nursing staff

8 because Mr. Shovey was having a seizure. Many of these types of emergencies,

9 including those that require hospitalizations, could be avoided if Defendant had a

10 policy and practice of timely responding to HSRs.

11

25. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure that people

12 receive timely access to specialty care and that specialists’ treatment

13 recommendations are provided. Defendant provides many specialty services on site

14 at the West Valley Detention Center, but then fails to arrange transportation to those

15 services for individuals housed at the other jail facilities. Those individuals wait

16 months or are never rescheduled for the specialty services because Defendant does

17 not have a tracking system to identify missed appointments. In addition, the jail

18 providers responsible for the overall care of the individuals needing specialty

19 services fail to monitor them once referred, and thus do nothing when a specialty

20 appointment is missed or when a specialist recommends treatment that must be

21 ordered by the jail provider. Similarly, Defendant does not have an effective system

22 to timely receive diagnostic test results that are necessary for adequate treatment of

23 serious medical conditions.

24

26. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to adequately review,

25 document, or correct any deficiencies in care. For individuals who die in custody,

26 Defendant’s practice is to gather records for at least eight to 12 months regarding the

27 death, and then confer with its attorneys. There are no documented findings or

28 conclusions from the records. There are no psychological autopsies of suicides.

8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Defendant does not interview or meet with custody and health care staff who may

2 have been involved in a death. There is no documented plan for corrective action.

3 For individuals who do not die in custody, there is no assessment or evaluation of

4 the overall quality of care, identification of problems or shortcomings in the delivery

5 of care, corrective action to overcome these deficiencies, or follow-up monitoring to

6 ensure corrective steps are effecitve. Defendant’s failure to implement an effective

7 death review and quality assurance program results in a substantial risk of harm of

8 preventable injury and death.

9

C. Dental Care is Inadequate.

10

27. Defendant has a policy and practice of denying the full range of dental

11 services that is necessary to maintain dental health. It does not, for example,

12 provide root canals, dentures, or dental floss, even for those people who will be

13 incarcerated for several years. For those patients who require root canals, Defendant

14 offers to extract teeth at no cost or refers the patient to a private dentist who charges

15 the patient for hundreds or thousands of dollars for root canals and other treatment

16 alternatives to save the teeth. This practice forces many indigent people to extract

17 teeth that might otherwise be saved. Many people who do not have access to money

18 in jail refuse extraction and wait in pain and discomfort with the hope that they can

19 pay for the appropriate treatment alternative once released. Those individuals, who

20 may be incarcerated for long periods of time, are at risk of infection and further

21 complications as a result of Defendant’s policies and practices. Defendant also fails

22 to timely respond to HSRs describing serious dental symptoms.

23 D. Health Care Records are Inadequate.
24 28. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to maintain accurate,
25 complete, and organized medical, mental health, and dental records. Defendant uses
26 paper, instead of electronic, records that are not in chronological order or organized
27 in such a way that providers can find essential information about their patients.
28

9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Some of the providers’ handwriting is illegible, and many psychiatry records are

2 unintelligible. Defendant loses, misfiles, or inappropriately destroys essential

3 records, including HSRs. The records are not always available during health care

4 appointments, especially when individuals are transferred to different jail facilities.

5 As a result of Defendant’s failure to maintain adequate records, individuals suffer

6 from a substantial risk of misdiagnosis, dangerous mistakes, and unnecessary delays

7 in care.

8

29. Defendant also has a policy and practice of denying people copies of

9 their own jail health care records in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.524.

10 II. 11

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HAS A POLICY AND PRACTICE OF USING EXCESSIVE FORCE

12

30. Defendant has a policy and practice of using excessive force in the jails

13 that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious injury. Correctional

14 officers tase, fire non-lethal weapons at close range, punch, push, stomp, slam, or

15 restrain individuals when it is not necessary to ensure safety and security. These

16 assaults result in broken bones, dislocated joints, swelling, bruising, and

17 hemorrhaging.

18

31. Defendant has a pattern of using force as a first resort in reaction to any

19 behavior that might possibly be interpreted as aggressive. Force is used on people

20 who are deemed, correctly or not, to have disrupted jail operations, disobeyed jail

21 rules, complained about conditions, or disrespected jail staff. In many instances, the

22 use of force is completely unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the

23 jails. In some instances, the use of force may be necessary initially, but after the

24 need for force has passed, the individual is subjected to retaliatory assault.

25

32. These patterns of excessive force occur because Defendant does not

26 adequately train, supervise, and discipline correctional officers. These patterns also

27 occur because Defendant’s written policies and procedures are inadequate. For

28 example, Defendant’s policies do not require that officers first attempt to verbally
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 resolve or use only the minimum force necessary to stop or control a potentially

2 dangerous interaction. Officers are not required to document every use of force

3 incident, and not all use of force incidents are reviewed by supervisory staff.

4 Defendant’s policies do not include any limitations on the use of force against

5 people who are unable to comply with commands due to severe mental illness, or

6 the use of restraints on people who are vulnerable to injuries, including pregnant

7 women. There is no system for people in custody to confidentially report excessive

8 use of force.

9

33. All people in the jail, including Plaintiffs, are at risk of harm due to

10 Defendant’s policies and practices regarding the use of force.

11 III. SAN BERNARDINO FAILS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE
12 34. People in Defendant’s custody face a substantial risk of harm from
13 violence at the hands of other incarcerated people due to its policy and practice of
14 failing to adequately supervise and classify people in its custody. Vulnerable
15 individuals are regularly assaulted and victimized by other individuals in the
16 facilities or during transportation because Defendant has failed to take reasonable
17 measures to protect them. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the danger of
18 assault faced by people in its custody.
19 35. Given the structural design of the housing units, there are not enough
20 correctional officers assigned to each unit to adequately supervise people. In West
21 Valley Detention Center, officers are stationed in an enclosed control booth that
22 overlooks several separate housing pods. Officers cannot see all areas of the
23 housing pods from the control booth, and there are substantial periods of time when
24 there are no officers in the pods. As a result, people are often assaulted in the
25 housing units when officers are not looking or present. In February 2015, Mr.
26 Topete was assaulted during a riot in his housing unit when there were no officers
27 present. Defendant knew the riot was going to happen because an individual wrote
28

11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 a note to correctional officers about the planned riot, but nothing was done to

2 prevent it. During the riot, Mr. Topete tried to avoid the fighting by standing next to

3 the door where the officers would enter. While he stood there, he was punched in

4 the face, hit with a milk crate, and hit with a plastic bedframe before he finally used

5 his cane to keep attackers away from him. Correctional officers did not enter the

6 housing pod until several minutes later.

7

36. Defendant does not adequately classify and assign people to housing

8 locations where they will be safe from injury and violence. Individuals who are

9 incompatible are regularly housed together. For example, in September 2015, a

10 gang member was stabbed repeatedly in his cell by a rival gang member. Defendant

11 moved the victim to another housing unit for a few days, but then moved him back

12 to the same housing unit where he was again stabbed repeatedly. Defendant knew

13 that one or both of these assaults was going to occur because correctional officers

14 intercepted a note discussing the planned attack. In other instances, people who

15 notify staff that they are gang “drop-outs” are housed with the general population,

16 instead of in protective custody, where they are attacked by active gang members.

17 People who are obviously psychotic and unstable are also housed with the general

18 population where they assault or are assaulted by other individuals.

19

37. Even when Defendant properly classifies people, they face an

20 unreasonable risk of violence when they leave their housing units. Individuals with

21 different classifications are placed together in holding cells when they wait for court

22 hearings or other appointments and in vehicles when they are transported to other

23 locations such as the courthouse, hospital, or other jail facilities. What is more,

24 individuals with different classifications are chained together in these holding cells

25 and vehicle transports. A significant percentage of assaults occur outside of the

26 housing units.

27

38. When individuals notify staff members that they are at risk of assault,

28 Defendant fails to adequately respond and ameliorate the risk. Correctional officers

12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 laugh at or ignore them, tell them that they have no choice but to “get along,” or in

2 some instances even encourage them to fight when they notify them of a risk of

3 violence. Correctional officers do not arrive on the scene of an attack until it is

4 completed, if they are ever aware of an attack at all.

5

39. As a result of these policies and practices, there is a high rate of

6 violence, and people are suffering from serious injuries. In fact, most people who

7 are assaulted require medical attention, oftentimes at an off-site emergency room.

8 Defendant has failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate this harm, and, as a

9 result, a culture of violence between incarcerated individuals flourishes.

10 IV. DEFENDANT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
11 40. Defendant has a policy and practice of failing to ensure that people
12 with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, and activities in the jails.
13 41. At the time of intake, Defendant does not appropriately identify
14 individuals’ disabilities and needed assistive devices. Defendant’s intake screening
15 form does not include any questions about physical disabilities, and there is no place
16 to document if an individual requires a cane, wheelchair, walker, or accessible
17 housing.
18 42. Defendant does not timely provide appropriate assistive devices,
19 including but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, and
20 hearing aids, to people who require them, if they ever provide them at all. For
21 example, a jail physician ordered a four-wheeled walker for a woman with a
22 mobility impairment in March 2015. She did not receive the walker until over three
23 months later, and then only after Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly asked Defendant to
24 provide it.
25 43. After intake, Defendant does not house people with physical disabilities
26 in locations where they can safely programs and services. For example, Defendant
27 does not house Mr. Topete, who uses a wheelchair, in an accessible housing unit.
28

13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 His wheelchair does not fit through his cell door, which means he must stand up,

2 fold his wheelchair, push it through the doorframe, and then unfold the wheelchair

3 again once inside. There are no grab bars next to the toilet inside his cell or the

4 shower. Defendant forces him to go up and down stairs, without any assistance, to

5 access the visiting room to visit his family. Once he reaches the top of these stairs,

6 Defendant does not provide him with his wheelchair that remains on the floor

7 below. Mr. Topete has fallen and it at risk of serious injury as a result of

8 Defendant’s failure to accommodate him. Defendant does not have enough housing

9 units equipped with accessible features to meet the needs of its current jail

10 population.

11

44. Defendant violates the rights of people with psychiatric and/or

12 intellectual disabilities by housing them in solitary confinement. Solitary

13 confinement, or locking people in their cells for 22 hours a day or longer, can be

14 traumatic for everyone, but even more traumatic for people with psychiatric and/or

15 intellectual disabilities. Defendant has not modified its policies and procedures to

16 accommodate people with such disabilities so that they do not suffer harm from

17 solitary confinement. Defendant locks people with psychiatric and/or intellectual

18 disabilities in solitary confinement for nonconforming and erratic behaviors related

19 to their conditions, some of which could have been avoided if Defendant provided

20 adequate mental health care or accommodations. The harsh conditions and the lack

21 of mental health care or accommodations cause them to continue and escalate these

22 symptomatic behaviors. In response, Defendant locks them in solitary confinement

23 for longer periods of time. Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people with

24 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement, based on their

25 disabilities, inappropriately deprives them of access to programs, services, and

26 activities that are only available in less restrictive settings.

27

45. Defendant does not provide timely or adequate access to medical

28 supplies or equipment for people with physical disabilities. People who require

14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 colostomy supplies are at risk of infections because Defendant does not consistently

2 deliver the appropriate supplies. Mr. Topete, in addition to a wheelchair, requires

3 the use of a C-PAP machine to sleep at night. Defendant currently houses him in a

4 cell that does not have an electrical outlet, and requires him to sleep in the dayroom

5 if he wants to plug in his C-PAP machine. Defendant also requires Mr. Topete to

6 drag a plastic bedframe and mattress to and from storage, without assistance, many

7 evenings and the following mornings. Once Mr. Topete manages to get his bed into

8 the dayroom, he has difficulty getting in and out of the bed because the frame sits

9 directly on the ground and it is difficult for him to bend and stoop. At least a few

10 times a month, Mr. Topete wakes up choking and gasping for air because

11 correctional officers have turned off the power in the dayroom and he cannot

12 breathe through his C-PAP machine without electricity.

13

46. Defendant does not have an effective complaint procedure for people to

14 contest disability discrimination. The only mechanism Defendant provides to raise

15 disability issues is the jail grievance form. However, individuals must ask

16 correctional officers for grievance forms who often refuse to provide them.

17 Defendant requires correctional officers to review and sign any grievances before

18 they are processed, but many officers attempt to dissuade prisoners from filing them,

19 threaten retaliation for use of the grievance process, or refuse to sign or process the

20 forms. Moreover, many people with disabilities are unaware of Defendant’s

21 obligation to ensure equal access to programs, services, and activities because

22 Defendant has failed to provide notice of their disability related rights as required by

23 federal law.

24

47. Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding screening, housing,

25 assistive devices and medical supplies, grievances, and the use of solitary

26 confinement for people with disabilities is a direct violation of the ADA and Section

27 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

28

15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

2

48. Plaintiffs George Topete and Zachery Shovey bring this action on their

3 own behalves and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

4 Civil Procedure, on behalf of all people who are or will in the future be incarcerated

5 in the San Bernardino County Jail.

6

49. All class members are at risk of harm due to the following policies and

7 practices:

8

(a) Using force that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of

9 serious injury even when it is unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in

10 the jails;

11

(b) Denying minimally adequate health care including identification

12 and monitoring of serious conditions, sufficient staffing levels, timely access to

13 appropriate clinicians, medications, and treatment plans, effective suicide prevention

14 practices, and the complete range of health care services necessary to maintain

15 health;

16

(c) Failing to adequately supervise and classify individuals to ensure

17 that they do not face an unreasonable risk of injury and violence from other

18 incarcerated individuals;

19 People with disabilities also face the additional risk of disability discrimination due

20 to Defendant’s inadequate policies and practices regarding solitary confinement,

21 assistive devices and medical supplies, accessible housing, and grievances.

22

50. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including

23 whether Defendant by its policy and practice of (1) denying minimally adequate

24 mental health, medical, and dental care violates the Due Process Clause of the

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

26 Amendment; (2) using excessive force violates the Due Process Clause of the

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

28

16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Amendment; (3) denying adequate supervision and classification to protect people

2 from violence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and

3 the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (4) denying

4 assistive devices, medical supplies, and accessible housing to people with physical

5 disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (4)

6 locking people with psychiatric disabilities and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary

7 confinement based on their disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the

8 Rehabilitation Act.

9

51. Since there are thousands of class members, separate actions by

10 individuals would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions,

11 which in turn would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for

12 Defendant.

13

52. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds that apply generally to

14 the class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate

15 respecting the class as a whole.

16

53. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class, since their

17 claims arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct and their

18 claims are based on the same theories of law as the class’s claims.

19

54. The named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately

20 protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to

21 the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin

22 the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs are represented by

23 counsel experienced in prisoners’ rights litigation and complex class action

24 litigation.

25

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

26

First Cause of Action

27 (Fourteenth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

28

55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 in the

2 preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

3

56. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects

4 Plaintiffs and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from

5 inadequate health care, violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has

6 violated their right to basic human dignity and to be free from cruel and unusual

7 conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

8 These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by

9 Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert

10 under color of state law, in their official capacity, and are the proximate cause of the

11 Plaintiffs’ and the class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured under the Fourteenth

12 Amendment.

13

57. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained

14 of herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It

15 should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions

16 imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

17 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has

18 repeatedly been made aware, through administrative grievances and written

19 complaints, that class members are currently experiencing, or are at risk of,

20 significant and lasting injury.

21

Second Cause of Action

(Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

22

23

58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

24 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

25

59. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects

26 Plaintiffs and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from

27 inadequate health care, violence between prisoners, and excessive force, and has

28 violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These policies and practices have

2 been and continue to be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials,

3 employees, and all persons acting in concert under color of state law, in their official

4 capacity, and are the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ and the class’s ongoing

5 deprivation of rights secured under the Eighth Amendment.

6

60. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained

7 of herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. It

8 should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the conditions

9 imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

10 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has

11 repeatedly been made aware, through administrative grievances and written

12 complaints, that class members are currently experiencing, or are at risk of,

13 significant and lasting injury.

14

Third Cause of Action

(Americans with Disabilities Act) 15

16

61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

17 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

18

62. Plaintiffs Topete and Shovey and other class members with physical,

19 psychiatric, or intellectual disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as

20 defined in the ADA. They have an impairment that substantially limits one or more

21 major life activities, they have a record of such impairment, or they are regarded as

22 having such an impairment. All people with disabilities in the jails meet the

23 essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in

24 programs or activities provided by Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. §

25 12131(2).

26

63. Defendant is a public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A).

27

64. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to ensure that people with

28 disabilities have access to, are permitted to participate in, and are not denied the

19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 benefits of, programs, services, and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §

2 35.152(b)(1).

3

65. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to make “reasonable

4 modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are

5 necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability . . . .” 28 C.F.R. Section

6 35.130(b)(7).

7

66. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “ensure that inmates or

8 detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to

9 the needs of the individuals.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2).

10

67. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “furnish appropriate auxiliary

11 aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal

12 opportunity to participate in … a service, program, or activity of a public entity.” 28

13 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(1).

14

68. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to notify people about their

15 rights under the ADA while detained in its jails. 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

16

69. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “adopt and publish grievance

17 procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any

18 action that would be prohibited by … [the ADA].” 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b).

19

70. As a result of Defendant’s policies and practices regarding people with

20 disabilities in its jails, Plaintiffs Topete and Shovey and other class members with

21 disabilities do not have equal access to jail activities, programs, and services for

22 which they are otherwise qualified.

23

Fourth Cause of Action

(Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 24

25

71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

26 in Paragraphs 1 - 54 as if set forth fully herein.

27

72. Plaintiffs Topete and Shovey and other class members with disabilities

28 are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in Section 504 of the

20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

2

73. Defendant receives federal funding within the meaning of the

3 Rehabilitation Act.

4

74. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by

5 discriminating against people with disabilities solely on the basis of their

6 disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

7

75. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to

8 reasonably accommodate people with disabilities in its facilities, programs,

9 activities, and services.

10

76. Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating against people with

11 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the use of solitary confinement is not

12 reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because (1) it worsens their

13 psychiatric conditions; (2) there are no alternative means for them to access

14 programs, services, and activities; (3) there are alternative means to safely and cost-

15 effectively house them in the jails; and (4) it is an exaggerated response as they do

16 not require restrictive housing on the basis of their disabilities.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

77. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law

19 to redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered

20 and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts,

21 omissions, policies, and practices of the Defendant as alleged herein, unless

22 Plaintiffs are granted the relief they request. The need for relief is critical because

23 the rights at issue are paramount under the Constitution of the United States, the

24 ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

25

78. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the class they

26 represent, request that this Court grant them the following relief:

27

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

28 of Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

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

2 practices of Defendant and its agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the

3 rights of Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth and Eighth

4 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 of the

5 Rehabilitation Act;

6

C. Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting

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

8 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;

9

D. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

10 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate mental

11 health, medical, and dental care, including but not limited to sufficient intake

12 screening, sufficient staffing, timely access to appropriate clinicians, timely

13 prescription and distribution of appropriate medications and supplies, timely access

14 to specialty care, and timely access to competent therapy, inpatient treatment, and

15 suicide prevention;

16

F. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

17 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

18 practical, a plan to eliminate the excessive use of force. Defendant’s plan at a

19 minimum must address deficiencies in use of force policies and procedures, training,

20 supervision, investigations, and disciplinary practices;

21

G. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

22 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

23 practical, a plan to reduce the risk of injury and violence between individuals in its

24 custody. Defendant’s plan at a minimum must address deficiencies in classification

25 policies and procedures, staffing levels, and policies and practices related to the

26 transportation of people in its custody;

27

28

22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

G. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

2 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide equal access to programs,

3 services, and activities for people with disabilities, including but not limited to

4 housing people with physical disabilities in accessible housing appropriate to their

5 needs, timely delivery of and appropriate access to assistive devices and medical

6 supplies, housing people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the least

7 restrictive and most integrated settings appropriate to their needs, providing an

8 effective grievance system to contest disability discrimination, and notifying people

9 with disabilities their rights under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

10 Act.;

11

I. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 12205,

12 and 12133, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation

13 expenses;

14

J. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendant has fully complied with the

15 orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendant will continue

16 to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

17

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

18

Dated: February 29, 2016

PRISON LAW OFFICE

19

By: /s/ Kelly Knapp

20

DONALD SPECTER

21

KELLY KNAPP Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 ACCO,(DTBx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division − Riverside)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:16−cv−00355−VAP−DTB

George Topete and Zachery Shovey v. County of San Bernardino Date Filed: 02/29/2016

Assigned to: Judge Virginia A. Phillips

Date Terminated: 12/12/2018

Referred to: Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow

Jury Demand: None

Related Case: 5:13−cv−00444−VAP−OP

Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights

Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

George Topete on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/30/2016

represented by Donald Specter Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp Stebner and Associates 870 Market Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 4153629800 Fax: 4153629801 Email: kelly@stebnerassociates.com TERMINATED: 06/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margot Knight Mendelson Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Zachery Shovey on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/30/2016

represented by Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rahshun Turner on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address)

Plaintiff Monique Lewis on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Joshua Mills on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Jaime Jaramillo on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
V. Defendant County of San Bernardino

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophie Jedeikin Hart Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: sophieh@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophie Jedeikin Hart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophie Jedeikin Hart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Specter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophie Jedeikin Hart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jaime Godin Touchstone Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery Street Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−399−3840 Fax: 415−399−3838

Email: jtouchstone@fddcm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie L Dupree Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery Street Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−399−3840 Fax: 415−399−3838 Email: jdupree@fddcm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miles Kowalski Office of the County Counsel San Bernardino County 385 North Arrowhead Avenue 4th Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415−0140 909−387−5455 Fax: 909−387−3070 Email: miles.kowalski@cc.sbcounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin H Dodd Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP 601 Montgomery Street Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−399−3840 Fax: 415−399−3838 Email: mdodd@fddcm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/29/2016
02/29/2016 02/29/2016
02/29/2016
03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/01/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−17363248 − Fee: $400, filed by PLAINTIFFS George Topete, Zachery Shovey. (Attorney Kelly Jean Knapp added to party Zachery Shovey(pty:pla), Attorney Kelly Jean Knapp added to party George Topete(pty:pla))(Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Zachery Shovey, George Topete. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV−71) 2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by PLAINTIFFS Zachery Shovey, George Topete. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
4 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by PLAINTIFFS Zachery Shovey, George Topete. Unopposed by Defendant Related Case(s): 13−0444 (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Virginia A. Phillips and Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (aco) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (aco) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to DEFENDANT County of San Bernardino. (aco) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1−1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83−7. (aco) (Entered: 03/01/2016)

03/01/2016 03/02/2016
03/03/2016
03/15/2016 04/20/2016 04/21/2016 04/21/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/08/2016 06/09/2016 06/15/2016 06/27/2016
09/08/2016

9 Notice and CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiffs Zachery Shovey, George Topete, identifying Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff George Topete, Zachery Shovey, upon Defendant County of San Bernardino served on 3/1/2016, answer due 3/22/2016. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Defendant's attorney in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified.Original Summons NOT returned. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
11 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Effective March 28, 2016, Judge Virginia A. Phillips will be located in the Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, COURTROOM 780, on the 7th floor, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 780 of the Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered and placed in the drop box located outside of Room 181 − Roybal Clerk's Office. Judge Phillips's new Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Wendy Rogers, may be reached at (213) 894−3480. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/03/2016)
12 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to County of San Bernardino answer now due 4/21/2016, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino.(Attorney Martin H. Dodd added to party County of San Bernardino(pty:dft))(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
13 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino.(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
14 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Scheduling Conference set for 6/20/2016 at 01:30 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (wro) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
15 STANDING ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (wro) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
16 REQUEST for ADR Procedure No. 3. Parties request for private mediation. Filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
17 STATEMENT Joint Scheduling Conference Statement filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
18 REQUEST for ADR Procedure No. 3. Parties request for private mediation. Filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
19 (Attorney Margot Knight Mendelson added to party Zachery Shovey(pty:pla), Attorney Margot Knight Mendelson added to party George Topete(pty:pla))(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
20 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. The scheduling conference presently set for June 20, 2016, is continued to June 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wro) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/09/2016)
21 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Kelly Jean Knapp counsel for Plaintiffs Zachery Shovey, George Topete. Kelly Knapp is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Topete. (Knapp, Kelly) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
22 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Court and counsel confer re case and settlement status. The parties elect to proceed with Settlement Procedure No. 3, to appear before a private mediator. Plaintiff's motion for class certification to be filed not later than September 12, 2016; opposition, if any, shall be filed not later than September 26, 2016; reply to be filed by October 11, 2016; hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification is set for October 24, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. Court Reporter: Phyllis Preston. (iva) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
23 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Zachery Shovey, George Topete. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/09/2016
09/28/2016 09/28/2016 09/29/2016
09/29/2016 09/30/2016 10/06/2016 10/14/2016 10/18/2016 11/07/2016
11/10/2016 11/10/2016

24 ORDER EXTENDING DEDADLINE FOR FILING OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 23 : Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby extends time as follows: The motion for class certification is to be filed no later than November 11, 2016. The opposition to the motion, if any, is to be filed no later than November 28, 2016; the reply to be filed no later than December 12, 2016. (bm) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
25 STIPULATION to Amend Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Plaintiffs Zachery Shovey, George Topete. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
26 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Zachery Shovey, George Topete. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
27 RESPONSE BY THE COURT OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: Stipulation for Protective Order 26 by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. The document is stricken due to the incorrect caption. The parties proposed Stipulation and Protective Order has been referred by the District Judge to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. The parties are advised that the Court declines to issue the proposed protective order to which they have stipulated for the following reasons: 1. Proposed 6.3 needs to be revised to make clear that any motion challenging a designation brought pursuant to that paragraph will need to be made in strict compliance with Local Rules 37−1 and 37−2 (including the Joint Stipulation requirement). (vp) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
28 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, GRANTING Stipulation For Leave to File First Amended Complaint 25 . Pursuant to the parties stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter on the docket Exhibit 1 as Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. (shb) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 against Defendant County of San Bernardino filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (lom) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
30 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Attorney Margot Knight Mendelson added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla))(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
31 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 29 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino.(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
32 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow, re Stipulation for Protective Order 30 Pursuant to the parties stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the partiesstipulated protective order (Dkt #30) shall take effect.DATED: October 18, 2016 (dc) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
33 NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Effective November 14, 2016, Judge Phillips will be located at the 1st Street Courthouse, COURTROOM 8A on the 8th floor, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 8A of the 1st Street Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the 4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G−8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/07/2016)
34 STIPULATION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
35 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 11/16/16, DOCUMENT 39 . Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2016 at 02:00 PM before

11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016
11/16/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016
11/22/2016 11/28/2016
12/01/2016 12/01/2016 12/01/2016 12/02/2016

Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Mendelson, Margot) Modified on 11/17/2016 (bm). (Entered: 11/10/2016)
36 JOINT STATEMENT of Facts Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 35 filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
37 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in Support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 35 filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
38 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion to Certify Class 35 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
39 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS 38 RE: Motion to Certify Class 35 by Clerk of Court. Documents are STRICKEN. Counsel shall adhere to the schedule and noticing of the motion pursuant to the order of September 9, 2016 Dkt No. 24. (bm) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
40 ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation for Leave 34 : Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter on the docket Exhibit 1 as Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. (bm) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
41 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant County of San Bernardino amending First Amended Complaint 29 , filed by plaintiffs Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Jaime Jaramillo (Attorney Donald Specter added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla), Attorney Donald Specter added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla), Attorney Donald Specter added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla), Attorney Donald Specter added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla)) (bm) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
42 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
43 ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 42 : Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby modifies the schedule as follows: The motion for class certification is to be filed no later than November 28, 2016. The hearing on the motion will be held on December 19, 2016 at 2:00pm. (bm) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
44 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. Motion set for hearing on 12/19/2016 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
45 JOINT STATEMENT of Stipulated Facts Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 44 filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
46 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in Support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 44 filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
47 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips re: Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 44 . On the Court's own motion, the hearing Plaintiff Motion to Certify Class is CONTINUED to 1/23/2017 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/05/2016 01/23/2017 01/27/2017
02/10/2017 02/22/2017 02/23/2017 03/03/2017 03/13/2017 03/20/2017
03/20/2017
03/30/2017

48 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 41 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino.(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
49 MINUTES OF JOINT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; [DOC. NO. 44] Hearing held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips taking under submission 44 MOTION to Certify Class Action: Matter called. Counsel of record present. Court issues a tentative ruling, hears oral argument and takes the matter under submission. Court directs counsel to proceed with mediation proceedings as prescribed on the record. Court Reporter: C. Nirenberg. (bm) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
50 ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Certify Class by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 44 MOTION to Certify Class Action: For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the parties' joint Motion. Accordingly the Court certifies two classes: (1) a Plaintiff Class of "[a]ll people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails" and (2) a Plaintiff Subclass of "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794." (Doc. No. 44 at 78.) Further, the Court certifies plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, and Rahshun Turner as representatives of the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff Subclass, and the Court certifies The Prison Law Office as counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Plaintiff Subclass. (bm) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
51 Joint REQUEST for Pretrial Conference filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. Request set for hearing on 3/13/2017 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
52 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR MARCH 13, 2017 at 1:30 PM 51 by Judge Virginia A. Phillips (lc) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
53 REQUEST to Reschedule Scheduling Conference filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. Request set for hearing on 3/21/2017 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
54 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 53 REQUEST to Reschedule: A Scheduling Conference in the above−captioned matter will be held on March 20, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (bm) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
55 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Joint Scheduling Conference Statement ; estimated length of trial 5 days, filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Scheduling Conference Statement)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
56 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Court and counsel confer re case and settlement status. The settlement conference shall be conducted no later than December 15, 2017. The parties elect to proceed with Settlement Procedure No. 3. Private Mediator. The trial schedule, motion and discovery cutoff dates will be set forth in a separate Civil Trial Scheduling Order to be filed and served on counsel by the clerk. Court Reporter: Sheri Kleeger. (bm) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
57 CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Last Day to Stipulate or File a Motion to Amend Pleadings or Add New Parties: OCTOBER 15, 2017; Deadline for Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses: OCTOBER 30, 2017; Deadline for Designation of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses: NOVEMBER 29, 2017; Discovery Cut−Off: JANUARY 8, 2018; Summary Judgment Motion Hearing Cut Off: N/A; Last day to Conduct Mediation: DECEMBER 15, 2017; Pretrial Conference: JANUARY 23, 2018 AT 2:30 P.M.; Court Trial set: FEBRUARY 6, 2018 AT 8:30 A.M.; Trial Estimate: FIVE (5) Days (bm) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
58 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Miles Kowalski on behalf of Defendant County of San Bernardino. Filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino (Attorney Miles Kowalski added to party County of San Bernardino(pty:dft))(Kowalski, Miles) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

07/31/2017 09/25/2017 11/01/2017 11/09/2017 01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/17/2018
01/17/2018 01/19/2018
01/22/2018 01/24/2018

59 STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiff George Topete. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
60 NOTICE of Change of address by Martin H. Dodd attorney for Defendant County of San Bernardino. Changing attorneys address to 601 Montgomery St., Suite 333, San Francisco, CA 94111. Filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
61 STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs George Topete, Rahshun Turner. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
62 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips re: Status Report 61 . The Court has read and considered the parties' Joint Status Report filed, 11/01/2017, and having considered the status report, the parties request is granted. The above matter is STAYED up and until December 31, 2017. SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/09/2017)
63 IN CHAMBERS)SCHEDULING NOTICE. COUNSEL OF RECORD are hereby notified that the Pretrial Conference is RESET for 1/22/2018 at 2:30 PM instead of 1/23/2018 before Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/16/2018)
64 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report and Stipulation to Vacate Pending Pre−Trial and Trial Dates filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
65 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Status Report and Stipulation to Vacate 64 . The following error(s) was/were found: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. Other error(s) with document(s): Proposed order should have been submitted as a separate, additional attachment to the Status Report and Stipulation to Vacate. A stand−alone proposed order can be e−filed by submitting a Notice of Lodging, with the separate, additional attachment of a proposed order. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
66 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS 65 RE: Status Report 64 , by Clerk of Court. The document is accepted as filed. (bm) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
67 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) VACATING PRE−TRIAL AND TRIAL DATES AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: The Court has read and considered the parties' Joint Status Report and Stipulation to Vacate Pending Pre−Trial and Trial Dates. (Doc. No. 64). Having considered the status report, and with good cause showing, all pending pre−trial and trial dates in the above−captioned matter are hereby VACATED. The Court orders the parties to appear for a status conference on February 26, 2018 at 2:30 p.m, in Courtroom 8A of the above−entitled court. (bm) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
68 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 1/31/18, DOCUMENT 70 . Stipulation and Request to Continue Status Conference re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, 67 (Specter, Donald) Modified on 1/31/2018 (bm). (Entered: 01/22/2018)
69 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation and Request to Continue Status Conference 68 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Stipulations−Continue. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. Other error(s) with document(s): Proposed order was not submitted as a separate, additional attachmen to the Stipulation. A stand−alone proposed order can be e−filed by submitting a Notice of Lodging with the separate, additional attachment of the proposed order. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action

01/31/2018 01/31/2018 02/02/2018 02/26/2018 03/01/2018 03/23/2018 03/23/2018
03/26/2018 03/26/2018
03/27/2018 03/27/2018

as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
70 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS 69 RE: Stipulation to Continue 68 by Clerk of Court. The document is stricken and counsel is ordered to file an amended or corrected document by no later than February 2, 2018. Other: Counsel shall adhere to the Local Rules in emailing to the Court the pdf and word version of the documents at the time of filing for the Court's consideration. (bm) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
71 STIPULATION to Continue Status Conference from February 28, 2018 to March 5, 2018 filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
72 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation to Continue 71 : A Status Conference in the above−captioned matter will be held on March 5, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. (bm) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
73 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
74 (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING NOTICE. The Court has read the parties' joint status report regarding settlement, and on the Court's own motion the Status Conference is CONTINUED from 3/5/2018 to 4/16/2018 at 2:30 PM before Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/01/2018)
75 STIPULATION for Order Shortening Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Shortening Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
76 ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO FILE JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND NOTICE TO THE CLASS 75 by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. The Court, having considered the Stipulation of the parties for an Order Shortening the Time within which to file their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class (Joint Motion) and good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS the Order The parties shall file the Joint Motion no later than March 29, 2018 and the Joint Motion shall be heard simultaneously with the status Conference scheduled in this matter for April 16, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. So Ordered. (ab) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
77 APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Martin H. Dodd in Support of Defendant County of San Bernardino's Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and Attachments 1, 2 and 3 under seal filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant County of San Bernardino's Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
78 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Declaration of Martin H. Dodd in Support of Defendant County of San Bernardino's Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and Attachments 1, 2 and 3 under seal 77 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Attachment 1, # 2 Unredacted Document Attachment 2, # 3 Unredacted Document Attachment 3, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
79 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO'S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 77 APPLICATION (bm) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
80 SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Martin H. Dodd in Support of Defendant County of San Bernardino's Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and Attachments 1, 2 and 3 re Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration,

03/28/2018 04/09/2018 06/29/2018
07/03/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018

78 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal 79 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
81 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. Motion set for hearing on 4/16/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Donald Specter in support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, # 2 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Donald Specter in support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, # 3 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Donald Specter in support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, # 4 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class) (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
82 SCHEDULING NOTICE (IN CHAMBERS): COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion, the hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice of Class, set for April 16, 2018, and Status Conference are hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. This matter is appropriate for resolution without hearing pursuant to Local rule 7−15 and will stand submitted on the papers timely filed. By Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/09/2018)
83 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND NOTICE TO THE CLASS 81 by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: On April 16, 2018, Named Plaintiffs Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime Jaramillo, and Joshua Mills (collectively "Plaintiffs") and defendant County of San Bernardino ("Defendant") filed a joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of a consent decree ("Motion"). (Doc. No. 81). Having considered the papers in support of the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). After weighing the factors above, the Court agrees to grant preliminary approval to the Consent Decree. The Court approves the proposed Notice with the above changes. The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ab) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
84 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 7/11/18, DOCUMENT 89 . Stipulation For Briefing Schedule & Hearing Date re Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class 81 filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Specter, Donald) Modified on 7/11/2018 (bm). (Entered: 07/03/2018)
85 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Clarification and/or Modification of Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Joint Motion for Clarification and/or Modification of Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Clarification and/or Modification of Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class) (Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
86 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Clarification and/or Modification of Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class 85 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Other error(s) with document(s): Chief Judge Phillips hears motions @ 2 p.m. Docket text and document must match.. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ab) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/11/2018
07/11/2018 07/11/2018 07/11/2018 07/13/2018
07/17/2018 08/03/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 10/08/2018 10/15/2018

87 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation For Briefing Schedule 84 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Stipulations−Order. Proposed Order attachment should be a separate, additional attachment to the Stipulation as well as indicate the case caption. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
88 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS 86 RE: Joint Motion for Clarification and/or Modification 85 by Clerk of Court. Document is ACCEPTED. Hearing is NOW set for 2:00p.m.. (bm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
89 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS 87 RE: Stipulation for Briefing Schedule and Hearing 84 by Clerk of Court. Document is STRICKEN as improper format. (bm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
90 First APPLICATION for Hearing Fairness Hearing on Proposed Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. Application set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
91 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 90 APPLICATION for Hearing: Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: On October 15, 2018, the parties shall file briefs in response to comments from class members on whether the proposed Consent Decree is "fair, reasonable and adequate." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., Rule 23. A fairness hearing shall be held on October 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. on whether the Court should approve the Consent Decree. (bm) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
92 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees (Unopposed) filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
93 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, ORDERING "Hello my name is...[Letter] submitted by non party, received on 08/03/18 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Auther, Christopher Art Lopez, requests case status and is not a party to this action. (See document for details.) (sbou) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
94 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, ORDERING "On July 26th..." [Letter] submitted by Non−Party, Talara Cavalli, received on 08/08/18 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Author, Talara Cavalli, is not a party to this action. The letter gives a history of her incarceration and expresses her belief in what the outcome of the case should be. (sbou) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
95 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, ORDERING "To Whom it May Concern" [Letter] submitted by Non−Party, Tony Valdez, received on 07/31/18 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Author, Tony Valdez, requests appoint of counsel. Mr. Valdez is not a party to this action. (sbou) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
96 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Sophie Jedeikin Hart on behalf of Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Rahshun Turner (Attorney Sophie Jedeikin Hart added to party Jaime Jaramillo(pty:pla), Attorney Sophie Jedeikin Hart added to party Monique Lewis(pty:pla), Attorney Sophie Jedeikin Hart added to party Joshua Mills(pty:pla), Attorney Sophie Jedeikin Hart added to party Rahshun Turner(pty:pla))(Hart, Sophie) (Entered: 10/08/2018)
97 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Zachery Shovey, George Topete, Rahshun Turner. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at

10/22/2018 10/26/2018
10/30/2018 11/28/2018 11/30/2018 12/03/2018
12/12/2018
12/12/2018

02:00 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order) (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
98 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 97 filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Zachery Shovey, George Topete, Rahshun Turner. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
99 (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING NOTICE: COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE NOTIFIED, that on the Court's own motion, the hearing on Motion for Clarification and/or Modification of Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree 85 , Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 92 , and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 97 , set for October 29,2018, are hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. This matter is appropriate for resolution without hearing pursuant to See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7−15, and will stand submitted on the papers timely filed. No appearance by counsel will be necessary by Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (bh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/26/2018)
100 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SETTING HEARING DATE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Counsel of Record are hereby notified that on the Court's own motion, the hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 97)filed on October 15, 2018, and originally set for hearing on October 29, 2018is hereby set for hearing on December 3, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (bm) (Entered: 10/31/2018)
101 DECLARATION of Donald Specter in support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 97 filed by Plaintiffs Jaime Jaramillo, Monique Lewis, Joshua Mills, Zachery Shovey, George Topete, Rahshun Turner. (Specter, Donald) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
102 DECLARATION of Lieutenant Lucas Niles in support of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 97 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Dodd, Martin) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
103 MINUTES OF 1. JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE; [DOC. NO. 85]; 2. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES; [DOC NO. 92]; 3. JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; [DOC NO. 97] Hearing held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Matter called. Counsel for the parties are present as referenced above. Court Issue's tentative ruling and invites oral argument of Counsel. The Court having heard from counsel, takes the matter under submission. Court to issue final order. Counsel shall submit proposed order re: consent decree. Court Reporter: Myra Ponce. (bm) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
104 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND NOTICE TO THE CLASS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting 85 MOTION: The sentence set forth at page 23, lines 4−7 of the Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class (Doc. no. 83), commencing with the word "Since" and ending with the words "preliminary approval" is hereby deleted and the following is substituted in its place: Since the proposed Consent Decree allows all existing and future class members to remain free to pursue individual claims against Defendant, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval. (bm) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
105 ORDER GRANTING the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 97) and GRANTING Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees (Doc. No. 92) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: The Court therefore approves and adopts the Consent Decree as the Order of the Court, orders the parties to comply with all its terms, and orders Defendant to implement the Remedial Plan and accompanying policies pursuant to the schedule set forth therein. The Court specifically authorizes the appointment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706(b), of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D., and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court on the County's compliance or non−compliance with the medical

12/14/2018
02/13/2020 02/20/2020 04/20/2020

care, mental health care, and use of force provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to assist with dispute resolution matters as prescribed in the Consent Decree, and to provide testimony, if required, in any proceedings before the Court. Subject to the approval of the Court, the Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation at the rates set forth in Exhibit B to the Consent Decree and to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with their duties, which shall be paid by Defendant. (bm) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
106 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated Consent Decree, hereby approves and adopts the Consent Decree as the Order of the Court and, in so doing, finds that the relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to ensure the protection of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive means necessary to accomplish those objectives. The Court specifically authorizes the appointment, pursuant to FRE 706(b), of Todd Wilcox, M.D., Roberta Stellman, M.D., and Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D. and Gary Raney, as Court experts to advise the Court on the County's compliance or non−compliance with the medical care, mental health care and use of force provisions, respectively, of the Remedial Plan, to assist with dispute resolution matters as prescribed in the Consent Decree, and to provide testimony, if required, in any proceedings before the Court. Subject to the approval of the Court, the Court experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation at the rates set forth in Exhibit B to the Consent Decree and to reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with their duties, which shall be paid by Defendant. (bm) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
107 STIPULATION to Enforce Judgment against Defendant County of San Bernardino filed by Plaintiff Rahshun Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Mental Health Staffing)(Specter, Donald) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
108 CLASS ACTION ORDER RE MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation to Enforce Judgment 107 : IT IS SO ORDERED. (see document for further details) (bm) Modified on 2/20/2020 (bm). (Entered: 02/20/2020)
109 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, ORDERING Letter submitted received on 4/15/2020 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Local Rule 83−2.5: No letters to the judge. (bm) (Entered: 04/21/2020)