U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Mohrbacher et al v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office et al Assigned to: Judge James Donato Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Demand: $1,000,000 Relate Case Cases: 3:18-cv-05072-JD
3:18-cv-07814-JD
3:19-cv-01915-JD Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 01/04/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Jaclyn Mohrbacher

represented by Dennis Cunningham Law Office of Dennis Cunningham 115 A Bartlett Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415-285-8091 Fax: 415-285-8092 Email: denniscunningham@juno.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yolanda Huang Law Offices of Yolanda Huang 528 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 329-2140 Fax: (510) 580-9410 Email: yhuang.law@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Erin Ellis

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yolanda Huang

Plaintiff Dominique Jackson
Plaintiff Christina Zepeda Plaintiff Alexis Wah Plaintiff Kelsey Erwin
Plaintiff Jaime Johnston

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Denise Rohrbach
Plaintiff Shani Jones
Plaintiff Dawn Dedrick
Plaintiff Jamila Longmire

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Natalie Garrido
Plaintiff Jazmine Tate
Plaintiff Monica Nunes
Plaintiff Marcaysha Alexander

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andanna Ibe
Plaintiff Andrania Yancy
Plaintiff Sandra Griffin
Plaintiff Diamond Cooper

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Mapa
Plaintiff Rose Perez
Plaintiff Martina Gomez
Plaintiff Tikisha Upshaw

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Annette Kozlowski

represented by Dennis Cunningham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Alameda County Sheriffs Office Defendant Gregory Ahern
Defendant Brett Keteles

represented by Gregory B. Thomas Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP 1901 Harrison Street Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612-3501 510-273-8780 Fax: 510-839-9104 Email: gthomas@bwslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 1901 Harrison Street Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 510-903-8833 Email: tpeters@bwslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tom Madigan
Defendant D Skoldqvist TERMINATED: 08/21/2019
Defendant Sgt Calagari
Defendant Deputy Divine

Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Debra Farmanian
Defendant Deputy Weatherbee
Defendant Tania Pope
Defendant Deputy Instead Defendant Deputy Caine

represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alameda County

represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

represented by Peter G. Bertling Bertling Law Group, Inc. 15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 104 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-8215 (805) 879-7558 Fax: (805) 962-0722 Email: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Aramark Correctional

represented by Lynn L. Krieger

Services, LLC

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

a Delaware corporation; its

333 Bush Street

Employees and Subcontractors

Suite 1100

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 362-2580

Fax: (415) 434-0882

Email: lynn.krieger@lewisbrisbois.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Ailbe Rector Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94014-2872 (415) 362-2580 Fax: 415-434-0882 Email: Thomas.Rector@lewisbrisbois.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Faye Shapiro Lewis Brisbois Bigaard Smith 333 Bush Street Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415)438-2580 Email: susan.shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant T. Russell

represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant LT. Hattaway

represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Deputy Winstead

represented by Gregory B. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant CORIZON HEALTH INC.

represented by Mikouya Sargizian Wood Smith Henning Berman 5000 Birch Street Ste 8500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-757-4500

Defendant candace steel

Fax: 949-757-4550 Email: msargizian@wshblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yolanda Huang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/04/2018
01/04/2018 01/04/2018
01/04/2018

#

Docket Text

COMPLAINT For Civil Rights Violations and Injunctive

1

Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number

0971-11994414.). Filed byJaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments:

# 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on

1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

2 MOTION to Relate Case filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

Ex Parte MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to Prevent

3

Further Irreparable Injury to Pregnant Plaintiffs and their

Fetuses filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1

Supplement, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Supplement, # 6 Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 51(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due

01/04/2018 01/04/2018 01/04/2018 01/04/2018
01/04/2018

by 1/18/2018. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
5 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston denying 2 Motion to Relate Case. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101] The correct event is Proposed Summons. The Summons should not be filed as an attachment to the complaint. Please re-file in its entirety. Re:[12] Summons, filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jaclyn Mohrbacher.. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned.
ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED.
This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/05/2018 01/05/2018 01/05/2018 01/05/2018 01/05/2018
01/06/2018

9 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, Complaint, Motion for TRO, Memo of POints & Authorities, Declarations of Yolanda Huang, Alex Wah and Christine Zepeda, Proposed Order served on County of Alameda on January 4, 2018, filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
10 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, Complaint, Motion for TRO, Memorandum of POints & Authorities, Declarations of Yolanda Huang, Alexis Wah, Christine Zepeda, Proposed Order served on ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M. KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, D. SKOLDQVIST, on 01/04/2018, filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
11 ORDER. The Court will have the parties in on 1/8/2018 at 1:00 PM to discuss the TRO application, the status of the case, and immediate next steps. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/5/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
12 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras Case Management Statement due by 4/3/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/10/2018 10:00 AM. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
13 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION procedural re 3 Ex Parte MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to Prevent Further Irreparable Injury to Pregnant Plaintiffs and their Fetuses filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. Responses due by 1/9/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration with exhibits)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
14 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons & Complaint, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, Declarations of Yolanda Huang, Alexis Wah Christine Zepeda, Proposed OrderCivil Cover Sheet, served

01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/31/2018
02/01/2018 02/01/2018 02/02/2018

on LT. HATTAWAY, SGT. CALAGARI (sp), DEPUTY DIVINE (512), DEPUTY DEBRA FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE (238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE on Jan. 5, 2018, filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/6/2018) (Entered: 01/06/2018)
15 ORDER. The Court appreciates defendants' scheduling concerns at 13 but the parties are directed to appear at 1:00 PM today for an initial discussion of the case. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/8/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2018) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James
Donato: Motion Hearing held on 1/8/2018. 3 Motion for TRO denied without prejudice. Amended complaint and preliminary injunction motion due by 2/22/2018. Total Time in Court: 15 minutes. Court Reporter: Belle Ball. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/8/2018) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2018 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 2/21/2018. Replies due by 3/7/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration, # 11 Declaration, # 12 Declaration, # 13 Declaration, # 14 Declaration, # 15 Supplement)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/31/2018) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT , First against Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. Filed byJaclyn Mohrbacher. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/1/2018) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
19 Proposed Summons. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/1/2018) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
20 Summons Issued as to Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom

02/04/2018 02/04/2018 02/05/2018 02/09/2018
02/12/2018

Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2018) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
21 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 18 Amended Complaint, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for OSC for Relief from False Arrest, Intimidation, and Other harassment of Plaintiff Zepeda by Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies filed by Christina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dec. Christina Jones, # 2 Affidavit Dec. Y. Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/4/2018) (Entered: 02/04/2018)
22 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 21 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 18 Amended Complaint, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for OSC for Relief from False Arrest, Intimidation, and Other harassment of Plaintiff Zepeda by Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's D Amended Declaration of Christina Jones filed byChristina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Amended Declaration of Yolanda Huang)(Related document(s) 21 ) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/4/2018) (Entered: 02/04/2018)
23 ORDER. The defendants are directed to submit a response to the application at 21 . The response is due by 12:00 PM on 2/9/2018. Signed by Judge James Donato on 2/5/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2018) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
24 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 21 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 18 Amended Complaint, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for OSC for Relief from False Arrest, Intimidation, and Other harassment of Plaintiff Zepeda by Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's D ) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shaun C. Corey, # 2 Declaration of Christopher Haendel, # 3 Declaration of Justin Eaglin, # 4 Declaration of Tonyita Rogers, # 5 Declaration of Earl Riveira, # 6 Declaration of Olivia O'Brien)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/9/2018) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
25 REPLY (re 21 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 18 Amended Complaint, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for OSC for Relief from False Arrest, Intimidation, and Other harassment of Plaintiff Zepeda by Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's D ) filed byChristina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit C Zepeda in

02/13/2018 02/13/2018 02/15/2018 02/17/2018
02/17/2018 02/20/2018

support of Plaintiffs' Reply, # 2 Affidavit R. maddox in support of Plaintiffs' Reply, # 3 Affidavit C. Plascencia in support of Plaintiffs' Reply)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/12/2018) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

Letter Brief re discovery issues filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda

26

County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra

Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania

Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory)

(Filed on 2/13/2018) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

27 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 2/13/2018) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

28 STIPULATION filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/15/2018) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

29 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 27 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 21 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 18 Amended Complaint, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for OSC for Relief from False Arrest, Intimidation, and Other harassment of Plaintiff Zepeda by Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's D ) filed byJaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Dec. of Carey Lamprecht, # 2 Affidavit Dec. of Yolanda Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/17/2018) (Entered: 02/17/2018)

30 First Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Filed Conditionally Under Seal)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/17/2018) (Entered: 02/17/2018)

31 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND VACATING DEADLINES. A hearing is set for 2/22/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. The parties should be prepared to discuss plaintiffs' ex parte application at 18 , the issues raised by the County of

02/23/2018 02/28/2018 03/01/2018 03/01/2018
03/01/2018

Alameda at 26 , and California Forensic Medical Group's request for additional time at 27 . Pending further order, the defendants' deadline to oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction is vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 2/20/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2018) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Hearing held on 2/22/2018. Total Time in Court: 31 minutes. Court Reporter: Lydia Zinn. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/23/2018) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2018 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 3/14/2018. Replies due by 3/21/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 2/28/2018) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
34 ***erroneous docket entry***OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/1/2018) Modified on 3/12/2018 (hdjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/01/2018)
35 DECLARATION of Arbuckle in Opposition to 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declarations of Arbuckle, Rankin, Johnson and Kennedy filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4
Exhibit)(Related document(s) 34 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
36 Declaration of Bowers in Support of 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 34 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018
03/01/2018 03/02/2018 03/05/2018 03/07/2018

37 Declaration of Lawrence, Baraghani, Varez, Farmanian, Winstead, Divine, Cain, Pope, Weathersbee, Souza, Dagneau, Graham and Phixitxonh in Support of 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration,
# 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration, # 11 Declaration, # 12 Declaration)(Related document(s) 34 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
38 Request for Judicial Notice re 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, of Plaintiffs for Preliminary Injunction for Non-Medical Relief filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Related document(s) 34 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
39 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relief to Exceed Page Limit re 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. Responses due by 3/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/2/2018) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
40 ORDER re 39 . Pursuant to this Court's standing orders, the Alameda County defendants are directed to submit an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion ( 17 ) that does not exceed 15 pages. The opposition is due by 3/7/2018 at 5PM. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/5/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2018) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
41 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 34 filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/7/2018) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/08/2018 03/08/2018 03/08/2018 03/08/2018 03/08/2018

42 Statement re 32 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions, Order on Motion to Continue, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Order on Ex Parte Application, 34 Opposition/Response to Motion, Proposed Witness List for Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
43 Second Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRING DEFENDANT ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS, RETAINED CLIENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS INCARCERATED BY THE SHERIFF. filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Debbie Johnston In Support of Petition, # 2 Declaration of Yolanda Huang in Support)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Extend Time For Plaintiffs To Respond to Defendant CFMG's Motion to Dismiss filed by Dominique Jackson, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Alexis Wah, Christina Zepeda. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
45 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Plaintiffs' Counsel's Contact Visits with Non-Clients filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. Responses due by 3/22/2018. Replies due by 3/29/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Alvarez, # 2 Declaration Farmanian, # 3 Declaration Dagneau, # 4 Declaration Thomas, # 5 Declaration Lawrence, # 6 Proposed Order)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
46 MOTION for Protective Order Corrected filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. Responses due by 3/22/2018. Replies due by 3/29/2018. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 03/08/2018
03/09/2018 03/09/2018 03/12/2018

47 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 43 Second Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRING DEFENDANT ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS, RETAINED CLIENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS INCARCERATED BY THE SHERIFF. Declaration of Yolanda Huang with Exhibits Attached filed byErin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Dominique Jackson, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Alexis Wah, Christina Zepeda. (Related document(s) 43 ) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
48 REPLY (re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byErin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Dominique Jackson, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Alexis Wah, Christina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Samanatha UpChurch, # 2 Declaration Christina Zepeda, # 3 Declaration Andrania Yancy, # 4 Declaration Jazmine Tate, # 5 Declaration Mary Mapa, # 6 Declaration Jaclyn Mohrbacher, # 7 Declaration Shani Jones, # 8 Declaration Alexis Wah, # 9 Declaration Yolanda Huang, # 10 Declaration Katie Doe, # 11 Supplement Request for Judicial Notice, # 12 Supplement Objections to Declaraiton of Philip Lawrence and its Exhibit Z)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
49 ORDER. Alameda County Defendants are directed to file a response to plaintiffs' petition at Dkt. No. 43 . Response is due by 3/13/2018 at 5PM. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/9/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
50 ORDER. Preliminary injunction hearing set for 3/15/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato.Parties should also be prepared to discuss the client access issues raised by the petition at Dkt. No. 43 . Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/9/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
51 ORDER. The Court asked parties to submit a proposed witness list for the preliminary injunction hearing by March 8, 2018. Dkt. No. 32 . Although that deadline has passed, the Court will allow up to 2 witnesses per side to testify at the hearing set for Thursday, March 15, 2018. Brief descriptions of planned testimony should be submitted by 5PM on March 13, 2018. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/12/2018. (This is

03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/13/2018 03/13/2018 03/13/2018

a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2018) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
52 ORDER. The Court has located Alameda County's proposed witness list at 42 . The Alameda County defendants should disregard the prior order at 51 . The Court looks forward to hearing from the witnesses. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/12/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2018) Modified on 3/12/2018 (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/12/2018)
53 Statement re 32 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions, Order on Motion to Continue, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Order on Ex Parte Application Witness List for Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Alexis Wah, Christina Zepeda. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/12/2018) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
54 First Ex Parte Application re 53 Statement, Habeas Corpus and Testificandum filed by Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Dominique Jackson, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Alexis Wah, Christina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus and Testificandum re Santa Rita Jail, # 2 Proposed Order Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus and Testificandum Re Camp Parks)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/12/2018) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
55 ORDER. Although plaintiffs did not submit a witness list (Dkt. No. 53 ) until March 12, 4 days after the deadline set by the Court (Dkt. No. 32 ), the proposed witnesses may testify. The Court will enter separate orders granting the petitions for writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/13/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
56 ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM for appearance of Dominique Jackson, Jamie Johnston, and Jazmine Tate. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/13/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
57 ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM for appearance of Jaclyn Mohrbacher.

03/13/2018 03/13/2018
03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/15/2018 03/15/2018

Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/13/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
58 OBJECTIONS to re 53 Statement, Plaintiffs' Witness List by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
59 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 43 Second Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRING DEFENDANT ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS, RETAINED CLIENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS INCARCERATED BY THE SHERIFF. ) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Temitayo Peters with Exhibits A-D, # 2 Declaration of Rafael Alvarez)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
60 ORDER. The Court sets a call at 3PM today (3/14/2018) with lead counsel for plaintiffs and lead counsel for Alameda County defendants. See Dkt. No. 61 for dial-in information. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/14/2018. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2018) Modified on 3/14/2018 (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
61 ORDER re 60. The parties are directed to contact CourtCall at 866-582-6878 by 2:30 PM today (3/14/2018) to schedule their appearances for the call at 3:00 PM today. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/14/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2018) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Telephone Conference held on 3/14/2018. Total Time in Court: 20 minutes. Court Reporter: Lydia Zinn. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/15/2018) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 3/15/2018. Total Time in Court: 46 minutes. Court Reporter: Pamela

03/22/2018 03/23/2018
03/26/2018
03/28/2018 03/30/2018 04/02/2018

Batalo. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/15/2018) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
64 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 46 MOTION for Protective Order Corrected ) filed byErin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Dominique Jackson, Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration George Glavan, # 2 Declaration Yolanda Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
65 Statement re 63 Terminate Motions, Motion Hearing, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Ex Parte Application, Order on Stipulation, Order on Motion for Protective Order, Joint Proposed Trial Schedules by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/23/2018) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
66 DECLARATION of Patrick Kennedy in Opposition to 35 Declaration in Opposition, 41 Opposition/Response to Motion, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Revised) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, Deputy Instead, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee. (Related document(s) 35 , 41 , 17 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/26/2018) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
67 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Protective Order (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/28/2018) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
68 NOTICE by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. of Unavailability of Defendant's Counsel (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/30/2018) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
69 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 4/12/2018. Close of Expert Discovery due by 5/22/2018. Close of Fact Discovery due by 5/15/2018. Dispositive Motion due by 5/29/2018. Jury Selection set for 6/25/2018 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Jury Trial set for 6/25/2018 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Pretrial Conference set for 6/7/2018 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/2/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2018) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/05/2018 04/05/2018
04/05/2018 04/12/2018 04/18/2018 04/19/2018 04/19/2018
04/19/2018

70 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Beeler for Settlement. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/4/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2018) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
71 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULING CALL: This case was referred for a settlement conference to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The court sets a call with the parties to discuss the timing and logistics of the settlement conference for Thursday, 4/19/2018, at 11:30 AM. The court will email a call-in number separately. If this date does not work, parties may request to change the date by stipulation. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2018) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2018) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
72 COMPLAINT Second Amended against All Defendants. Filed byChristina Zepeda, Alexis Wah, Dominique Jackson, Erin Ellis, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Kelsey Erwin. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/12/2018) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
73 ***erroneous docket entry*** (Sargizian, Mikouya) (Filed on 4/18/2018) Modified on 4/19/2018 (hdjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2018)
74 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document Docket No 73 filed by CORIZON HEALTH INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sargizian, Mikouya) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
75 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference Call held on 4/19/2018. The court held a scheduling call with the parties and sets the settlement conference for Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM.
Total Time in Court: 15 minutes. Not Reported. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
76 Notice and Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Settlement Conference set for 5/14/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor. Signed

04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018
04/23/2018
04/23/2018
04/25/2018

by Judge Laurel Beeler on 04/19/2018. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

77 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Ailbe Rector (Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

78 MOTION to Dismiss filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. Responses due by 5/4/2018. Replies due by 5/11/2018. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

79 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. Responses due by 5/4/2018. Replies due by 5/11/2018. (Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

80 Proposed Order re 79 MOTION to Dismiss by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

MOTION to Dismiss filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County,

81

Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT.

Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, T. Russell, D

Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. Responses due by

5/4/2018. Replies due by 5/11/2018. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on

4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

82 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION change trial and related dates filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, T. Russell, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. Responses due by 4/27/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

83 Letter Brief Regarding The Transmission of Physical And Written Evidence From InCustody Plaintiffs to Counsel and Written materials from Counsel to InCustody Plaintiffs filed byJaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Plaintiff's Attachment A, # 2 Supplement Defendant Alameda County Attachment B)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

84 ORDER. The Court sets a status conference for May 3, 2018 at 10:00AM. The parties should be prepared to discuss limiting the trial set for June 25, 2018, to the claims involving medical care of pregnant inmates. At the status conference, the Court will also take up the dispute outlined in the letter brief at Dkt. No. 83 . Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/25/2018. (This is a

04/27/2018
04/28/2018 04/30/2018 05/01/2018 05/03/2018

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2018) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Marcaysha Alexander, Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah, Andrania Yancy, Christina Zepeda. Responses due by 5/11/2018. Replies due by 5/18/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Yolanda Huang, # 2 Declaration Plaintiffs)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/27/2018) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
86 Declaration of Dennis Cunningham in Support of 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed byMarcaysha Alexander, Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones. (Related document(s) 85 ) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/28/2018) (Entered: 04/28/2018)
87 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 82 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION change trial and related dates ) with Declaration of Yolanda Huang filed byErin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/30/2018) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
88 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 5/1/2018) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
89 First MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss filed by Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah, Andrania Yancy, Christina Zepeda. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Amended Complaint,

05/03/2018
05/03/2018 05/04/2018 05/07/2018 05/08/2018 05/09/2018 05/10/2018

# 2 Proposed Order Granting Leave to Amend)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
90 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 81 MOTION to Dismiss , 78 MOTION to Dismiss , 79 MOTION to Dismiss , 89 First MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss ) w/ Proposed Amended Complaint filed byDiamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah, Andrania Yancy, Christina Zepeda. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Status Conference held on 5/3/2018. Total Time in Court: 40 minutes. Court Reporter: JoAnn Bryce. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
92 REPLY (re 79 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byAramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 5/4/2018) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
93 Second MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum re Attendance in Court on May 14, 2018 filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: Federal Marshall, # 2 Proposed Order re: Alameda County Sheriff's Office)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/7/2018) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
94 REPLY (re 78 MOTION to Dismiss ) and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 5/8/2018) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
95 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 93 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. (Attachments: # 1 Order)(ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2018) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
96 REPLY (re 81 MOTION to Dismiss , 89 First MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Opposition to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss ) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra

05/11/2018 05/11/2018 05/11/2018 05/14/2018

Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, T. Russell, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 5/10/2018) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

97 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on May 3, 2018 before Judge James Donato by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., for Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

98 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 85 MOTION to Certify Class ) Joint Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byAramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Thomas A. Rector In Support of Joint Opposition To Motion for Class Certification)(Rector, Thomas) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

WRIT of Writ Ad Testificandum issued. Signed by Judge

99

Beeler on 5/11/2018. (This writ is not issued to the U.S.

Marshal and instead is for the plaintiff to coordinate

transportation with the appropriate state agency.) (Beeler,

Laurel) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 5/14/2018.

The court held a settlement conference with the parties and put an agreement in principle on the record. The parties agreed to the terms of the settlement and a process going forward to resolve the injunctive relief. The settlement put on the record today resolves the damages and injunction trial now set for June 25, 2018. The parties agreed that they would resolve the pending motions as follows. The plaintiff will withdraw the motion for class certification at ECF No. 85 without prejudice. The parties stipulate that the plaintiffs may file the proposed third amended complaint at ECF No. 89-1, which will terminate the motion at ECF No. 89 for leave to file that complaint and which will render moot the three motions to dismiss at ECF Nos. 78, 79, and 81. The parties agreed that the defendants' deadline to file motions to dismiss the third amended complaint will be extended until after the parties work through the injunctive relief components. The parties devised a process that includes the undersigned's assistance at a further mediation. The parties will update the court in a written submission during the week of July 2, 2018 and will propose a second in-person mediation at that time. The parties also will submit a stipulation to the trial judge memorializing

05/22/2018 06/15/2018

their agreement that the settlement in principle moots the damages and injunction trial set for June 25 and their agreements regarding the pending motions.
FTR Time: 5:15:36 - 5:35:42.
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham (with clients Andanna Ibe, Jaime Johnston, Annette Kozlowski, Mary Mapa, Rosa Perez, Denise Rorbacher, Tikisha Upshaw, Christina Zepeda, and Alexis Wah).
Defendants' Attorneys: Gregory Thomas and Ope Peters (for Alameda County and the individual defendants with client representatives Assistant Sheriff Dennis Houghtelling, Commander Tom Madig, Captain Tara Russell, and claims adjuster Ken Maolini), Peter Bertling (for CMGC with client representative Ben Rice, General Counsel, and CFMG's insurance company representative Kathy Franks by telephone), and Thomas Rector (for Aramark with client representative Hal Yasa).
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Date Filed: 5/14/2018) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
101 ORDER. The parties have settled the issues set to be tried on June 25, 2018. Dkt. No. 100. The pretrial conference set for June 7, 2018 and the jury trial set for June 25, 2018 are vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/22/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2018) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
102 AUDIO RECORDINGS ORDER (re: 100 Settlement Conference,,,,,,,,, ), by Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah, Andrania Yancy, Christina Zepeda. Court will send to Yolanda Huang at yhuang.law@gmail.com a link to the files requested in this order. ( Filing fee $ 31, receipt number 0971-12438420). (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 6/15/2018) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/26/2018 103

AMENDED COMPLAINT - Third Amended- against All Plaintiffs. Filed byNatalie Garrido, Christina Zepeda, Annette Kozlowski, Alexis Wah, Dominique Jackson, Denise Rohrbach, Martina Gomez, Andanna Ibe, Shani Jones, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Jazmine Tate, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Sandra Griffin, Tikisha Upshaw, Andrania Yancy, Jamila Longmire, Erin Ellis, Mary Mapa, Kelsey Erwin, Jaime Johnston. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 6/26/2018) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

07/06/2018 07/18/2018

104 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Class Certification (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 7/6/2018) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
105 ORDER. Protective Order for Settlement Negotiations. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 07/18/2018. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2018) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

08/03/2018

106 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 8/13/2018 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor.

The court sets an in-person settlement conference for Monday at 10 a.m.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/3/2018) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018

Settlement Conference set for 8/6/2018 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor.

Monday is August 6. This order resets the settlement conference to then.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/3/2018) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/06/2018

107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 8/6/2018. The court held an-in person settlement conference today and sets two further settlement conferences. The first is on Thursday, 8/9/2018 at 4:45 p.m. with Ms. Huang, who should call chambers at 415-522-4660. The second is on Friday, 8/10/2018 at 11:00 a.m. with defense counsel and their clients at Santa Rita Jail at 11:00 a.m. The court circulated additional dates for a further in-person settlement conference earlier today.

08/09/2018
08/10/2018
08/22/2018 08/24/2018

Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 15 minutes. Not Reported.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendants' Attorney: Gregory Thomas. Also appearing: Ken Maiolini, Asst. Sheriff Dennis Houghtelling, Cpt. Derrick Hesselein, Cpt. Tara Russell and Commander Thomas Madigan. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/6/2018) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference call held on 8/9/2018. The court held a further telephone settlement conference with Plaintiff's counsel.
Total Time in Court: 30 minutes. Not Reported.
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Yolanda Huang. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2018) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
109 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 8/10/2018. The court held a settlement conference with defendants at Santa Rita jail. The defendants will update the court by Friday, 8/17/2018 about their timeline for responding formally to the plaintiffs' substantive relief. The court will thereafter set an inperson settlement conference.
Total Time in Court: 4 hours, 30 minutes. Not Reported. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/10/2018) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
110 First MOTION to Relate Case filed by candace steel. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 8/22/2018) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
111 ***erroneous docket entry, no atty signature***OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 110 First MOTION to

08/24/2018 08/29/2018
08/29/2018
08/31/2018 09/19/2018

Relate Case ) filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, T. Russell, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 8/24/2018) Modified on 8/30/2018 (hdjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2018)
112 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 110 First MOTION to Relate Case ) CORRECTION OF DOCKET #111 filed byGregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, T. Russell, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
113 CLERK'S NOTICE RE: SETTLEMENT ORDER UPDATE: The defendants have advised the court that they will respond to the plaintiffs' list by 9/4/2018. The parties thereafter will propose their next steps, including their proposal for the appropriate timing for an in-person settlement conference. The court advises the parties that it will be out of pocket from September 6 to September 20 (for any scheduling communications). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2018) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
114 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 9/26/2018 01:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor.
The court sets a further in-person settlement conference from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 3 p.m. is a hard stop.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/29/2018) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
115 Order by Judge James Donato granting 110 Motion to Relate Case. Signed on 8/31/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2018) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
116 Third MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Jaclyn Mohrbacher. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Yolanda Huang, # 2 Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 9/19/2018) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/20/2018 09/26/2018
09/28/2018 10/28/2018

117 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 116 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum.
The settlement conference previously noticed for 9/26/2018 in Courtroom C will be held in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2018) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
118 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 9/26/2018. The court held a further in-person settlement conference. The plaintiffs will provide detailed written responses to the defendants' chart by October 10, 2018 and will cc the court at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. Their response will include their identification of any CFMG policies (as discussed at the conference). The parties will meet at Santa Rita jail on October 29, 2018 at 10 a.m. The County will look into making two or three named plaintiffs available for consultation in a separate room.
Total Time in Court: 3 hours. Not Reported.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendants' Attorneys: Gregory Thomas, Peter Bertling (CFMG), and Thomas Rector (Aramark). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/26/2018) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
119 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 30 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The motion to seal is granted. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2018) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
120 ORDER. The court orders the following. The court extends the protective order entered on 7/18/2018 at ECF docket entry 105 and specifically orders that it applies to the parties' 10/29/18 meeting.
Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on October 28, 2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2018) (Entered: 10/28/2018)

11/14/2018 12/31/2018 01/04/2019 01/09/2019 01/17/2019 01/25/2019
01/28/2019
01/29/2019

121 CLERK'S NOTICE: The court extends the order at ECF No. 105 (entered on July 18, 2018) through the parties' meeting on November 16, 2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
122 MOTION to Relate Case to Upshaw v. County of Alameda, 3:18cv-7814 filed by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tikisha Upshaw re 122 MOTION to Relate Case to Upshaw v. County of Alameda, 3:18-cv-7814 (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/4/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
124 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 122 Motion to Relate Case. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2019) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
125 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gregory B. Thomas (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 1/17/2019) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
126 MOTION to Substitute Attorney and [Proposed] Order Permitting Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 1/25/2019) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
127 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference set for 2/8/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.
At the parties' request, the court sets a further in-person settlement conference for 2/8/2019 at 2:00 p.m. The parties must email an update with their remaining issues to lbsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov by 2/1/2019 at noon.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 1/28/2019) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
128 ORDER re Dkt. No. 126 . Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/29/2019. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

02/01/2019

129 ORDER. The court received an emailed update from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office but did not receive updates from any other party. The court requests that the parties email updates with their remaining issues to lbsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov no later than noon on Monday, February 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on February 1, 2019.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2019) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/04/2019 02/08/2019

130 NOTICE of Appearance by Temitayo O. Peters for Defendants County of Alameda, et al. (Peters, Temitayo) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 2/8/2019. The court held an in-person settlement conference, defined with the parties some of the non-monetary components, assigned homework, and emailed the parties a proposal for a further inperson settlement conference.

Total Time in Court: 5 hours. Not Reported.

Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang, Dennis Cunningham and Carey Lamprecht. Defendants' Attorneys: Gregory Thomas, Thomas Rector (Aramark Correctional Svcs.) and Peter Bertling (CFMG). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/8/2019) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/12/2019

132 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 4/17/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

03/14/2019 133

Statement Proposal to Terminate Mediation, Consolidate Cases and Set CMC by Marcaysha Alexander, Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire,

03/14/2019 03/21/2019 03/27/2019 04/08/2019 04/10/2019

Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Terminate Mediation, Consolidate Cases)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
Set/Reset Hearing Settlement Conference set for 4/18/2019 01:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.
For the reasons described in the separate email, the court moves the settlement conference from 4/17/2019 to 4/18/2019 at 1:00 p.m.
(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
Set/Reset Hearing Settlement Conference set for 4/18/2019 04:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.
Given the case's procedural posture and the many settlement conversations (and the need to accommodate a criminal trial), the court changes the start time of the settlement conference to 4 p.m.
(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 3/21/2019) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
134 Order by Judge James Donato granting 74 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document. The request to remove Dkt. No. 73 is granted. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
135 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The court has an unexpected conflict with the inperson settlement conference now set for 4/18/2019 at 4:00 p.m. and resets it to 4/25/2019 at 4:00 p.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2019) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
136 MOTION to Relate Case 3:19-cv-01915 filed by Diamond Cooper, Dawn Dedrick, Erin Ellis, Kelsey Erwin, Natalie Garrido, Martina Gomez, Sandra Griffin, Andanna Ibe, Dominique Jackson, Jaime Johnston, Shani Jones, Annette Kozlowski, Jamila Longmire, Mary Mapa, Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Monica Nunes, Rose Perez, Denise Rohrbach, Jazmine Tate, Tikisha Upshaw, Alexis Wah, Andrania Yancy, Christina Zepeda. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed

04/11/2019 04/12/2019
04/15/2019 04/22/2019

on 4/10/2019) Modified on 4/11/2019 (hdjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2019)
137 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference previously set for 4/25/2019 is reset to 4/22/2019 at 2:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2019) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
138 ORDER. The court asks for a short update from the parties about outstanding issues by email to lbsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov by Wednesday, 4/17/2019. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on April 12, 2019.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2019) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
139 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dominique Jackson re 136 MOTION to Relate Case 3:19-cv-01915 (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/15/2019) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
140 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 4/22/2019. The court held a further in-person settlement conference. The case settled (subject to the contingencies of approval) as to Aramark. For the rest of the case, the parties devised the following process. Subject to the approval of the County (and the court strongly recommends approval), the plaintiffs' counsel will conduct the two site visits discussed with Aramark and CFMG at Santa Rita. The parties will try to conduct those visits in two weeks, subject to everyone's schedule and the County's approval. Within 30 days, the plaintiffs' counsel will provide a pared-down list of remaining issues to the County, and the plaintiffs and CFMG will provide a joint update to the court about any disputes that remain between them. The County will respond in two weeks. The court set a further inperson settlement conference for Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. for the remaining defendants (including appropriate client representatives, including Command staff conversant in the relevant issues regarding non-monetary relief).

04/23/2019 05/02/2019
05/07/2019 05/22/2019

Settlement Conference set for 6/18/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.

Total Time in Court: 3 hours, 45 minutes. FTR Time: 5:39-6:09.

Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendants' Attorneys: Gregory Thomas, Temitayo Peters, Peter Bertling and Thomas Retor. Also appearing: Peter Burt. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/22/2019) Modified on 10/2/2019: Matter transcribed by Peggy Schuerger (AdHoc Reporting). (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2019)

141

PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 4/22/2019

5:39:55 PM ]. File Size [ 8584 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:17:53 ].

(courtspeak). (Entered: 04/23/2019)

142 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference Call held on 5/2/2019. The court held a further settlement conference with the County defendants, who will proceed with the visits discussed at the last settlement. The court has a further in-person settlement conference set for 6/18/2019. (Not Reported).

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/2/2019) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
143 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 136 Motion to Relate Case C-19-1915. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
144 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TIME: Based on a court-wide change in the start time for criminal-duty calendars, the court moves the start time for the settlement conference from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and apologizes to counsel for any inconvenience.

Settlement Conference set for 6/18/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no

06/18/2019 06/18/2019

document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2019) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
145 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/18/2019. For the CFMG part of the case, the parties agreed to the following: 1) they will schedule Diaz Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in the period between July 8 and July 17, 2019; 2) they will schedule Mohrbacher and Zepeda depositions in September; 3) CFMG will provide Dr. Magat's CV, and 4) the parties will update the court by email to lbsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov by September 30, 2019 and include their proposed next steps.
FTR Time: 12:15-12:18. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendant's Attorney: Peter Bertling (CFMG). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/18/2019) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 6/18/2019. The court issued an earlier minute order with a short discovery plan for the CFMG/medical case. For the conditions case, the parties worked out terms of a likely settlement today. The court circulated the proposed terms by email after the settlement conference, and Mr. Thornton will refine them and circulate them and certain other items. The court set a further in-person settlement conference for Monday, September 30, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. and hopes to put a full settlement on the record then.
Total Time in Court: 4 hours. Not Reported.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendants' Attorney: Gregory Thomas. Also appearing: Asst. Sheriff Dennis Houghtelling, Commander Thomas Madigan, Cpt. Donald Mattison, Lt. Carrie Carone, Technician Jenniver Solopou. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/18/2019) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

07/10/2019 08/19/2019 09/30/2019
09/30/2019

147 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Lynn L. Krieger (Krieger, Lynn) (Filed on 7/10/2019) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
148 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant D. Skoldqvist [FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)] filed by Gregory Ahern, Alameda County, Deputy Caine, Sgt Calagari, Deputy Divine, Debra Farmanian, LT. Hattaway, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, Tania Pope, D Skoldqvist, Deputy Weatherbee, Winstead. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 8/19/2019) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
149 *** DISREGARD - FILED IN ERROR (SEE DOCKET # 151 ) *** TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 06/18/2019 before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Krieger, Lynn) (Filed on 9/30/2019) (rjdS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/2/2019 (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2019)
150 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 9/30/2019. The court held an in-person settlement conference and sets a further settlement conference for Friday, 11/22/2019 at 10:00 a.m. The parties will confer on the final written settlement agreement (after reviewing the audio recording and any transcript that the parties request) within two weeks and will update the court by 10/15/2019 by email to lbsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov and the court's personal email about their progress. Within that same time period, the County will provide the grievance forms for the past four months for blocks 21 and 24 (as discussed at the settlement conference), will circulate a written settlement proposal with the terms discussed, and will update the court by email (to the same addressees). During that time period, the plaintiffs will request from the County and CFMG any specific information about any specific incidents so that the County and CFMG may provide responsive reports. As to CFMG, the parties will arrange a site visit to take place after October 21, will schedule depositions of the two plaintiffs with individual damages claims (to take place after the next settlement conference, and presumably in December or January), and will update the court by email by 10/15/2019 about their progress. The court's expectation is that by November 15, 2019, the Aramark settlement will be finalized, and there will be one round of exchanges (at minimum) of written settlement proposals for the County and CFMG cases. The parties must lodge these

10/02/2019 10/04/2019
11/21/2019

proposals with the court no later than 11/15/2019 at 2 p.m. and may do so by email.
Settlement Conference set for 11/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor.
Total Time in Court: 3 hours, 30 minutes. Not Reported.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. Defendants' Attorney: Gregory Thomas. Also appearing: Peter Bertling for CFMG, Lynn Krieger for Aramark, Asst. Sheriff Dennis Houghtelling, Comm. Tom Madigan, Cpt. Donald Mattison, Cpt. Derrick Hesselein, and Lt. Carrie Carone. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/30/2019) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
151 TRANSCRIPT ORDER before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler by Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, for Court Reporter FTR San Francisco. (Shapiro, Susan) (Filed on 10/2/2019) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
152 Transcript of Proceedings held on 04/22/2019, before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Court Reporter/Transcriber Peggy Schuerger/Ad Hoc Reporting, telephone number (619) 2283774/adhocreporting@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 151 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 10/25/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/4/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2020. (Related documents(s) 151 ) (pls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
153 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The court has had multiple settlement conferences with the parties. The court had follow-up settlement conversations this week. The court vacates the settlement conference. It will hold any future settlement conference only if

the parties can cometo the settlement conference prepared to resolve any differences. For example, if the plaintiffs need to do a site visit before addressing the medical claims, they must have that visit. The court reminds the parties that settlement agreements usually have enforcement mechanisms that are a more efficient and certain way of ensuring compliance than litigation. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 12/09/2019 12/12/2019

154 CLERK'S NOTICE: The court had further communications with the parties and directs them to confer on a discovery plan in Upshaw and a process to confer on settlement with an eye towards an in-person settlement conference in March. The court proposed dates but in the interest of making sure a date sticks, sets the inperson settlement conference on March 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Upshaw. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019) Modified on 11/21/2019 (ejkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2019)
155 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The court sets Plaintiffs' in-person settlement conference for 12/12/2019 at 3:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2019) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
156 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler: Settlement Conference held on 12/12/2019. Inperson meeting with plaintiffs' counsel and further communications with defendants' counsel. (Not Reported).

Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Yolanda Huang and Dennis Cunningham. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/12/2019) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/16/2019 157

NOTICE of Change of Address by Yolanda Huang (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/16/2019) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

03/10/2020

158 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 3/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this

entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2020) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/13/2020

159 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for Tuesday, March 17, 2020 before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler is vacated. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2020) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

05/07/2020

160 MOTION to Relate Case to Gonzalez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office 3:19-cv-07423 filed by Marcaysha Alexander. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/7/2020) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/11/2020 161

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 160 MOTION to Relate Case to Gonzalez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office 3:19-cv-07423 ) filed byAlameda County. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 5/11/2020) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/12/2020

162 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Marcaysha Alexander re 160 MOTION to Relate Case to Gonzalez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office 3:19-cv-07423 [APPLICATION FOR TRO & DECLARATIONS (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/12/2020) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

05/14/2020

163 REPLY (re 160 MOTION to Relate Case to Gonzalez v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office 3:19-cv-07423 ) by Plaintiffs filed byTikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/15/2020 164

CLERK'S NOTICE RE RELATED CASE ORDER (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2020) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

09/13/2020 08:50:16

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

28

Cost:

Fisher
3:18-cv00050-JD
2.80

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 18

1

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543

2 475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140

4 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410

5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910 115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110 7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA

14 ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY

15

ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

vs.

18

19 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M. KETELES,
20 TOM MADIGAN, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT.
HATTAWAY, SGT. CALAGARI (sp), 21 DEPUTY DIVINE (512), DEPUTY DEBRA
22 FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE (238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY
23 WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE, ALAMEDA
24 COUNTY and DOES 1 thru 50.

No. 18-cv-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (Civil Rights) Demand for Jury Trial

25

Defendants.

26

Plaintiffs JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA

27 ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAHL, and KELSEY ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly

28 situated, allege as follows:

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 1 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 18

1

INTRODUCTION

1. This case arises from a strong and highly reprehensible pattern and practice of aggressively 2
misogynist, apparently programmatic, maltreatment of women prisoners—so severe as to 3
have resulted in two recent miscarriages, and a third woman giving birth, alone and
4 unattended, in a solitary confinement cell—at the Alameda County jail at Santa Rita,

5

California. Several of the named plaintiffs (including those three) complain of specific,

6

purposeful and aggravated violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and

7

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and parallel provisions of the California

8

Constitution, detailed within, resulting in serious injury and deprivation under federal and

9

state civil rights laws.

10

2. At any given time, Alameda County has approximately 250 women prisoners under its custody

11

and control. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that of these 250 women prisoners, at

any given moment, approximately 10 are pregnant, and that over 2500 women with 150 of 12
whom are pregnant, cycle through Santa Rita Jail in a year. 13
3. Plaintiffs Jaclyn Mohrbacher, Erin Ellis, Dominique Jackson, are three pregnant, female

14 prisoners, currently incarcerated in Santa Rita Jail, who urgently seek emergency relief

15

against defendants because they are pregnant, two of them four or five months pregnant and

16

experiencing frequent “spotting” and bleeding from their vaginas, but have been repeatedly

17

abused by being held in isolation cells, kept outdoors without sufficient warm clothing, and

18

subjected to repeated accusations of drug abuse and strip searched. In concert with this abuse,

19

plaintiffs and proposed class members are denied medical attention, denied required

20

medication and all other needed accommodation —including warm clothing, blankets, healthy

21

nutritious and sufficient food, fresh air, etc—by defendant staff members. Instead, defendants

have repeatedly demanded that plaintiffs agree to have an abortion, accused said plaintiffs of 22
being a drug addict, and refused all other recognition and assistance for each plaintiff’s 23
delicate condition. Other pregnant women—including those who miscarried—have similarly

24

been scorned, branded and mistreated in the jail in recent times—to a further, under a regime

25

marked by intense general hostility to women prisoners, and studied indifference to their

26

serious medical and hygienic needs.

27

4. . In addition, all named plaintiffs herein, including the three mentioned above and others

28

whose injuries and deprivations at the hands of defendants do not involve pregnancy—but

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 2 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 18

1

very often do involve nasty and hostile refusals to acknowledge or respond to feminine

hygienic needs—complain of extensive, systematic discrimination against the women 2
prisoners at Santa Rita, compared to the men, in all aspects of life in the jail: food, access to 3
clean clothes, fresh air and out-of-cell jobs, education, exercise and activities, counseling,
4 phone calls, family visits, and more.

5

5. These women also seek injunctive relief, under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

6

Amendments requiring a total cessation of inhumane and sexually biased treatment and forms

7

of treatment of women prisoners by defendants, and effective, outside monitoring—on behalf

8

of themselves and all others similarly situated, namely all women prisoners currently held or

9

to be held in the future at the Santa Rita Jail, as a Class, per Rule 23, F.R. Civ P.; full

10

compliance with 15 CCR 3355.2 including appropriately implemented, individualized, plan of

11

care for all pregnant women to enable pregnant prisoners who desire to do so, to carry their

babies to term and deliver healthy babies; that the unequal treatment of women prisoners 12
cease; and, for the immediate implementation of the requirements of California statute 13
including Penal Code §3409 on the care and treatment of women prisoners.

14 6. Within then, will be found the individual claims of the named plaintiffs, for equitable relief,

15

and damages— together with a prayer for injunctive relief for the Class of women prisoners,

16

and statements of the facts underlying the various claims and allegations. As will be seen,

17

plaintiffs have named as defendants the Alameda County Sheriff, Gregory Ahern; Assistant

18

Sheriff for Detention and Corrections, Brett Keteles, Commander for Detention and

19

Corrections, Tom Madigan and Watch Commander for Santa Rita Jail, Capt. D. Skoldqvist

20

along with a large number of officers and deputies, who are guards and other staff members at

21

Santa Rita Jail, who have been involved in the various tyrannies against women prisoners

complained of herein, and will or would be subject to the injunction(s) sought herein—and 22

who, depending on the Court’s outlook, may be more readily dealt with herein as a defendant 23
Class.

24

7. Also named are the Sheriff’s Department and the County itself, in respondeat with respect to

25

the State Law claims herein; and also for their unconstitutional explicit and de facto polic(ies)

26

of discrimination and systematic maltreatment—particularly of pregnant and menstruating

27

women, within the rule of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 US 568.

28

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 3 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 18

1

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2 8. The Jurisdiction of this honorable Court derives from the provisions of the First, Fourth, Fifth,
3 Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, by way of the Civil
4 Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 (as to certain plaintiffs), 1983 et seq. and 1988; 28 U.S.C.

5

§1331 (claims arising under the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to

6

address deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities

7

secured by the United States Constitution), and, by pendent jurisdiction, Secs. 52.1, and 50,

8

of the California Civil Code. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the events

9

took and take place in this District, and the parties generally reside here.

10

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

11

9. The claims alleged herein arose in the County of Alameda, State of California. Therefore,

venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the United States District Court for 12
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division or Oakland Division. 13
PARTIES

14 10. JACLYN MOHRBACHER is currently in the custody and control of the Alameda County

15

Sheriff’s office. Plaintiff and prisoner Mohrbacher is pregnant and wants to carry the

16

pregnancy to term, have a healthy baby, and wants the necessary nutrition, medical and other

17

support required in order to do so.

18

11. ERIN ELLIS is currently in the custody and control of the Alameda County Sheriff’s office.

19

Plaintiff and prisoner Ellis is pregnant and wants to carry her pregnancy to term, have a

20

healthy baby, and wants the necessary nutrition, medical and other support required in order

21

to do so. Plaintiff ELLIS is suffering from health complications, including a prior stroke.

12. DOMINIQUE JACKSON is currently in the custody and control of the Alameda County 22

Sheriff’s office. Plaintiff and prisoner Jackson is currently 17 weeks pregnant with twins and 23
wants to carry her pregnancy to term, have healthy babies, and wants the necessary nutrition,

24

medical and other support required in order to do so. Plaintiff JACKSON is suffering from

25

health complications, including a previous heart attack, and was deemed prior to her

26

incarceration, by her treating physician, as a high-risk pregnancy.

27

13. CHRISTINA ZEPEDA is a formerly incarcerated prisoner of SANTA RITA JAIL, is a long-

28

time resident of Alameda County, and during her incarceration, suffered a miscarriage due to

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 4 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 18

1

the mistreatment received while incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail. During her incarcerations, she

also experienced the repeat, rampant, and continual and mistreatment including the unequal 2
(as compared to men) treatment, that women prisoners receive. 3
14. ALEXIS WAH is a long-time resident of Alameda County. She is a formerly incarcerated
4 prisoner of Santa Rita Jail. During her incarcerations she endured the repeat, rampant, and

5

continual and mistreatment including the unequal (as compared to men) treatment, that

6

women prisoners receive.

7

15. KELSEY ERWIN is a long-time resident of Alameda County. She is a formerly incarcerated

8

prisoner of Santa Rita Jail. During her incarcerations she endured the repeat, rampant, and

9

continual and mistreatment including the unequal (as compared to men) treatment, that

10

women prisoners receive.

11

16. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a “public entity” within the

definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2. 12
17. Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN is the Sheriff for Alameda County. As such, he has 13
caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the

14 illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices

15

that prevail at Alameda County jails, as described below. He has, therefore, directly and

16

proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the injuries and violations of

17

rights set forth below. Defendant Ahern is sued in his official capacity only.

18

18. Defendant BRETT M. KETELES is the Assistant Sheriff for Alameda County in charge of

19

the Detentions and Corrections Unit. Defendant TOM MADIGAN is the commander in

20

charge of the Detentions and Corrections Unit which includes the two Alameda County jails,

21

Glen Dyer and Santa Rita, and was so in charge of Santa Rita Jail on December 26, 2016.

Defendants BRETT KETELES and TOM MADIGAN hold command and policymaking 22
positions in the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. They, along with Defendant Ahern, 23
participated in the planning, supervision, and the execution of the manner in which plaintiffs

24

and class members are incarcerated in the Alameda county jail facilities and ACSO’s conduct

25

complained of herein. Defendants BRETT KETELES and TOM MADIGAN caused,

26

created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal,

27

unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that

28

prevail at Alameda County jails, particularly as to the treatment of women as described

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 5 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 6 of 18

1

below.

19. At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants AHERN, KETELES, and 2
MADIGAN were officers and employees were acting under the color of law, under color of 3
authority and in the scope of their employment as Command and Supervisory Personnel of the
4 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, upon information and belief, one or more of

5

these Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights,

6

to adequately train and supervise ACSO sheriff’s deputies and staff who were involved in

7

violating the rights of the Plaintiffs and class members. All of the above individual defendants

8

are sued in their official capacities.

9

20. Defendant D. SKOLDQVIST was and is the Watch Commander for Santa Rita Jail.

10

Defendants D. SKOLDQVIST, LT. HATTAWAY and SGT. CALAGARI (sp), were the

11

responsible officers for Santa Rita Jail. Defendants, D. SKOLDQVIST LT. HATTAWAY,

SGT. CALAGARI (spa) at all times relevant herein, are and where employees of the Sheriff 12
who held supervisory, command and/or policy-making positions, and who participated in the 13
authorization, planning, supervision, and the execution of the sheriff’s conduct complained of

14 herein.

15

21. At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants DEPUTIES DIVINE,

16

DEBRA FARMANIAN, WEATHERBEE, TANIA POPE, WINSTEAD, and CAINE, were

17

officers and employees were acting under the color of law, under color of authority and in the

18

scope of their employment with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and were the guards

19

and deputies on duty at Santa Rita Jail with direct control over plaintiffs and members of the

20

class.

21

22. Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal. Gov.

Code § 811.2. 22
23. Plaintiff is informed and believe and therefore allege that each of said defendants DOES 1 23
through 50, are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24

and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and acted within the scope of that agency

25

or employment or under color of state law. DOE 1-50 are defendants who caused, and are

26

responsible for, the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among other

27

things, personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring with

28

others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 6 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 7 of 18

1

actions that led to the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful

conduct; by failing and refusing with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights to initiate and 2
maintain adequate training and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that 3
occurred by agents and officers under their direction and control, including failing to take
4 remedial or disciplinary action. Plaintiff alleges that DOE 1 through 50 proximately caused

5

said incidents, injuries, violation of constitutional and legal rights, and damages by reason of

6

their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, or by reason

7

of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally

8

or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or upon any other act or

9

omission. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein

10

as DOE 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.

11

Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained

and will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such 12
facts are ascertained. DOE 1 through 50 are sued in their individual and official capacities. 13
EMERGENCY RELIEF

14 24. As spelled out in moving papers filed herein of even date, prisoner-plaintiffs JACLYN

15

MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, DOMINIQUE JACKSON are in dire straits in the Santa Rita

16

Jail at this moment, and continuously, all being pregnant and in substantial discomfort, with

17

intermittent bleeding, having health complications including plaintiff ELLIS having

18

previously suffered a mild stroke, and plaintiff JACKSON behaving previously suffered a

19

heart attack and being pregnant with twins and having her physician, who was treating her

20

prior to her incarceration, declaring that she is a high risk pregnancy, and having been

21

explicitly and pointedly denied and refused any and all assistance or accommodation for her

condition—including but not limited to any meaningful attention by a doctor or other 22
qualified practitioner. Defendant MOHRBACHER —being told by every defendant staff 23
member she has had contact with that her only and best recourse is to agree to an abortion.

24

25. In circumstances where—as all the plaintiff-prisoners are acutely aware—two pregnant

25

women have recently miscarried in the jail after being— pointedly, again, and with

26

unmistakable malice—denied any and all medical assistance, this plaintiff is in legitimate

27

great fear that she will be ignored and left to languish without help, even if she begins to

28

miscarry, unless this Court intervenes with Order(s) sufficient to guarantee protection of her

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 7 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 8 of 18

1

health and well-being, and that of her unborn child.

CLASS CLAIM 2
26. This abuse and mistreatment is part and parcel of defendants and each of their violations of 3
existing jail policies and procedures, California statutes and California regulations. Despite
4 repeated complaints and even prior lawsuits, defendants and each of them failure and refusal

5

to comply with policies and procedures, California statutes and California regulations, even

6

after notification of resulting injuries and harms, indicates callous and wanton and deliberate

7

disregard for the safety, health and well being of the women prisoners under their control, and

8

clearly shows programmatic mistreatment and abuse of women prisoners.

9

27. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. In any given year, there are over one

10

hundred pregnant women who are in defendants’ custody. Joinder is inherently impractical

11

because the number of unnamed, future class members who will be pregnant while in

defendants’ custody is unknown and unknowable, especially given the transient nature of the 12
plaintiff population in defendants’ custody and the temporal limitations of pregnancy. 13
Proposed class members are highly unlikely to file individual suits on their own behalf given

14 the practical, legal, monetary, and fear-based barriers that prevent their ability to access

15

independent counsel to challenge defendants’ abusive, coercive and punitive measures; not to

16

mention defendants’ active measures preventing proposed class members from

17

communicating amongst themselves and with legal counsel.

18

28. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law, including but not

19

limited to whether: i) discrimination against women in access to services, classes, ability to

20

work, rights and privileges; and ii) failure to comply with state laws and regulations on

21

meeting the needs of women’s reproductive and menstrual needs; iii) disparate and unequal

treatment of women in ways that are inferior to the treatment of men, including the priority 22
given to processing, always, the men first, meting out stricter and more severe punishments to 23
women particularly for minor infractions, limiting and prohibiting women but not men from

24

communicating and conversing amongst themselves; iv) prohibiting class members from

25

communicating amongst themselves and with legal counsel; violate the Constitution.

26

29. The claims of the Plaintiff Sub-Class members who are pregnant while under the custody and

27

control of defendants, share common issues of law, including but not limited to whether: i)

28

defendants’ programmatic coercion for abortions; ii) abuse and mistreatment of pregnant

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 8 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 9 of 18

1

prisoners which threaten the viability of fetuses and often terminate the viability of fetuses;

iii) defendants’ failure to develop and or appropriate implement statutorily required care 2
plans; violate the Constitution. 3
30. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact, including but not
4 limited to the implementation of Defendants’ policy and practice is discriminatory against all

5

women prisoners, and of harm to pregnant women so as to impair the viability of their fetuses

6

and programmatic coercion to abortions.

7

31. The claims of plaintiffs are typical of the claims of members of the Plaintiff Class.

8

32. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class. The

9

named Plaintiff has no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests

10

of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiff are experienced civil

11

rights attorneys and are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional litigation. These

attorneys should be appointed as class counsel. 12
33. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally applicable to 13
the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the

14 class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

23(b)(2).

16

34. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would create the

17

risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible standards of

18

conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be

19

properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).

20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

21

35. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office , authorized under the Alameda County Charter to run

and operate the county jails, runs two jails in Alameda County, one in Dublin named Santa 22

Rita, the other in Oakland, named glen Dyer. Currently, the Sheriff processes and holds 23
women only at Santa Rita jail. At any one time, there averages 250 women prisoners with

24

about 10 pregnant women in Santa Rita Jail, and on information and belief, 2500 women

25

prisoners with 150 pregnant women through the year.

26

36. The sheriff’s mission statement says that the Sheriff is to provide “humane treatment to hose

27

in our custody.” While:

28

Ability to enforce the law fairly;

Page 9 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 10 of 18

1

Commitment to professionalism;

2

Service to the community with integrity and trust;

3

Obligation to duty with honor and pride.

4

The facts pled herein show that women prisoners are not treated humanely, and the law is not 5
fairly applied. Women receive discriminatory and unfair treatment on a routine daily basis 6
including being short changed on access to education and work, and greater limitations than

7

male prisoners to clean laundry, feminine hygiene products, the ability to converse, the ability

8

to choose even where to sit during meals.

9

37. As part of the Sheriff’s obligations, pursuant to 15 CCR §3355.2, the Sheriff is required

10

to have each pregnant inmate examined by an Obstetrical Physician or Obstetrical Nurse

11

Practitioner, and to develop a plan of care. Defendant Gregory Ahern, the current Sheriff of

12

Alameda County does not develop a plan of care for each pregnant prisoner, and if a care plan

13

is developed, the appropriate measures are not implemented. The actual care or rather abuse

14

provided does not take into consideration the harmful and detrimental consequences to

mother and fetus of the unnecessary punitive, and stress inducing regimens at Santa Rita jail, 15
including the frequent and all pervasive strip searches and body cavity searches, the excessive 16
incarceration in cold, concrete holding cells, the rampant use of solitary confinement, the
17 routine and regular disregard of pregnant women prisoner’s request for medical attention, and

18

the harassment of pregnant women prisoner’s as engaged in the use of illegal drugs, and the

19

over arching administrative policy of coercing women to abort their babies, or the

20

programmatic maltreatment which results in a majority of miscarriages amount pregnant

21

women prisoners.

22

38. Plaintiffs are women in the custody and control of defendants. The first three named

23

plaintiffs are pregnant. None of them have received an appropriate plan of care. None of

24

them have received an appropriate or thorough examination by an Obstetrical Physician or an

Obstetrical Nurse. Instead, the regimen and care includes minor additions in food allotments, 25

disturbed sleep, and regular intimidation, harassment and physical abuse in the form of

26 frequent strip searches, body cavity searches and incarceration in solitary confinement cells,

27

held outdoors or in cold, concrete holding cells without adequate clothing and encouragement

28

and coercion to abort their fetus.

Page 10 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 11 of 18

1

39. The plan of care includes vital signs monitoring which interrupt the vital sleep of

pregnant prisoners. The only additional nutrition is peanut butter and jelly twice a day and 2
extra ratios of milk. And whereas some of the women have vital signs monitored daily with 3
sleep disruption. Others receive no monitoring for weeks on end.
4 40. Instead of medical care, complaints of feeling ill are treated with solitary confinement,

5

strip searches and cavity searches. Pregnant prisoners are told that their illness is due to drug

6

abuse.

7

41. The provision of food is at such odds with human needs, that breakfast is served between

8

3:30 am, and 4:30 a.m. and missing breakfast results in a 19 hour fast, which is detrimental to

9

the nutrition needs of fetuses and pregnant women.

10

42. Instead of providing Plaintiffs with adequate menstrual pads as required by State law for

11

Plaintiffs’ hygiene and reproductive needs, Plaintiffs are left to bleed over their clothing, or at

times have been offered used menstrual pads out of garbage cans. 12
43. For women who end up in incarceration during a late term pregnancy, Santa Rita does not 13
provide even adequate care. Recently, one woman who complained of cramps and pain, was

14 placed into solitary confinement per Santa Rita’s standard routine of meting out punishment

15

and abuse onto pregnant prisoner. This woman was forced to deliver her baby, alone, in

16

solitary confinement.

17

44. Defendants’ abuse and mistreatment of women prisoners is part and parcel of the

18

discrimination and unequal treatment meted out to women prisoners as compared to male

19

prisoners. Women prisoners are denied the same educational classes and opportunities

20

available to male prisoners. Women prisoners are denied the same access to outdoor or yard

21

time and yard space available to male prisoners. Defendants impose greater repression and

restrictions on plaintiffs which male prisoners are not subject to, including being prohibited 22
from talking during meals, and being forced to sit on the seats that defendants assigned. 23
45. This abuse and mistreatment is part and parcel of defendants and each of their violations

24

of existing jail policies and procedures, California statutes and California regulations. Despite

25

repeated complaints and even prior lawsuits, defendants and each of them failure and refusal

26

to comply with policies and procedures, California statutes and California regulations, even

27

after notification of resulting injuries and harms, indicates callous and wanton and deliberate

28

disregard for the safety, health and well being of the women prisoners under their control, and

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 11 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 12 of 18

1

clearly shows programmatic mistreatment and abuse of women prisoners.

46. Defendants also have actively prevented and interfered with plaintiffs’ and proposed class 2
members ability to speak with counsel, and have taken actions in retaliation of plaintiffs’ 3
efforts to file grievances and highlight these abuses.
4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

5

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6 Violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments To United States

7

Constitution and Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment

8

(42 .S.C. § 1983)

9

47. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 of this

10

complaint.

11

48. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members

against all defendants. 12
49. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive plaintiffs and the class of the minimal 13
civilized measure of life’s necessities, and have violated their basic human dignity and their

14 right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth

15

Amendments to the United States Constitution for each of the reasons set forth below.

16

50. There is no valid penological reason to pointedly and systematically refuse and deprive

17

female prisoners, particularly pregnant prisoners of needed and necessary medical care, and

18

accommodation of any sort—balanced, healthy and adequate diet; counseling, exercise,

19

blankets and warm clothes, and a minimum of cleanliness, soap and cleaning supplies.

20

51. There is no valid penological reason to pointedly and systematically use isolation cells

21

and strip searches as a tool of punishment and intimidation particularly with pregnant

prisoners. 22
52. There is no valid penological reason to coerce and threaten pregnant prisoners into 23
consenting to an abortion.

24

53. There is no valid penological reason to programmatically abuse pregnant women so as to

25

impair the viability of their fetuses and potentially or actually cause a miscarriage including

26

holding women outdoors in the cold without adequate outwear and for extended periods of

27

time.

28

54. There is no valid penological reason to treat women in manners different and harsher than

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 12 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 13 of 18

1

men, including for male prisoners over women to receive priority in processing over women

prisoners, for women prisoners to have routinely longer waits in holding cells, for women 2
prisoners and not men prisoners to be denied the right to communicate while eating, for 3
women prisoners and not men prisoners to be denied the right to choose where to sit and whom
4 to sit next to during meals, for women prisoners to have fewer choices in education and

5

classes than men prisoners, for women prisoners to have fewer choices in jobs outside their

6

cells than men prisoners, for women prisoners to be more frequently and routinely strip

7

searched and subjected to body cavity searches than men prisoners, for women prisoners to be

8

more frequently denied clean laundry or sufficient laundry than men prisoners, for women

9

prisoners to have less access to recreation and exercise activities than male prisoners, as well

10

as other discriminatory practices subject to proof at trial.

11

55. Defendants and each of their deliberate indifference to these basic human needs violates

defendants’ own policies and the policies of the civilized world, including the United Nation’s 12
Standard Minimums for Treatment of Prisoners, adopted in 1955; the European Union’s 13
European Prison Rules adopted in 2006;the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth

14 Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, Article 1 §17 of the California

15

Constitution.

16

17

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

Violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments To United States

19

Constitution

20

Constitutionally Impermissible Punishment

21

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 of this complaint. 22

57. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members against all 23
defendants.

24 58. Defendants are entitled to the execution of policies and practices that are needed to preserve

25

internal order and discipline, and to maintain institutional security.

26 59. There is no penological reason for the frequent and regular strip searches and body cavity

27

searches of women prisoners, and the frequency and regularity of the requirement that women

28

prisoners strip naked in front of defendants , and have their personal and private parts inspected

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 13 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 14 of 18

1

by defendants is impermissible sexual harassment.

60. There is no penological justification for holding class members outdoors without adequate outer 2
wear, or to hold them for extended periods of time in solitary confinement, or to routinely strip 3
search and subject class members to body cavity searches, and to deny class members the right
4 to speech during meals and pod times, the right to choose where to sit and with whom to

5

associate with during meals and pod time.

6 61. There is no penological justification for punishing class members for sharing information on the

7

rules and regulations of Santa Rita Jail, when defendants violate their own policies and

8

procedures in not providing class members with the information regarding Santa Rita’s policies

9

and procedures.

10 62. There is no penological justification for inconsistent and variable enforcement of rules, and to

11

have arbitrary enforcement of rules, to allow individual defendants individually interpret and

enforce institution rules, or to allow individual defendants to develop personal “rules” which 12
are enforceable when said defendant is on duty. 13
63. Defendants deliberately inflicted these impermissible punishments in violation of the Fourth,

14 Fifth, Eighth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution; and, Article 1 §§7 &

15

17 of the California Constitution as described herein.

16

17

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

Violation First and Fifth Amendment To United States Constitution

19

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

20 71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 70 of this complaint.

21 72. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members against all
defendants. 22
73. There is no penological justification for punishing pregnant class members when they refuse to 23
consent to an abortion. 24 74. There is no penological justification for holding class members outdoors without adequate outer

25

wear, or to hold them for extended periods of time in solitary confinement, or to routinely strip

26

search and subject class members to body cavity searches, and to deny class members the right

27

to speech during meals and pod times, the right to choose where to sit and with whom to

28

associate with during meals and pod time.

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 14 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 15 of 18

1 75. Defendants intentionally inflict these punishments to violate Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
rights under the First and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 §2 2
of the California Constitution. 3

4 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

Violation of California Constitution Article 1 §1 Right to Privacy

6 76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 76 of this

7

complaint.

8 77. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members

9

against all defendants.

10 78. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted interference, by

11

threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs’ enjoyment of rights secured by the

Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California 12
Civil Code §§51.7.1 13

14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1

16

17 79. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 78 of this

18

complaint.

19 80. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members

20

against all defendants.

21 81. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted interference, by

threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs’ enjoyment of rights secured by the 22

Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California

23

Civil Code section 52.1. 1

24

25

26 1 Due to the exigent circumstances of the pregnant defendants, plaintiffs brought forward this action
27 and are in the process of perfecting the State claims and will amend accordingly.
28 1

Page 15 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 16 of 18

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2
Negligence 3
82. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 81 of this complaint.
4 83. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of all class members against all

5

defendants.

6 84. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiffs to ensure that defendants did not cause unnecessary

7

or unjustified harm to plaintiffs, and a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline

8

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office officers and employees so as to not cause harm to plaintiffs

9

and to prevent violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

10 85. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care defendants

11

owed to the named individual plaintiffs.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 16 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 18

1
RELIEF REQUESTED 2
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor and: 3
1. Certify this action as a class action under Federal Rule of civil Procedure 23.
4 2. Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Defendants’ actions, as set forth above,

5

violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States.

6

3. Enter a Temporary Restraining Order preventing defendants from:

7

a. placing pregnant prisoners in solitary confinement;

8

b. placing pregnant prisoners outdoors without adequate outerwear, and clothing;

9

c. holding pregnant prisoners outdoors for any length of time;

10

d. punishing or threatening to punish women prisoners for exercising their right to free

11

speech during meals or during POD times;

e. touching or searching plaintiff’s food unless defendants’ hands are covered in clean, 12
and new sanitary gloves; 13
f. coerce pregnant female prisoners into abortions;

14 4. Enter a Temporary Restraining Order mandating defendants as follows:

15

a. Fully comply with state statutes and regulations and develop an individual care

16

plan for each and every pregnant prisoner;

17

b. fully comply with state law and provide sufficient materials for each and every

18

female prisoner “necessary for (1) personal hygiene with regard to her menstrual

19

cycle and reproductive system” (Penal Code §3409) during the entire duration of her

20

incarceration under the custody of defendants.

21

c. Permit confidential legal contact visits between plaintiffs, class members and their

attorneys 22

5. Enter a preliminary injunction as to the Plaintiff Class; 23
6. Enter a permanent injunction preventing defendants from:

24

a. placing pregnant prisoners in solitary confinement;

25

b. placing pregnant prisoners outdoors without adequate outerwear, and clothing;

26

c. holding pregnant prisoners outdoors for any length of time;

27

d. punishing or threatening to punish women prisoners for exercising their right to free

28

speech during meals or during POD times;

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 17 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 18 of 18

1

e. coerce pregnant female prisoners into abortions;

7. Enter a Permanent Injunction mandating defendants as follows: 2
a. Fully comply with state statutes and regulations and develop an individual care 3
plan for each and every pregnant prisoner;
4 b. fully comply with state law and provide sufficient materials for each and every

5

female prisoner “necessary for (1) personal hygiene with regard to her menstrual

6

cycle and reproductive system” (Penal Code §3409) during the entire duration of her

7

incarceration under the custody of defendants.

8

c. Permit confidential legal contact visits between plaintiffs, class members and their

9

attorneys

10

8. Award compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants in an amount

11

to be determined at trial;

9. Award costs and fees for this action, including attorneys’ fees; 12
10. Award such further relief as this Court deems appropriate. 13

14 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
15

16

LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG

17

18

By:__/s/ Yolanda Huang____________________

19

YOLANDA HUANG

20

21

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

22

23

24

___/s/ Dennis Cunningham__________________

25

26

27

28

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

Page 18 of 18

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 18

1

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543

2 475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140

4 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410

5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910 115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110 7 Tel/Fax: 415-285-8091
denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 ALAMEDACOUNTYWOMEN PRISONERS

13

And Former Prisoners & Pregnant Prisoners, JAC JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,

14 DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA
ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY 15 ERWIN, And JANE DOEs Nos. 1-- X

16 on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, as a Class, and Sub-class,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

19

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 20 GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M. KETELES,

21 TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, T. RUSSELL, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT. HATTAWAY, SGT.

22 CALAGARI, DEPUTY DIVINE (#512),

DEPUTY DEBRA FARMANIAN, DEPUTY 23 WEATHERBEE (#238), DEPUTY TANIA

24 POPE, DEPUTY WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE, ALAMEDA COUNTY and John &

25 Jane DOEs, Nos. 1 - 50.

Defendants, and, 26 The CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL

27 GROUP, a corporation; its Employees and SubContractors, and Rick & Ruth ROEs Nos. 1-50,

28

Newly Added Defendants.

No. 18-cv-50 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
and OTHER WRONGS
Jury Trial Demanded

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 1 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 18

1

Plaintiffs JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, and DOMINIQUE JACKSON, now

joined by others named within, on behalf of themselves and those they speak for and seek to 2
represent herein---along with those others now named and to be named individually as plaintiffs---for 3
themselves and others, pursuant to the Court’s discussion with Counsel at the status call on January 8,

4 2018, and as of right per R.15(a) F.R.Civ P, now submit this amended version (FAC) of their

5 previously filed Complaint, as follows:

6 I. INTRODUCTION

7 1. Plaintiffs have alleged a strong and reprehensible, and unconstitutional pattern and practice of

8 aggressively misogynist, apparently programmatic, maltreatment of women prisoners, and pregnant

9 women in particular—so severe as to have resulted inter alia in at least three recent miscarriages, and

10 another woman giving birth after screaming in labor pain all night, while alone and unattended in a

11 solitary confinement cell—at the Alameda County jail at Santa Rita, California. The named
12 individual plaintiffs describe and complain of specific, purposeful, aggravated violations of the First, 13 Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and parallel
provisions of the California Constitution, along with flagrant violations of statute and official 14
regulations, all detailed within, resulting in serious injury and deprivation under federal and state civil 15
rights laws for which various individuals seek damages herein. 16 2. More to the point, the representative plaintiffs have alleged that the Sub-class of pregnant
17 prisoners, and each of them, are strongly threatened with irreparable harm---and have no adequate
18 remedy at Law for it, obviously---resulting from grossly inadequate nourishment, warmth, sanitation

19 medical care and other necessities of pregnancy, unless this honorable Court will intervene in a

20 strong and comprehensive way, either by causing the Sheriff’s Department to hold or assign women

21 prisoners who are pregnant in some place besides the Jail, or making a preliminary and permanent
22 decree, with prohibitions and remedial directions, and follow through to ensure compliance. 23 Defendants’ maltreatment and abuse of prisoners who are pregnant involves apparently willful
violations of existing jail policies and procedures, and California statutes and Regulations, as well as 24
fundamental constitutional principles. Despite repeated complaints and even prior lawsuits, 25
defendants have repeatedly failed to follow policies, statutes and regulations, even after being 26 notified of resulting injuries and harms.
27 3. Described within, the plaintiffs’ evidence shows callous, deliberate and systematic disregard for
28 the safety, health and wellbeing of pregnant women prisoners in defendants’ custody and control, and

Page 2 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 18

1 their unborn children---whose interests surely deserve independent protection---and the Court must put a stop to it. At a minimum, every pregnant prisoner must be provided with an individualized,
2 appropriate and implemented plan of care---as required by statute and regulation!---which will
3 genuinely assist and enable those who desire it to carry their babies to term and deliver healthy
4 babies,
5 4. New Defendant(s). As we learned at the hearing, the Sheriff and the County defendants
6 broadly deny any responsibility for care of pregnant prisoners, and assert that their contract medical
7 provider, the California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), a for-profit corporate enterprise, is

8 wholly responsible for all aspects of the care and treatment of pregnant women prisoners; and they
9 insist CFMG is an indispensible party, at least. Plaintiffs reject any notion that blame is to be shifted
10 here, but are glad to include these others who apparently share it, or some of it. The proper care of 11 pregnant women clearly goes beyond provision of adequate medical attention.
5. Accordingly, plaintiffs do hereby add as defendants and complain against the 12
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP (CFMG), a corporation, and its MANAGERS 13
and EMPLOYEES assigned to Santa Rita, as jointly and severally liable with the County and 14
Sheriff’s Department defendants to the plaintiffs and the pregnant Subclass in particular, for 15 the injuries and deprivations, caused and being caused, and the ongoing urgent default in, and legal
16 and constitutional inadequacies of, and urgent remedial needs regarding reform of, the care and
17 custody of pregnant women held at Santa Rita, all as complained of herein.

18 6. Plaintiffs also hereby add Captain T. RUSSELL who is a captain within the command chain of

19 Santa Rita Jail and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

20

21

**

**

**

**

7. Beyond the urgent issues involving pregnancy, the plaintiffs herein (in their final grouping), on 22

behalf of themselves and all women prisoners at Santa Rita—whose injuries and deprivations at the 23
hands of defendants do not involve pregnancy, but very often do involve nasty and hostile refusals to

24 acknowledge or respond to feminine hygienic needs—now also again complain as a Class, as

25 described and asserted within, of extensive, systematic discrimination against the women prisoners at

26 Santa Rita, compared to the men. Invidious treatment of women occurs in all aspects of life in the

27 jail: jobs, food, access to bathrooms, showers, hygiene, clean clothes, fresh air and out-of-cell time,

28 education classes and activities, counseling, phone calls, family visits, and more. These women also

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 3 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 4 of 18

1 seek injunctive relief, under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments per R.65 F.R.Civ P., and the Bane Act (Cal Civil Code #52.1)—requiring a total cessation of inhumane and sexually and
2 gender-biased unequal treatment and forms of treatment of women prisoners by defendants, and
3 providing effective, outside monitoring—on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
4 namely women prisoners currently held or to be held in the future at the Santa Rita Jail, as a
5 Class, per Rule 23, F.R.Civ P. Plaintiffs likewise seek full compliance with 15 CCR 3355.2; and
6 implementation of California Penal Code §3409, on the proper care and treatment of women
7 prisoners.

8 i. **

**

**

**

9 8. This First Amended Complaint thus adds additional named plaintiffs, listed below; adds
10 medical provider CFMG and its involved personnel as defendants, and re-presents the equitable 11 claims of the pregnant Sub-class, the larger discrimination claims by the broad class, and the
individual claims at Law of named plaintiffs and class members—including money damages for the 12
Estates and the mothers of stillborn children, as well as for the sadistic denial of bathroom use, 13
withholding of feminine hygiene materials, and other physical depredations and specific deprivations 14
of right that have been reported—with a framework for adding others who may be encountered as 15 investigation proceeds.
16 9. As before, plaintiffs have named several high-ranking members of the defendant Sheriff’s
17 Department individually, along with a number of John and Jane Does who are guards and other staff

18 members who have been involved in the various tyrannies against women prisoners complained of

19 herein—and whose number will now include various unknown, named CFMG practitioners and other
20 employees assigned to the Santa Rita account—all of whom will or would be subject to the
21 injunctional orders, directions and prohibitions sought herein. These worthies, depending on the Court’s outlook, may be more readily dealt with herein as a defendant class.
22 10. Also named are the Sheriff’s Department and the County itself, and now CFMG, inc. also, in
23 respondeat with respect to the State Law claims herein; and also for their unconstitutional explicit
24 and de facto polic(ies) of discrimination and systematic maltreatment—particularly of pregnant and 25 menstruating women, within the rule of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 US 568.
26

27

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

28

The Jurisdiction of this honorable Court derives from the provisions of the First, Fourth, Fifth,

Page 4 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 5 of 18

1 Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, by way of the Civil Rights

Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 (as to certain plaintiffs), 1983 et seq. and 1988; 28 U.S.C. §1331 (claims 2
arising under the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address deprivations, 3
under color of state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the United States
4 Constitution), and, by pendent jurisdiction, Secs. 52.1, and 50, of the California Civil Code.

5

Intradistrict Assignment. The claims alleged herein arose in the County of Alameda, State

6 of California. Therefore, venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the United States

7 District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division or Oakland Division.

8

9

III. PARTIES

10 Plaintiffs. ERIN ELLIS and DOMINIQUE JACKSON are each pregnant prisoners currently in the
11 custody and control of the Alameda County Sheriff’s office. 1 Each of them wishes to carry her
12 pregnancy to term and have a healthy baby, and each of them wants and demands the necessary 13 nutrition, medical and other support which that minimally requires. In this First Amended Complaint
the following additional present and former Santa Rosa prisoners, pregnant and otherwise, are joining 14
the original plaintiffs, some as members of the pregnant Subclass and all as would-be representatives 15
of the Class as a whole. JACLYN MOHRBACHER and CHRISTINE ZEPEDA are formerly 16 pregnant prisoners who suffered a miscarriage due to the mistreatment received at the hands of
17 defendants, while under the custody and control of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. ALEXIS
18 WAH and KELSEY ERWIN who, during their incarcerations, endured the repeat, rampant, and

19 continual and mistreatment including the unequal (as compared to men) treatment, that women

20 prisoners receive.

21 Defendants
22 1. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a “public entity” within the
23 definition of Cal. Govt. Code § 811.2; Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN is the Sheriff of Alameda County. As such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly
24 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and
25 practices that prevail at Alameda County jails, as described below. He has, therefore, wholly or in
26
1 Immediately after this action was filed on 1/4/18, named plaintiff JACLYN MOSBACHER was transferred to the
27 federal detention center at Dublin, California, for reasons Counsel at this writing have not yet learned. She persists in her
claims herein.
28

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 5 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 6 of 18

1 part, directly and proximately caused, and will continue in the future to cause, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Ahern is sued in his official capacity only.
2 2. Defendant BRETT M. KETELES is the Assistant Sheriff for Alameda County in charge of
3 the Detentions and Corrections Unit and defendant TOM MADIGAN is the commander in charge of
4 the Detentions and Corrections Unit which includes the two Alameda County jails, Glen Dyer and
5 Santa Rita, and was so in charge of Santa Rita Jail on December 26, 2016. Defendants BRETT
6 KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, and T. RUSSELL as employees of the Sheriff’s Office and as the
7 detention and corrections commander for the Sheriff’s Office, held command and policymaking
8 positions. They, along with Defendant Ahern, participated in the planning, supervision, and the
9 execution of the manner in which plaintiffs and class members are incarcerated in the Alameda
10 county jail facilities and ACSO’s conduct complained of herein. Defendants BRETT KETELES, 11 TOM MADIGAN, and T. RUSSELL caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or
knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, 12
customs and practices that prevail at Alameda County jails, particularly as to the treatment of women 13
as described below. 14
3. Defendant D. SKOLDQVIST was and is the Watch Commander for Santa Rita Jail. 15 Defendants D. SKOLDQVIST, T. RUSSELL, LT. HATTAWAY and SGT. CALAGARI (sp), were 16 the responsible officers for Santa Rita Jail. Defendants, D. SKOLDQVIST, T. RUSSELL, LT.
17 HATTAWAY, SGT. CALAGARI (sp) at all times relevant herein, are and were employees of the
18 Sheriff who held supervisory, command and/or policy-making positions, and who participated in the
19 authorization, planning, supervision, and the execution of the sheriff’s conduct complained of herein.
20 4. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants AHERN, KETELES, MADIGAN and 21 RUSSELL were officers and employees acting under the color of law, under color of their official
authority and in the scope of their employment as Command and Supervisory Personnel of the 22
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, upon information and belief, one or more of these 23
Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights, to adequately 24 train and supervise ACSO sheriff’s deputies and staff who were involved in violating the rights of the 25 Plaintiffs and class members. All of the above individual defendants are sued in their individual and 26 official capacities.
27 5. At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants Deputies, DIVINE (sp),
28 DEBRA FARMANIAN, CAINE (sp), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY ‘A’, and DEPUTY “S” ,

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 6 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 7 of 18

1 were officers and employees were acting under the color of law, under color of authority and in the scope of their employment with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and were the guards and
2 deputies on duty at Santa Rita Jail with direct control over plaintiffs and members of the class.
3 6. The newly added defendants, CFMG and its various employees and sub-contractors, are
4 apparently retained by the County to provide medical services to Santa Rita prisoners on behalf of the
5 defendant Sheriff’s Department; and the County defendants apparently believe, and assert, that, in
6 making a contract with CFMG for that purpose, the Department and its defendant minions shed and
7 shifted and absolved themselves of any responsibility or liability for timely and effective delivery of
8 such services to prisoners in their custody. Needless to say, plaintiffs disagree absolutely that the
9 County defendants are to any degree ‘off the hook,’ or insulated from legal responsibility for
10 provision of proper care to prisoners in their custody by virtue of such a third-party arrangement. 11 Rather, the newly-added medical personnel---unknown individuals named herein as RICK & RUTH
ROEs Nos. 1-50---and their employer are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs and the Subclass, 12
with the County defendants, for the failures and deficiencies in the care and attention provided to 13
pregnant prisoners. 14
7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and therefore allege that each of said defendants DOES 1 15 through 50, are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and 16 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and acted within the scope of that agency or
17 employment or under color of state law. The same is true with respect to the relations between
18 defendant CFMG and its practitioners and other employees assigned to the Santa Rita account, ROEs
19 1-50, and their involvement in the matters at issue herein. DOEs 1-50 and ROEs 1-50 are defendants
20 who caused, and are responsible for, the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, 21 among other things, personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring
with or aiding and abetting others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion 22
policies, plans or actions that led to the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the 23
unlawful conduct; by failing and refusing with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights to initiate 24 and maintain adequate training and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred 25 by agents and officers under their direction and control, including failing to take remedial or 26 disciplinary action. Plaintiffs allege that DOEs 1-50 and ROEs 1-50 proximately caused said
27 incidents, injuries, violation of constitutional and legal rights, and damages by reason of their
28 negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, or by reason of other

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 7 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 8 of 18

1 personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or upon any other act or omission.
2 8. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein as DOE
3 1-50 and ROE 1-50, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend
4 this FAC further to supply true names and capacities when the same are ascertained and will seek
5 leave to amend further facts involving them are ascertained. DOEs 1-50 are sued in their individual
6 and official capacities.

7

IV. EMERGENCY RELIEF

8

1. As previously recounted, prisoner-plaintiffs ERIN ELLIS and DOMINIQUE JACKSON

9 remain in dire straits in the Santa Rita Jail, continuously, both being more than four months pregnant

10 and in substantial discomfort, with intermittent bleeding, and suffering health complications.

11 Plaintiff ELLIS has previously suffered a mild stroke, and plaintiff JACKSON has had a heart attack,

12 and is pregnant with twins, and the physician who was treating her prior to her incarceration declared
13 that her pregnancy is “high risk.” Both women have been explicitly and pointedly denied and refused assistance or accommodation for their condition by defendants, including but not limited to
14 meaningful attention from a doctor or other qualified practitioner, adequate and sufficient nutrition.
15 Instead, they are repeatedly advised they should agree to abortion, or defendants disregard these
16 plaintiffs’ requests for medical and nutritional assistance.

17

2. Instead, defendants have repeatedly demanded that plaintiffs agree to have an abortion,

18 accused plaintiffs of being drug addicts, and refused all other recognition and assistance for each

19 plaintiff’s delicate condition. Other pregnant women—including those who miscarried—have

20 similarly been scorned, branded and mistreated in the jail in recent times—under a regime marked by

21 a striking and most distasteful animosity towards women prisoners---and particularly those thought,
22 rightly or wrongly, to have addiction issues, and studied, often openly scornful, indifference to their 23 serious medical and hygienic needs.
3. These women now seek extraordinary relief from this Court on an emergency basis, in 24
circumstances where all the plaintiff-prisoners are acutely aware that three pregnant women have 25
recently miscarried in the jail or just after getting out, after being denied medical assistance; and a 26 third was left in labor, screaming all night, in a solitary confinement cell. Thus all plaintiffs must
27 legitimately fear that they will be ignored and left to languish without help, even if beginning to
28 miscarry, unless this Court intervenes with Order(s) sufficient to guarantee protection of their health

Page 8 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 9 of 18

1 and well-being, and that of her unborn child. 4. Plaintiffs therefore seek a comprehensive remedy, by decree involving big oversight,
2 discussed further below, which will ensure that they and all pregnant women prisoners who come
3 into defendants’ custody receive all needed accommodation—including decent, nourishing food,
4 warm clothing and blankets, proper rest, fresh air and exercise, etc, as well as timely medical
5 attention and monitoring, doctor and hospital visits, and pre-natal counseling along with, where
6 needed, addiction services—from defendant Sheriff’s and CFMG staff members while they are in

7 custody.

8

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

9

1. The “mission statement” for the defendant Alameda County Sheriff’s Department states

10 that the Department will provide “Humane treatment to those in our custody, while demonstrating:

11 Ability to enforce the law fairly; Commitment to professionalism; Service to the community with

12 integrity and trust; and, Obligation to duty with honor and pride.” But the facts show that women
13 prisoners are not treated humanely, and the law is not fairly applied. Women receive unfair and discriminatory treatment on a routine basis, including being short changed on access to education and
14 work, and
15 2. greater limitations than male prisoners to clean laundry, feminine hygiene products, the
16 ability to converse with others, and even the freedom to choose where to sit during meals.

17

3. The Santa Rita jail is one of two jails in Alameda County, located in the remote eastern

18 reaches, near Dublin. The other jail is in downtown Oakland. Women are held only at Santa Rita.

19 On information and belief, there are approximately 250 women held there at any given time, of

20 whom, on average, about ten are pregnant. Most of these women prisoners are pre-trial detainees

21 unable to afford bail, but quite a number are also serving time, mostly for probation violations. In the
22 course of a year, roughly 150 pregnant women will have been under the custody and control of the 23 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office at Santa Rita for some period of time.
4. The Sheriff’s Department has a contract with the California Forensic Medical Group, 24
CFMG, to provide necessary medical care and services to prisoners at Santa Rita, under which 25
CFMG apparently assigns various practitioners and other personnel who work at the jail, and others 26 who visit intermittently for various purposes. CFMG is said to set the procedures and protocols by
27 which prisoners receive (or don’t receive) medical attention and care, and the Undersigned have been
28 advised that the Sheriff’s Department regards CFMG as wholly and solely responsible for dealing

Page 9 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 10 of 18

1 with any and all medical problems that Santa Rita prisoners may have, including pregnancies.

A. Maltreatment of Pregnant Women Prisoners 2
5. In point of fact, the practice of CFMG practitioners and other personnel in monitoring and 3
attending to the progress of pregnancies amount women at Santa Rita, and the level of concern or
4 engagement in the project of such care, is simply dismal.

5

6. Pursuant to 15 CCR §3355.2, the Sheriff is required to have each pregnant inmate

6 examined by an Obstetrical Physician or Obstetrical Nurse Practitioner, and to develop a specific

7 “plan of care.” To plaintiffs’ knowledge, no plan of care is or has been since longtime developed

8 for each pregnant prisoner, and the “care” provided ignores altogether the harmful and detrimental

9 consequences to mother and fetus of the unnecessarily and unjustifiably punitive and stress-inducing
10 regimens for women prisoners at Santa Rita. These include madly frequent, all pervasive strip
11 searches and body cavity searches, a profligate, also unjustified use of solitary confinement, routine and regular disregard of pregnant women prisoners’ requests for medical assistance, and the general
12 practice of scorn and harassment of pregnant women prisoners by both CFMG and Sheriff’s
13 Department personnel.
14 7. None of the plaintiffs or anyone they know of have been given or told of any plan of care;
15 and none of them have been examined by an Obstetrical Physician or an Obstetrical Nurse. Women
16 who complain of not feeling well or ask to see a doctor are often harshly accused of using illegal

17 drugs---particularly by defendant DIVINE, a Sheriff’s deputy---and often punished in Solitary

18 Confinement, or by baseless, wholly unjustified, unconstitutional strip searches or body cavity

19 searches, or by being put outside in the cold for hours on end without warm clothes or blankets;
20 When plaintiffs request that a urine test be administered to disprove the false accusations levied
21 against them by defendants, defendants refuse, and insist instead on the invasive, humiliating and often injurious strip and body cavity searches.
22 8. Further, rather than provide and implement plans of care for plaintiffs as required by
23 Regulation, defendants have instituted a program of constant monitoring of pregnant women’s vital
24 signs, consisting of recording blood pressure and pulse at least three times a day. As part of this 25 “program,” plaintiffs are awakened between midnight and 4:00 a.m., every night---notwithstanding
26 pregnant woman’s well-known, vital need to get adequate rest---in order for vital signs to be taken

27 and recorded.

28

9. Plaintiffs receive an extra ration of 8 ounces of milk, but otherwise get no additional fresh

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 10 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 11 of 18

1 fruits, vegetables or other good protein nutrition, and certainly no balanced diet. Meat products served at the jail are widely regarded, including by plaintiff, as unfit for human consumption.
2 Pregnant prisoners are fed a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with perhaps a cookie or an apple, and
3 their extra cup of milk, for lunch and snack. Dinner is beans, boiled vegetables and pasta, with some
4 bread. In one striking element of the daily routine, coldly illustrating the essentially anti-human
5 character of the Santa Rita regime, breakfast is served at 3:30 a.m. each day. Many women and these
6 and other pregnant women in particular don’t have the energy to get up and eat at that hour, or are

7 unwilling to trade their rest for the crappy repast they know awaits them. In short, the diet provided

8 is grossly inadequate for the basic nutritional needs of a pregnant woman and her developing child.

9

10. As a result of defendant’s apparently programmatic, ingrained habits of maltreatment, and

10 vindictiveness, on the part of individual deputies---especially where women have or have had

11 addiction problems---pregnant women have suffered termination of pregnancy either through
miscarriage, or the fetus losing viability. Plaintiff CHRISTINA ZEPEDA, who was in custody from 12
August through November, 2017, and as a result of defendants’ described maltreatment, began 13
bleeding so badly she was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, where she had a miscarriage. And 14
plaintiffs are informed and believe that another woman, Paramdeep Kaur who was pregnant and in
15 custody at Santa Rita this past Fall, also suffered a miscarriage. And plaintiff JACLYN

16 MOHRBACHER, who at the initiation of this action was pregnant, but due to the brutal treatment of

17 defendants, including denial of medical care, repeated abusive confinement in solitary, with repeated

18 strip and body cavity searches, suffered a miscarriage in the interim. The Defendant Deputies instead

19 of calling for medical assistance, allowed plaintiff MOHRBACHER to continue bleeding; treating
20 her in such a heartless manner as demonstrated by their refusal to provide her with menstrual pads but
21 forced her for many hours to bleed all over her clothing, while continually falsely accusing her of misusing drugs.
22 11. Also this past Fall, in keeping with Santa Rita’s routine of punishment and abuse for
23 pregnant prisoners as already recounted, a woman was placed into solitary confinement after she
24 complained of cramps and pain, Then, despite the mandate for half-hour checks on her condition, all 25 the deputies and medical personnel ignored her, throughout the night. The woman was experiencing
26 labor pains, and she began screaming; her screams went on for hours, and of course were agony for

27 the other women prisoners to hear echoing throughout the night; and no deputy, or CFMG person,

28 checked on her welfare before morning; by when this woman, known only as ‘Candace’ had

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 11 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 12 of 18

1 delivered her baby, alone. She reported that the umbilical cord was wound around the baby’ neck when it emerged, and that she had to poke her finger down its throat---acting on instinct---to get it
2 started breathing. Defendants have asserted that---where such a person, and, implicitly, such an event
3 apparently occurred---it was because Candace was medically examined and said to be experiencing
4 false labor---the Braxton-Hicks syndrome---but have failed to justify their wrongful seclusion of
5 Candace in solitary confinement, the failure to make regular checks on her welfare, actions to muffle
6 her screaming and patent refusal to summon medical aid.

7

12. In sum, from the accounts of these women, and more who continue to connect and add

8 their voices---and notwithstanding disclaimers by the County defendants, or CFMG defendants

9 hiding behind obscure provisions of a contract---it is clear there are gross deficiencies in the

10 accommodation of pregnant women prisoners at Santa Rita, which have caused and continue to cause

11 great injury to numerous women (e.g, the wrongful death of stillborn children), and deprivation of

fundamental rights in the form of widespread, indeed systemic Deliberate Indifference to Serious 12
Medical Needs these women obviously have, and gross denial of Due Process, especially for the 13
unborn, and will go on causing and risking such injuries, losses and deprivations if nothing is done.

14 B. Discrimination Against Women in General.

15

13. Furthermore, Defendants’ abuse and mistreatment of women prisoners is part and parcel

16 of the discrimination and unequal treatment meted out to women prisoners as compared to male

17 prisoners. Women prisoners are denied the educational classes and opportunities available to male

18 prisoners; denied the access to outdoor (fresh air) or yard time and yard space available to male

19 prisoners. Defendants impose greater repression and restrictions, including being prohibited from

20 talking during meals, so that one prisoner cannot offer extra unwanted food to another, or one cannot

21 ask for another’s unwanted food. Women prisoners cannot exchange information nor share support

regarding defendants’ programmatic abuse during the one period of time they are together. Women 22
prisoners have greater restrictions than male prisoners, including being told where to sit during meals. 23
Women prisoners are strip searched and subjected to body cavity searches for little or no good

24 reason---except to maintain domination---with greater frequency and regularity than male prisoners.

25

14. This abuse and mistreatment also directly involves violations of existing jail policies and

26 procedures, California statutes and California regulations. Despite repeated complaints and even

27 prior lawsuits, defendants and each of them failure and refusal to comply with policies and

28 procedures, California statutes and California regulations, even after notification of resulting injuries

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 12 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 13 of 18
1 and harms, indicates callous and wanton and deliberate disregard for the safety, health and well being of the women prisoners under their control, and clearly shows programmatic mistreatment and abuse
2 of women prisoners compared to men.
3
VI. CLASS CLAIM
4 1. Within the meaning of Rule 23, F.R.Civ. P., the Class of women prisoners, and
5 particularly the Subclass of pregnant prisoners, are both numerous and indeterminate, as women
6 come into and leave the Jail, so that joinder of all the claims already in view is clearly impracticable. 7 (R. 23(a)(1). In any given year, there are as many as 150 pregnant women in defendants’ custody for 8 some period of time. Joinder is inherently impractical because the number of unnamed, future class
9 members who will be pregnant while in defendants’ custody is unknown and unknowable, and, given
10 the transient nature of the plaintiff population and the temporal limitations of pregnancy, their
11 identities will vary. Proposed class members are highly unlikely to file individual suits on their own 12 behalf given the practical, legal, monetary, and fear-based barriers that impede their access to counsel 13 to challenge defendants’ abusive, coercive and punitive regime---not to mention defendants’ active
measures preventing proposed class members from communicating amongst themselves and with 14
legal counsel. 15
2. There are numerous common issues of both law and fact (R. 23(a)(2)), including but not 16 limited to the factual occurrence, vel non, of: i) defendants’ programmatic coercion for abortions, ii) 17 abuse and mistreatment of pregnant prisoners which threaten the viability of fetuses and often 18 terminate pregnancies, iii) prohibiting class members from communicating amongst themselves and
19 with legal counsel, iv) failure to develop statutorily required care plans, v) discrimination against
20 women in access to services, classes, ability to work, rights and privileges, and, vi) failure to comply
21 with state laws and regulations on meeting the needs of women’s reproductive and menstrual needs. 22 Legal questions, regarding, e.g, the applicability of the various state statutes mentioned above, the 23 Constitutional standards to be applied in assessing the plaintiffs’ claims, and the like, will plainly be
the same with respect to all individual class members. 24
3. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of members of the Plaintiff 25
Class, (R.23(a)(3)), and of members of the Subclass in particular, where all the pregnant women 26 prisoners, past, present and to come, complain in the same terms of the ill effects of defendants’ 27 nonfeasance and maltreatment, and failure to follow the law. The fact that different individuals 28 suffered or may suffer different degrees of injury---obviously only certain ones suffered miscarriage,
Page 13 of 18
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 14 of 18

1 for example---is not a bar to certification, particularly where, as here, the defendants have “acted or

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final 2
injunctive relief;” per Section (b)(2) of the Rule. The underlying injuries flowing from practice and 3
policy are common to all pregnant women at Santa Rita to some serious, health-threatening degree, as
4 we have shown and will show.

5

4. The named Plaintiffs will---and are able to---fairly and adequately protect the interests of

6 the Plaintiff Subclass, per Sub.(a)(4) of the Rule. The named Plaintiffs have no interest at odds in any

7 way with those of the Subclass, and each has affirmed to counsel her desire and willingness to pursue

8 the matter on behalf of the other women who will come into Santa Rita with child. The attorneys

9 representing the named plaintiffs are experienced civil rights practitioners, well able to prosecute and

10 carry on substantial federal constitutional litigation such as this, and with access to additional help

11 which is even now being assembled for the larger work. The Undersigned represent to the Court

their determination to see this matter through---both as to the urgent immediate pregnancy issues and 12
the County defendants’ broader gender/sex discrimination practices against women---and, btw, we 13
hereby respectfully request that we be designated by the Court as counsel for the Class of present and

14 future women prisoners at Santa Rita, and the Subclass of those among them who are pregnant.

15

5. From the pleadings, and particularly the many sworn affidavits submitted with plaintiffs’

16 pending renewed injunction motion, it is clear the defendants acted and now act and will act “on

17 grounds generally applicable to” the Subclass, in any case, thereby “making final injunctive relief

18 appropriate” to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under

19 R.23(b)(2), Certainly also it is patent that both factual and legal questions common to the Subclass

20 predominate here over individual concerns, so certification is also proper under Section (b)(3).

21

6. In sum, plaintiffs are entitled to have the Subclass of pregnant prisoners certified pro

tanto at the very least, or otherwise separately from the main class alleged herein, so that the 22

proceedings regarding emergency relief for all pregnant women who are in or may come into Santa 23
Rita can go forward without hindrance; and work on the claims of the Class as a Whole can abide

24 further attention from the parties and the Court in the near future.

25

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

26

ONE. The pattern and practice of nonfeasance and maltreatment of pregnant women prisoners

27 by Both Groups of defendants, as shown and to be shown herein reflects and includes violation of

28 those women plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process of Law---in the form of decent

Page 14 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 15 of 18

1 and humane treatment all prisoners are entitled to---to a degree here which forcibly shocks the conscience, well within the meaning of Sacramento v. Lewis2 and requires strong intervention by the
2 Court to end abuses and set things right for pregnant women sent to Jail in Alameda County. This
3 will require a preliminary and permanent Injunction under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S. Code §1983
4 et seq. An as yet undetermined number of Subclass plaintiffs---such as those who suffered
5 miscarriage or stillbirth---also are clearly entitled to Judgment at Law for compensatory damages for
6 those losses.

7

In addition, plaintiffs assert pro tanto, and particularly as it affects prisoner-plaintiffs who are

8 serving time in Santa Rita, convicted, as opposed to awaiting trial, that the described nonfeasance and

9 maltreatment violate the Eighth Amendment also; and, conversely,

10

The Subclass women who are pre-trial detainees also complain that the Seizure they are under,

11 in the circumstances shown---and certainly that of their unborn children---is unreasonable in violation

of the Fourth Amendment; and, 12
All plaintiffs complain their First Amendment rights were violated by the silence rule at meals, 13
for sure, and more specifically to the Subclass plaintiffs, by retaliation and punishment of them in
14 response to requests and entreaties for medical and other assistance.

15

16

TWO. The same pattern and practice, and the events and injuries and deprivations which have

17 arisen therefrom as described and to be shown, also violate Sections One, Seven, Thirteen and

18 Seventeen of the Constitution of the State of California, together with the state laws that have been

19 invoked hereinbefore---and particularly Penal Code §§3409, 3410-3426, 6030; 15 C.C.R. §3355.2---

20 and tortious and wrongful actions including that for the wrongful deaths of the stillborn or miscarried,

21 injuries engendered by the miscarriage to plaintiffs’ own person, constitutionally-protected right of
familial association, companionship, and society by plaintiffs with their respective child; these 22
transgressions obviously involve coercion, as such, since they occur in jail, at the hands of armed 23
guards, and they are thus actionable under the Bane Act, which provides for injunction and damages, 24 penalties, fees, etc, for violation of constitutional or statutory rights “by threat, intimidation or
25 coercion.” Cal Civil Code §52.1 et seq.

26

While the lawful authority for an injunction may be duplicative, or overlapping, as between

27 Civil Code §52.1 and U.S. Code §1983, there may well be actions at law that are separate, and the

28 2 523 U.S. 833 (1998)

Page 15 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 16 of 18

1 County of Alameda will be liable in respondeat for state law judgment(s). Both statutes provide clear authority for comprehensive relief in this case, and surely, they can be jointly relied on and invoked
2 by this Court.
3 NB: As of this writing (and filing), because of the haste in which this matter was initiated,
4 plaintiffs are only just now submitting their Notices of Claim, under Sec. 910 of the Government
5 Code, to the Sheriff’s Department, and we recognize that the inevitable denial of these claims by
6 defendants may take up to 45 days under the Code. Therefore we agree this Count Two is submitted
7 in advance, as it were---and in anticipation of denial of the claims---and can be in abeyance until the
8 inevitable happens or the time runs.

9

10

THREE. In terms of medical care of the Subclass plaintiffs in particular, as noted, plaintiffs

11 accuse the defendants from CFMG, and CFMG as their employer and director, and the County
defendants from deputies on duty in the housing units on up the chain to an undetermined level of 12
supervision and command in the Department, all acting much in concert with defendant CFMG folk 13
(and they with them…), of ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs’ under the rule of Estelle
14 v. Gamble 3 as applied to this mixed group in this jail setting, again by way of Sec. 1983. They

15 clearly, clearly know and are held to know that the law, the official regulations, and their own written

16 policies arising from the agreement they made in this Court three decades ago, require them to make

17 an initial examination of all pregnant prisoners, and formulate a treatment plan for each, and to seek

18 outside placements for them. They don’t bother with any of it. This flouts the statutes and the

19 Constitution, and does amount inter alia to completely illicit punishment under the Fourteenth and

20 we say also the Eighth Amendment

21

In addition there are claim under state law for tortious and wrongful actions including for the

wrongful deaths of the stillborn or miscarried children, injuries engendered by the miscarriages to 22
plaintiffs’ own person, constitutionally-protected right of familial association, companionship, and 23
society by plaintiffs with their respective child.
24

25

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to:

27

28 3 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Page 16 of 18

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 17 of 18

1

1. Certify the Class of women prisoners at Santa Rita under Rule 23, F.R. Civ P., and also

the Subclass of women prisoners who are pregnant, and permit the named plaintiffs and 2
their counsel to represent the Class and Subclass and to proceed accordingly. In the 3
alternative, hold certification of the broad class in abeyance pending further development of
4 the grounds for it, but recognize the Subclass for all purposes connected with its plea(s) for

5

equitable relief herein.

6

2. Make findings of fact reflecting the general and specific failings and inadequacies of both

7

groups of defendants’ approaches to and practice in the care of pregnant prisoners, the

8

pattern and practice of defendants’ non-feasance and maltreatment of pregnant prisoners,

9

and defendants’ violations of statutory, regulatory and constitutional requirements in

10

dealing with pregnant prisoners.

11

3. Initiate a serious effort, perhaps with a Rule to Show Cause, to bring about defendants’

early compliance with the community treatment program law, and/or any other feasible and 12
available means and steps to get and keep pregnant women out of the Santa Rita jail. 13
4. In the event a ready process for getting and keeping plaintiffs out of the jail is not readily

14 found, and to the extent and for the time any pregnant women are ordered held in the

15

Sheriff’s custody, enter a preliminary and permanent Injunction which will,

16

5. A. Prohibit defendants from:

17

a. coercion or pressure on pregnant prisoners to consent to a preterm termination of

18

their pregnancy;

19

b. placing pregnant prisoners in solitary confinement, and/or ordering them to submit

20

to multiple strip searches and body cavity searches without first utilizing less punitive

21

and intrusive means including urine tests and having objectively reasonable grounds

to suspect them of hiding contraband; 22
c. placing pregnant prisoners outdoors without adequate outerwear, and clothing; 23
d. holding pregnant prisoners outdoors against their will for any length of time, or

24

keeping the heat down in residential units, and the bright lights on all night;

25

e. punishing or threatening to punish women prisoners for exercising their right to free

26

speech during meals or during ‘pod time’;

27

f. touching or searching plaintiff’s food unless defendants’ hands are covered in clean,

28

and new sanitary gloves;

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 17 of 18

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 18 Filed 02/01/18 Page 18 of 18

1

g. coerce or pressure or attempt to persuade pregnant prisoners to agree to abortions;

And, 2
6. B. Affirmatively Order and direct defendants to: 3
a. Fully comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations, and develop a
4 legitimate individual care plan for each pregnant prisoner, and carry it out completely!

5

b. Fully comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations for a sufficient,

6

balanced, nutritious diet approved by a doctor;

7

c. Fully comply with state law on provision of appropriate and sufficient materials for

8

each woman prisoner “necessary for (1) personal hygiene with regard to her menstrual

9

cycle and reproductive system” (Penal Code §3409) during the entire duration of her

10

incarceration under the custody of defendants;

11

d. No less than the minimum outdoor exercise prescribed by state regulations;

e. Permit confidential legal contact visits between plaintiffs, class members and their 12
attorneys; 13
7. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction on behalf of the broad Class of

14 women prisoners which will counter and remedy the County defendants’ broader

15

unconstitutional practice(s) of discrimination against women in general, compared to

16

men, as complained of and to be shown further;

17

8. Award compensatory and punitive damages to individual plaintiffs against defendants in

18

amounts to be determined at trial;

19

9. 10. Award costs and fees for this action, including attorneys’ fees;

20

10. 11. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

21

LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG

22

/s/ Yolanda Huang_________________

23

YOLANDA HUANG

24

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

25

_/s/ Dennis Cunningham___________

26

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

27

28

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. First Amended Complaint

Page 18 of 18

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 24

1

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543

2 475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612 3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140

4 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410

5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910 115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110 7 Tel/Fax: 415-285-8091
denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 ALAMEDACOUNTYWOMEN PRISONERS

13

And Former Prisoners & Pregnant Prisoners, JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,

No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

14 DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA

ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND JAMIE 15 JOHNSTON, KELSEY ERWIN, DENISE

16

ROHRBACH, SHANI JONES, ANDRANIA YANCY, DAWN DEDRICK, JAMILA

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
and OTHER WRONGS

17 LONGMIRE, SANDRA GRIFFIN, NATALIE

GARRIDO, JAZMINE TATE, MONICA 18 NUNES, ANDANNA IBE, MARCAYSHA 19 ALEXANDER, DIAMOND COOPER, MARY
MAPA, ROSE PEREZ, MARTINA GOMEZ,

Jury Trial Demanded

20 TIKISHA UPSHAW, ANNETTE KOZLOWSKI

And JANE DOEs Nos. 1-- X 21 on behalf of themselves and others similarly

22 situated, as a Class, and Subclass,

23

Plaintiffs,

24

vs.

25 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M. KETELES,
26 TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, T. RUSSELL, D. 27 SKOLDQVIST, LT. HATTAWAY, SGT.
CALAGARI, DEPUTY DIVINE (#512), 28 DEPUTY DEBRA FARMANIAN, DEPUTY

Page 1 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 2 of 24

1

WEATHERBEE (#238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE, DEPUTY WINSTEAD, DEPUTY

2 CAINE, ALAMEDA COUNTY and John &

Jane DOEs, Nos. 1 - 50.

3

and,

4

The CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; its Employees and Sub-

5 Contractors, and Rick & Ruth ROEs Nos. 1-50,

and, 6 ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

7 LLC, a Delaware Corporation; its Employees and Sub-Contractors, and Rick and Ruth ROES

8 Nos. 51-100.

Defendants 9

10

Plaintiffs JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, and DOMINIQUE JACKSON, now

11 joined by others named within, on behalf of themselves and those they speak for and seek to

12 represent herein---along with those others now named and to be named individually as plaintiffs---for

13 themselves and others, pursuant to the Court’s discussion with Counsel at the status call on January 8,

14 2018, and as of right per R.15(a) F.R.Civ P, now submit this amended version (FAC) of their

15 previously filed Complaint, as follows:

16

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

17

1. This Second Amended Complaint is submitted in response to the Court’s recognition

that the case evolved, while the Motion demanding emergency intervention was pending, as 18
plaintiffs’ ongoing investigation of maltreatment endured by pregnant women in Santa Rita has 19
revealed a broadly degraded, oppressive regime in the jail, which violates the rights of all the women

20 held there in substantial, concrete, injurious ways; the harmfulness of which to pregnant women and

21 their babies is obviously then magnified, intolerably.

22

2. Pregnant Women Prisoners at Santa Rita are held in conditions, and (mis)treated by its

23 custody and medical staff, in ways which are wrongful, and oppressive, wholly unjustified by any

24 legitimate jail purpose—indeed counterproductive to all good faith custody practice—and harmful,

25 injurious and threatening to the women’s health and well-being and that of their unborn children, all
26 to a degree which violates their fundamental rights under the Constitutions of the United States, and
27 California, and also fails to satisfy statutory and regulatory standards and requirements, and indeed the jail’s own policies.
28 3. Sheriff’s Department practices and attitudes towards women prisoners and their needs

Page 2 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 3 of 24

1 and wants, regarding medical problems, feminine hygiene, sanitation (and rodent infestation), nutrition, the storage, preparation and service of food, laundry, clean-up, etc.—not to mention harsh
2 discipline and illicit punishment, stultified grievance practice, and all the other hot and cold
3 interpersonal aspects between the keepers and the kept, in the myriad processes of jail life—produce
4 a group living environment which is loud, mean, chaotic, remorseless, endlessly stressful and unsafe
5 in all ways. Pregnant prisoners suffer from a poor, meager and often unwholesome diet, which leaves
6 them—all of them—constantly hungry. There is a near-complete lack of regular exercise, and proper

7 rest, and, truly, basic respect for their singular medical and other needs. Except for being offered

8 abortion, sometimes quite urgently; and sometimes, randomly being taken to the hospital for check-

9 up, they basically get no help, no information, no counseling, no nothing.

10

4. That is to say that daily life in Santa Rita is toxic and dangerous to a pregnant woman

11 without a doubt; and even more so to her baby, that is elementary. Plaintiffs mean to assert fully the
material rights of each unborn child affected herein—including those where the life was lost under 12
defendants’ mindless tyrannies—and all other cases found lurking and festering in these dismal 13
circumstances. Incredibly—in the midst of such a hot, joined-battle stage in the case, we received a 14 report this week of March 26 that a woman prisoner gave birth during her current incarceration and
15 the baby was immediately taken from her and has not been returned. Several days later this new

16 mother has been denied any opportunity even to touch her new baby —let alone hold it, feed it,

17 comfort it and comfort and console herself in the warmth of the miracle of its whole birth. It is

18 beyond any expression of outrage that defendants would employ or associate with anyone with the

19 deep cruelty, sadism, and perversity of mind and soul that would be required to carry out such a
20 monstrous act, because the mother is a prisoner. That the pretense will be that “security” or some
21 other supposed rule required it only makes the story more sickening. 5. Even in the limited amount of investigation we have managed to accomplish since the
22 inception of the case, it is beyond clear, and patent, that the county jail environment is radically
23 unsuitable, deleterious, and gravely threatening and dangerous to expectant mothers; and that the
24 situation cannot be truly remedied without establishment of calm, appropriate, separate quarters for 25 their confinement. The obvious, fundamental rights, and above all the minimum physical and health
26 needs of the altogether blameless babies in wombs—given the inevitably harsh and unforgiving

27 nature of county jail life, as shown herein and to be shown; and, more crucially here, the relentless

28 antagonism and heartless nastiness so frequently shown to women prisoners by so many staff

Page 3 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 4 of 24

1 members, both deputies and so-called medical people—require no less. 6. While the effects are less severe, perhaps, and for sure innocent lives-to-be are not
2 directly affected, it is obvious that the conditions complained of herein are injuriously—and we say
3 unconstitutionally—visited upon all the women prisoners at Santa Rita as it is being operated today.
4 In the original Complaint, plaintiffs had included an assertion on behalf of all women Santa Rita
5 prisoners that they were all victims of wrongful discrimination vis-a-vis men prisoners there, with
6 respect to almost all aspects of Life in Jail: jobs, out-of-cell time, programs, family visits, the list goes

7 on. A class of all women prisoners was proposed for these claims, which we now seek to adjust, to

8 accommodate these emergent claims about the harmful conditions all women endure and the

9 remedies, legal and equitable, they may be entitled to, individually where appropriate, and as a class.

10 As to which we then alleged a Subclass of the pregnant ones.

11

7. However—and this may mean that a separate class is needed rather than a subclass—

plaintiffs mean specifically to include former prisoners who were pregnant, and were or may have 12
been maltreated as several of our initial plaintiffs were —with their various birth outcomes having 13
been affected by their time in Santa Rita in whatever demonstrable ways, if any—going back at least

14 three years; let’s say from January One, 2015, to now.

15

8. In contrast, the broad equitable relief—and, we believe, ongoing supervision by the

16 Court—which will be needed to stop and rectify the miserable, egregious flow of nonfeasance,

17 misfeasance and malfeasance, which denies basic rights on a wholesale basis, to a degree which

18 absolutely shocks the conscience, with which this jail is run. But it must be noted, as the Court saw,

19 that the case has expanded factually to include claims of all women, the Class, against the lousy

20 conditions the plight of pregnant women first brought to light.

21

9. So here we will adopt and re-allege the descriptions and stories and events recounted

by the many women who have come forward, and asked to be included, who we are also naming as 22
additional plaintiffs, whose sworn declarations recounting their experience and knowledge of events 23
and conditions in Santa Rita are already before the Court. These serve as a cumulating factual
24 predicate for the Injunction claims the actions and practices of the defendants gave rise and still give

25 rise to, as well as to possible damage actions by or for individual class or Subclass members, or either

26 en masse.

27

10. Of course, this Second Amended Complaint is made and submitted upon the Court’s

28 own determination that the previous vehicle wouldn’t do, and so it is doubly subject to scrutiny as

Page 4 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 5 of 24

1 here proposed, and the undersigned prays for approval of this Second Amended Complaint —with

looks forward to the further refinement and exploration of the issues, and rules, and needs... 2

**

**

**

**

3

11. Beyond the urgent issues involving pregnancy, the plaintiffs herein (in their final

4 grouping), on behalf of themselves and all women prisoners at Santa Rita—whose injuries and

5 deprivations at the hands of defendants do not involve pregnancy, but very often do involve nasty and

6 hostile refusals to acknowledge or respond to feminine hygienic needs—now also again complain as

7 a Class, as described and asserted within, of extensive, systematic discrimination against the women

8 prisoners at Santa Rita, compared to the men. Invidious treatment of women occurs in all aspects of

9 life in the jail: jobs, food, access to bathrooms, showers, hygiene, clean clothes, fresh air and out-of-
10 cell time, education classes and activities, counseling, phone calls, family visits, and more. These
11 women also seek injunctive relief, under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments per R.65 F.R.Civ P., and the Bane Act (Cal Civil Code §52.1)—requiring a total cessation of inhumane
12 and sexually and gender-biased unequal treatment and forms of treatment of women prisoners by
13 defendants, and providing effective, outside monitoring—on behalf of themselves and others
14 similarly situated, namely women prisoners currently held or to be held in the future at the 15 Santa Rita Jail, as a Class, per Rule 23, F.R.Civ. P. Plaintiffs likewise seek full compliance with 15
16 CCR Titles 11 and 12; full and appropriate compliance with California Penal Code §6030, full

17 implementation of California Penal Code §3409, and implementation of Penal Code §1170.06 and

18 California Health & Safety Code §11222, particularly for the benefit of pregnant women; all to

19 ensure the proper care and treatment of women prisoners.

20

12. This Second Amended Complaint thus adds additional named plaintiffs, listed below;

21 adds as defendants ARAMARK Correction Services, LLC (“Aramark”) and its involved personnel. 13. As before, plaintiffs have named several high-ranking members of the defendant
22 Sheriff’s Department individually, along with a number of John and Jane Does who are guards and
23 other staff members who have been involved in the various tyrannies against women prisoners
24 complained of herein—and whose number will now include various unknown and named contractors
25 and their other employees assigned to the Santa Rita account—all of whom will or would be subject

26 to the injunctional orders, directions and prohibitions sought herein, as co-defendants;

27

14. Also named are the Sheriff’s Department and the County itself, CFMG, Inc. also, in

28 respondeat with respect to the State Law claims herein; and also for their unconstitutional explicit

Page 5 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 6 of 24

1 and de facto polic(ies) of discrimination and systematic maltreatment—particularly of pregnant and menstruating women, within the rule of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 US
2 568 (1978).
3 15. Plaintiffs name ARAMARK Correctional Services, L.L.C.—and JOHN & JANE
4 ROEs Nos. 51-100, their involved cooperators and employees—as co-defendants; where, in truth,
5 they are third party defendants vis-a-vis the defendant Sheriff et al, who plaintiffs continue to charge
6 are fully responsible for all the food-related horrors and defaults that have befallen plaintiffs, and

7 who cannot be permitted to foist responsibility on this deep-pocket corporate behemoth, who the

8 Sheriff is in the Meals Ready to Eat business with resulting in the sadistic denial of adequate food,

9 service f stale, expired, old and spoilt food, food that has been contaminated by rodents and other
10 vermin, the requirement that pregnant women and women prisoners in general are deprived of decent,
11 fresh, nutritious and tasty food; resulting in pregnant women and women prisoners remaining hungry in order to encourage and require that the prisoners purchase commissary.
12
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
13 15. The Jurisdiction of this honorable Court derives from the provisions of the First,
14 Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, by way of the
15 Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 (as to certain plaintiffs), 1983 et seq. and 1988; 28 U.S.C.
16 §1331 (claims arising under the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address
17 deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the United
18 States Constitution), and, by pendent jurisdiction, Secs. 52.1, and 50, of the California Civil Code.

19

Intradistrict Assignment

20

16. The claims alleged herein arose in the County of Alameda, State of California.

21 Therefore, venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the United States District Court

22 for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division or Oakland Division.

23

III. PARTIES

24

Plaintiffs

25

17. In this Second Amended Complaint the following additional present and former Santa

Rita prisoners, pregnant and otherwise, are joining the original plaintiffs, some as members of the 26

pregnant Subclass and all as would-be representatives of the Class as a whole. ERIN ELLIS,

27 DOMINIQUE JACKSON, JAIME JOHNSTON are each pregnant prisoners currently in the custody

28 and control of the Alameda County Sheriff’s office. Each of them wishes to carry her pregnancy to

Page 6 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 7 of 24

1 term and have a healthy baby, and each of them wants and demands the necessary nutrition, medical and other support which that minimally requires. JACLYN MOHRBACHER and CHRISTINA
2 ZEPEDA are formerly pregnant prisoners who suffered a miscarriage due to the mistreatment
3 received at the hands of defendants, while under the custody and control of the Alameda County
4 Sheriff’s Office. ALEXIS WAH, KELSEY ERWIN, DENISE ROHRBACH, SHANI JONES,
5 DAWN DEDRICK, JAMILA LONGMIRE, NATALIE GARRIDO, JAZMINE TATE, MONICA
6 NUNES, are women who were formerly imprisoned at Santa Rita jail. MARCAYSHA

7 ALEXANDER, ANDANNA IBE, ANDRANIA YANCY, SANDRA GRIFFIN, DIAMOND

8 COOPER, MARY MAPA, ROSE PEREZ, MARTINA GOMEZ, TIKISHA UPSHAW, ANNETTE

9 KOZLOWSKI are currently incarcerated prisoners in Santa Rita Jail.

10

18. All plaintiffs whether formerly incarcerated or currently incarcerated, experienced and

11 endured the repeat, rampant, and continual and mistreatment including the unequal (as compared to
men) treatment, that women prisoners receive include insufficient classes and work opportunities, 12
lack of clean laundry; insufficient laundry; lack of sanitation, and unhygienic conditions; insufficient 13
and lack of feminine hygiene supplies; unhygienic, frequently rodent infested, insufficient and poor 14 quality food; denial of First Amendment rights by being denied the right to speak during meals upon
15 pain of punishment and being told where to sit; enduring the arbitrary infliction of punishment

16 depending on the mood or often whim of the sheriff’s deputy on duty; lack of adequate mental health

17 care; denial of regular outdoor recreation opportunity; and denial of POD time.

18

19. In addition, JAMILA LONGMIRE, experienced an egregious lack of medical care in

19 Santa Rita Jail when she fell off a bunk and fractured her back, was made to sleep on a mat on the

20 floor of her pod and was not given medical care for weeks after the fall.

21

20. ANDANNA IBE, currently incarcerated in Santa Rita, gave birth while incarcerated in

November 2017 at Highland Hospital, was unable to call any family or friends to be present during 22
labor, had to endure labor while being viewed by two deputies, including male deputies. 23
Immediately following the delivery of her child, was forced to be chained and shackled to her
24 hospital bed, spread-eagle with two male guards in her hospital room minutes after giving birth. Her

25 baby was taken away without being given the opportunity to even touch her baby. She was denied

26 the use of a breast pump. Her only contact with her baby has been one or two photos.

27

21. MARCAYSHA ALEXANDER is currently incarcerated at Santa Rita and is post

28 partem. She has been forced to her breast milk she pumps because the jail will not allow her breast

Page 7 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 8 of 24

1 milk to get to her baby outside, additionally she was served food containing mouse feces. Defendants
2 22. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a “public entity” within the
3 definition of Cal. Govt. Code § 811.2; Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN is the Sheriff of Alameda
4 County. As such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly
5 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and
6 practices that prevail at Alameda County jails, as described below. He has, therefore, wholly or in

7 part, directly and proximately caused, and will continue in the future to cause, the injuries and

8 violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Ahern is sued in his official capacity only.

9

23. Defendant BRETT M. KETELES is the Assistant Sheriff for Alameda County in

10 charge of the Detentions and Corrections Unit and defendant TOM MADIGAN is the commander in

11 charge of the Detentions and Corrections Unit which includes the two Alameda County jails, Glen
Dyer and Santa Rita, and was so in charge of Santa Rita Jail on December 26, 2016. Defendants 12
BRETT KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, and T. RUSSELL as employees of the Sheriff’s Office and as 13
the detention and corrections commander for the Sheriff’s Office, held command and policymaking 14 positions. They, along with Defendant Ahern, participated in the planning, supervision, and the
15 execution of the manner in which plaintiffs and class members are incarcerated in the Alameda

16 county jail facilities and ACSO’s conduct complained of herein. Defendants BRETT KETELES,

17 TOM MADIGAN, and T. RUSSELL caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or

18 knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies,

19 customs and practices that prevail at Alameda County jails, particularly as to the treatment of women

20 as described below.

21

24. Defendant D. SKOLDQVIST was and is the Watch Commander for Santa Rita Jail.

Defendants D. SKOLDQVIST, T. RUSSELL, LT. HATTAWAY and SGT. CALIGARI, were the 22
responsible officers for Santa Rita Jail. Defendants, D. SKOLDQVIST, T. RUSSELL, LT. 23
HATTAWAY, SGT. CALIGARI at all times relevant herein, are and were employees of the Sheriff
24 who held supervisory, command and/or policy-making positions, and who participated in the

25 authorization, planning, supervision, and the execution of the sheriff’s conduct complained of herein.

26

25. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants AHERN, KETELES,

27 MADIGAN and RUSSELL were officers and employees acting under the color of law, under color of

28 their official authority and in the scope of their employment as Command and Supervisory Personnel

Page 8 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 9 of 24

1 of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, upon information and belief, one or more of
these Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights, to 2
adequately train and supervise ACSO sheriff’s deputies and staff who were involved in violating the 3
rights of the plaintiffs and class members. All of the above individual defendants are sued in their
4 individual and official capacities.

5

26. At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants Deputies DIVINE,

6 DEBRA FARMANIAN, CAINE, TANIA POPE, DEPUTY ‘A’, and DEPUTY “S”, were officers

7 and employees were acting under the color of law, under color of authority and in the scope of their

8 employment with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and were the guards and deputies on duty at

9 Santa Rita Jail with direct control over plaintiffs and members of the class.

10

Medical services defendants

11

27. CFMG and its various employees and sub-contractors, are apparently retained by the

County to provide medical services to Santa Rita prisoners on behalf of the defendant Sheriff’s 12
Department; and the County defendants apparently believe, and assert, that, in making a contract with 13
CFMG for that purpose, the Department and its defendant minions shed and shifted and absolved

14 themselves of any responsibility or liability for timely and effective delivery of such services to

15 prisoners in their custody. Needless to say, plaintiffs disagree absolutely that the County defendants

16 are to any degree ‘off the hook,’ or insulated from legal responsibility for provision of proper care to

17 prisoners in their custody by virtue of such a third-party arrangement. Rather, the newly-added

18 medical personnel---unknown individuals named herein as RICK & RUTH ROEs Nos. 1-50---and

19 their employer are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs and the Subclass, with the County

20 defendants, for the failures and deficiencies in the care and attention provided to pregnant prisoners.

21

Food services defendants

28. Aramark Correction Services, LLC, has self-identified as the entity with whom the 22
primary defendant, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and the County of Alameda, contracts with to 23
provide MRE or meals ready to eat for the prisoners under the Sheriff’s custody and control as well
24 as a profit business center in preparing these MREs for sale and distribution to other jail and custodial

25 facilities. The County defendants apparently believe, and assert, that, in making a contract with

26 Aramark for that purpose, the Department and its defendant minions shed and shifted and absolved

27 themselves of any responsibility or liability for timely and effective delivery of such services to

28 prisoners in their custody. Needless to say, plaintiffs disagree absolutely that the County defendants

Page 9 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 10 of 24

1 are to any degree ‘off the hook,’ or insulated from legal responsibility for provision of proper nutrition to prisoners in their custody nor for the maintenance of sanitary and healthy food
2 preparation facilities by virtue of such a third-party arrangement. Rather, the newly-added MRE
3 preparation staff---unknown individuals named herein as RICK & RUTH ROEs Nos. 51-100---and
4 their employer are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs and the Subclass, with the County
5 defendants, for the failures and deficiencies in the food preparation and the actual nutrition and food
6 provided to pregnant prisoners and other prisoners.

7

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that each of said defendants

8 DOES 1 through 50, are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

9 and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and acted within the scope of that agency or
10 employment or under color of state law. The same is true with respect to the relations between
11 defendant CFMG and its practitioners and other employees assigned to the Santa Rita account, ROEs 1-50, and their involvement in the matters at issue herein; and Aramark and its staff and other
12 employees assigned to the Santa Rita account, ROEs 51-100 and their involvement in the matters at
13 issue herein; DOEs 1-50 and ROEs 1-100 are defendants who caused, and are responsible for, the
14 below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among other things, personally 15 participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring with or aiding and abetting others
16 who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to

17 the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing and

18 refusing with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights to initiate and maintain adequate training and

19 supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and officers under their

20 direction and control, including failing to take remedial or disciplinary action. Plaintiffs allege that

21 DOEs 1-50 and ROEs 1-100 proximately caused said incidents, injuries, violation of constitutional

and legal rights, and damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, 22
management or control, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or 23
breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control
24 or upon any other act or omission.

25

30. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein as

26 DOE 1-50 and ROE 1-100 and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will

27 amend this FAC further to supply true names and capacities when the same are ascertained and will

28

Page 10 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 11 of 24

1 seek leave to amend further facts involving them are ascertained. DOEs 1-50 are sued in their individual and official capacities.
2
IV. EMERGENCY RELIEF
3 31. As previously recounted, prisoner-plaintiffs ERIN ELLIS and DOMINIQUE
4 JACKSON remain in dire straits in the Santa Rita Jail, continuously, both being more than four
5 months pregnant and in substantial discomfort, with intermittent bleeding, and suffering health
6 complications. Plaintiff JACKSON has a pre-existing cardiac condition, is pregnant with twins, and
7 the physician who was treating her prior to her incarceration declared that her pregnancy is “high

8 risk.” Both women have been explicitly and pointedly denied and refused assistance or

9 accommodation for their condition by defendants, including but not limited to meaningful attention

10 from a doctor or other qualified practitioner, adequate and sufficient nutrition. Instead, they are

11 repeatedly advised they should agree to abortion, or defendants disregard these plaintiffs’ requests for

12 medical and nutritional assistance.

13

32. Instead, defendants have repeatedly demanded that plaintiffs agree to have an

abortion, accused plaintiffs of being drug addicts, and refused all other recognition and assistance for 14

each plaintiff’s delicate condition. Other pregnant women—including those who miscarried—have

15 similarly been scorned, branded and mistreated in the jail in recent times—under a regime marked by

16 a striking and most distasteful animosity towards women prisoners---and particularly those thought,

17 rightly or wrongly, to have addiction issues, and studied, often openly scornful, indifference to their

18 serious medical and hygienic needs.

19

33. These women now seek extraordinary relief from this Court on an emergency basis, in

20 circumstances where all the plaintiff-prisoners are acutely aware that three pregnant women have

21 recently miscarried in the jail or just after getting out, after being denied medical assistance; and a
22 third was left in labor, screaming all night, in a solitary confinement cell. Thus, all plaintiffs must 23 legitimately fear that they will be ignored and left to languish without help, even if beginning to
miscarry, unless this Court intervenes with Order(s) sufficient to guarantee protection of their health 24
and well-being, and that of her unborn child. 25
34. Plaintiffs therefore seek a comprehensive remedy, by decree involving big oversight, 26 discussed further below, which will ensure that they and all pregnant women prisoners who come
27 into defendants’ custody receive all needed accommodation—including decent, nourishing food,
28 warm clothing and blankets, proper rest, fresh air and exercise, etc, as well as timely medical

Page 11 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 12 of 24

1 attention and monitoring, doctor and hospital visits, and pre-natal counseling along with, where
needed, addiction services—from defendant Sheriff’s and CFMG staff members while they are in 2
custody. 3
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 35. The “mission statement” for the defendant Alameda County Sheriff’s Department
5 states that the Department will provide “Humane treatment to those in our custody, while
6 demonstrating: Ability to enforce the law fairly; Commitment to professionalism; Service to the
7 community with integrity and trust; and, Obligation to duty with honor and pride.” But the facts

8 show that women prisoners are not treated humanely, and the law is not fairly applied. Women

9 receive unfair and discriminatory treatment on a routine basis, including being short changed on

10 access to education and work, and;

11

36. Greater limitations than male prisoners to clean laundry, feminine hygiene products,

12 the ability to converse with others, and even the freedom to choose where to sit during meals.

13

37. The Santa Rita jail is one of two jails in Alameda County, located in the remote

eastern reaches, near Dublin. The other jail is in downtown Oakland. Women are held only at Santa 14

Rita. On information and belief, there are approximately 250 women held there at any given time, of

15 whom, on average, about ten are pregnant. Most of these women prisoners are pre-trial detainees

16 unable to afford bail, but quite a number are also serving time, mostly for probation violations. In the

17 course of a year, roughly 150 pregnant women will have been under the custody and control of the

18 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office at Santa Rita for some period of time.

19

38. The Sheriff’s Department has a contract with the California Forensic Medical Group,

20 CFMG, to provide necessary medical care and services to prisoners at Santa Rita, under which

21 CFMG apparently assigns various practitioners and other personnel who work at the jail, and others

22 who visit intermittently for various purposes. CFMG is said to set the procedures and protocols by

23 which prisoners receive (or don’t receive) medical attention and care, including the supervision and

management of the “infirmary” and the Undersigned have been advised that the Sheriff’s Department 24
regards CFMG as wholly and solely responsible for dealing with any and all medical problems that 25
Santa Rita prisoners may have, including pregnancies.

26

39. The Sheriff’s Department has a contract with the Aramark Correctional Services,

27 LLC, to produce over 15,000 meals a day, on the premises at Santa Rita Jail. These meals are used to

28 feed the prisoners, including plaintiffs and class members, incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail, as well as

Page 12 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 13 of 24

1 to provide a revenue stream through sales of MRE to other county jails in the area. On information
and belief, the Undersigned asserts on information and belief that the Sheriff’s Department and 2
Aramark are jointly responsible for the operation, management and maintenance of the food 3
production, inasmuch as the Sheriff provides the prison labor, at no cost, to staff and work in the food
4 preparation, and deputies provide security and oversight along side Aramark employees.

5

A. Maltreatment of Pregnant Women Prisoners

6

40. In point of fact, the practice of CFMG practitioners and other personnel in monitoring

7 and attending to the progress of pregnancies amount women at Santa Rita, and the level of concern or

8 engagement in the project of such care, is simply dismal.

9

41. Pursuant to 15 CCR §1210(b) the Sheriff is required to have each pregnant inmate

10 examined by an Obstetrical Physician or Obstetrical Nurse Practitioner, and to develop an

11 individualized “treatment plan.” To plaintiffs’ knowledge, no plan of care is or has been since
longtime developed for each pregnant prisoner, and the “care” provided ignores altogether the 12
harmful and detrimental consequences to mother and fetus of the unnecessarily and unjustifiably 13
punitive and stress-inducing regimens for women prisoners at Santa Rita. These include madly 14 frequent, all pervasive strip searches and body cavity searches, a profligate, also unjustified use of
15 solitary confinement, routine and regular disregard of pregnant women prisoners’ requests for

16 medical assistance, and the general practice of scorn and harassment of pregnant women prisoners by

17 both CFMG and Sheriff’s Department personnel.

18

42. None of the plaintiffs or anyone they know of have been given or told of any treatment

19 plan. Women who complain of not feeling well or ask to see a doctor are often harshly accused of

20 using illegal drugs---particularly by Defendant DIVINE, a Sheriff’s deputy---and often punished in

21 Solitary Confinement, or by baseless, wholly unjustified, unconstitutional strip searches or body

cavity searches, or by being put outside in the cold for hours on end without warm clothes or 22
blankets. When plaintiffs request that a urine test be administered to disprove the false accusations 23
levied against them by defendants, defendants refuse, and insist instead on the invasive, humiliating
24 and often injurious strip and body cavity searches.

25

43. Further, rather than provide and implement plans of care for plaintiffs as required by

26 Regulation, defendants have instituted a program of constant monitoring of pregnant women’s vital

27 signs, consisting of recording blood pressure and pulse at least three times a day. As part of this

28 “program,” some plaintiffs are awakened between midnight and 4:00 a.m., every night---

Page 13 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 14 of 24

1 notwithstanding pregnant woman’s well-known, vital need to get adequate rest---in order for vital signs to be taken and recorded.
2 44. Due to the lack of care plans and refusal to provide for the medical needs of the
3 women, women who have been abusing opioids are generally forced to enter immediately into
4 withdrawal without use of medical intervention. Defendant Sheriff and Jail’s conduct violate
5 California Health & Safety Code §11222. These women are not provided “medical aid as necessary
6 to ease any symptoms of withdrawal from the use of controlled substances” as required but placed

7 into the general housing unit and subjected to immediate withdrawal. Since pregnant women are

8 assigned the lower bunk, they, not infrequently share bunks with prisoners in the throes of opioid

9 withdrawal which can involve vomiting and loss of bowel and urinary tract control. Pregnant women

10 then are at the down-stream reception of these human wastes. There are no chairs in the Units. The

11 only place for pregnant women to sit or lie down is on their bunks. When these human wastes infest

their bunks, pregnant women have no place to go, and must weight for the convenience of sheriff’s 12
deputies to respond with cleaning supplies and fresh linens and blankets. Nonetheless, these 13
prisoners in withdrawal are not provided any assistance and withdrawal can be ongoing for hours, if

14 not days.

15

45. The Defendant Sheriff and Jail are unconcerned about the welfare and safety of their

16 prisoners, and think only in rigid, institutional frameworks of punishment, coercion and control.

17 Showers have no shower curtains, and water gets on the bathroom floor. The bathroom floor has no

18 drain and the floors are wet, slippery and dangerous. Prisoners, to remedy these problems, fashion

19 shower curtains out of plastic bags, and place towels on the floor. Defendant Sheriff in their frequent
20 raids and shakedowns of the housing units, have deemed these shower curtains illegal and routinely
21 rip these shower curtains off and take them away. As a result of these raids, there have been not infrequent slips and falls, including slips and falls of pregnant women, who have no means to access
22 the toilets except to traverse these wet, slippery floors.
23 46. Plaintiffs receive an extra ration of eight (8) ounces of milk, but otherwise get no
24 additional fresh fruits, vegetables or other good protein nutrition, and certainly no balanced diet. 25 Meat products served at the jail are widely regarded, including by plaintiff, as unfit for human
26 consumption. Pregnant prisoners are fed a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with perhaps a cookie or

27 an apple, and their extra cup of milk, for lunch and snack. Dinner is beans, boiled vegetables and

28 pasta, with some bread. In one striking element of the daily routine, coldly illustrating the essentially

Page 14 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 15 of 24

1 anti-human character of the Santa Rita regime, breakfast is served at 3:30 a.m. each day. Many
women and these and other pregnant women in particular don’t have the energy to get up and eat at 2
that hour or are unwilling to trade their rest for the crappy repast they know awaits them. In short, 3
the diet provided is grossly inadequate for the basic nutritional needs of a pregnant woman and her
4 developing child.

5

47. When the pregnant women report to the staff that they are hungry, the response is that

6 they should purchase food from the commissary. The commissary food is overpriced, high in

7 sodium, additives and preservatives, and low on nutritional value. Many of these women are from

8 low income families, and the Sheriff uses every transactional chain to pad his budget. Family

9 members must travel to Santa Rita and personally deposit cash into their loved ones’ commissary.

10 Use of the electronic deposits results in up to a 10% of higher surcharge. Many of these commissary

11 foods are dried and would normally be rehydrated with boiling or very hot water. Hot water is

available to the women only during POD time. And POD time is frequently denied based upon the 12
whims or the ill-humor of the sheriff’s deputies, sometimes for days. When denied POD time, the 13
only means of hydrating food is through the bathroom spigot, which warm produces warm water and

14 hydrates packaged food so that is neither tasty, nor palatable.

15

48. Many of these women are desperate for food, and yet still refuse to eat the food

16 provided by defendants. This is due to the obvious rampant rodent infestation in the kitchen, and

17 regular reports by the kitchen workers of unsanitary conditions. There have been reports of rodents

18 cooked into the beans. Prisoners have been served meals with live rodents in the food bag or on the

19 tray. Prisoners have received meals with rodent feces in the meals. Prisoners frequently receive
20 meals with clear indications that rodents have partaken of the food before its arrival. Prisoners report
21 sightings of rodents exiting food carts as food carts arrive at the housing units and exiting refrigerators holding trays of food in the Housing Unit.
22 49. As a result of defendant’s apparently programmatic, ingrained habits of maltreatment,
23 and vindictiveness, on the part of individual deputies---especially where women have or have had
24 addiction problems---pregnant women have suffered termination of pregnancy either through 25 miscarriage, or the fetus losing viability. Plaintiff CHRISTINA ZEPEDA, who was in custody from
26 August through November 2017, and as a result of defendants’ described maltreatment, began

27 bleeding so badly she was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, where she had a miscarriage. And

28 plaintiffs are informed and believe that another woman, Paramdeep Kaur who was pregnant and in

Page 15 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 16 of 24

1 custody at Santa Rita this past fall, also suffered a miscarriage. And Plaintiff JACLYN MOHRBACHER, who at the initiation of this action was pregnant, but due to the brutal treatment of
2 defendants, including denial of medical care, repeated abusive confinement in solitary, with repeated
3 strip and body cavity searches, suffered a miscarriage in the interim. The Defendant Deputies instead
4 of calling for medical assistance, allowed Plaintiff MOHRBACHER to continue bleeding; treating
5 her in such a heartless manner as demonstrated by their refusal to provide her with menstrual pads but
6 forced her for many hours to bleed all over her clothing, while continually falsely accusing her of

7 misusing drugs.

8

50. Also, this past July, in keeping with Santa Rita’s routine of punishment and abuse for

9 pregnant prisoners as already recounted, a woman was placed into solitary confinement after she
10 complained of cramps and pain, Then, despite the mandate for half-hour checks on her condition, all
11 the deputies and medical personnel ignored her, throughout the night. The woman was experiencing labor pains, and she began screaming; her screams went on for hours, and of course were agony for
12 the other women prisoners to hear echoing throughout the night; and no deputy, or CFMG person,
13 checked on her welfare before morning; by when this woman, known as Candace Steele had
14 delivered her baby, alone. She reported that the umbilical cord was wound around the baby’ neck 15 when it emerged, and that she had to poke her finger down its throat---acting on instinct---to get it
16 started breathing. Defendants have asserted that---where such a person, and, implicitly, such an event

17 apparently occurred---it was because Candace was medically examined and said to be experiencing

18 false labor---the Braxton-Hicks syndrome---but have failed to justify their wrongful seclusion of

19 Candace in solitary confinement, the failure to make regular checks on her welfare, actions to muffle

20 her screaming and patent refusal to summon medical aid.

21

51. This practice of solitary confinement, while labeled differently, results in the same

confinement, being placed in a small cell, with only a bed and toilet, isolated from others, and having 22
very limited human contact, often up to 23 hours a day of isolation. This is the same condition when 23
pregnant women are placed in the “infirmary”. The infirmary alleged is wholly subject to the control
24 and regulation of defendant CFMG. The conditions in the infirmary are often even harsher as

25 pregnant women are denied beds and forced to sleep on a thin pad on the floor, and the rooms are

26 kept dark so that the only light comes in from the glass in the doorway, so dark that it is not even

27 possible to read or pick out mouse fecal matter served in meal trays.

28

52. In sum, from the accounts of these women, and more who continue to connect and add

Page 16 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 17 of 24

1 their voices---and notwithstanding disclaimers by the County defendants, or CFMG defendants hiding behind obscure provisions of a contract---it is clear there are gross deficiencies in the
2 accommodation of pregnant women prisoners at Santa Rita, which have caused and continue to cause
3 great injury to numerous women (e.g., the wrongful death of stillborn children), and deprivation of
4 fundamental rights in the form of widespread, indeed systemic Deliberate Indifference to Serious
5 Medical Needs these women obviously have, and gross denial of Due Process, especially for the
6 unborn, and will go on causing and risking such injuries, losses and deprivations if nothing is done.

7

B. Discrimination Against Women in General

8

53. Furthermore, Defendants’ abuse and mistreatment of women prisoners is part and

9 parcel of the discrimination and unequal treatment meted out to women prisoners as compared to
10 male prisoners. Women prisoners are denied the educational classes and opportunities available to
11 male prisoners; denied the access to outdoor (fresh air) or yard time and yard space available to male prisoners. Defendants impose greater repression and restrictions, including being prohibited from
12 talking during meals, so that one prisoner cannot offer extra unwanted food to another, or one cannot
13 ask for another’s unwanted food. Women prisoners cannot exchange information nor share support
14 regarding defendants’ programmatic abuse during the one period of time they are together. Women 15 prisoners have greater restrictions than male prisoners, including being told where to sit during meals.
16 Women prisoners are strip searched and subjected to body cavity searches for little or no good

17 reason---except to maintain domination---with greater frequency and regularity than male prisoners.

18

54. Grievance Procedures. In order to commence grievance procedures, prisoners are

19 required to request a grievance form from a Sheriff’s deputy. The Sheriff’s deputy, per defendant

20 Sheriff’s policy 16.03 “shall” provide the prisoner with a grievance form. However, these deputies

21 frequently fail or refuse to provide the grievance forms, either informing the women prisoner that she should not grieve the issue, that the issue is not grievable, or to simply grossly delay and then fail to
22 provide the forms requested. While the procedure prescribes that the prisoner is provided a pink
23 carbon of the completed form with a grievance number, at times the pink carbon is not provided to
24 the prisoner. And while the Jail’s “Grievance Unit” is required to store all grievances filed and
25 address the grievances, clearly that is not the case.

26

55. This abuse and mistreatment also directly involves violations of existing jail policies

27 and procedures, California statutes and California regulations. Despite repeated complaints and even

28 prior lawsuits, defendants and each of them failure and refusal to comply with policies and

Page 17 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 18 of 24

1 procedures, California statutes and California regulations, even after notification of resulting injuries

and harms, indicates callous and wanton and deliberate disregard for the safety, health and well being 2

of the women prisoners under their control, and clearly shows programmatic mistreatment and abuse

3 of women prisoners compared to men.

4

VI. CLASS CLAIM

5 56. Within the meaning of Rule 23, F.R.Civ. P., the Class of women prisoners, and

6 particularly the Subclass of pregnant prisoners, are both numerous and indeterminate, as women

7 come into and leave the Jail, so that joinder of all the claims already in view is clearly impracticable.

8 (R. 23(a)(1). In any given year, there are as many as 150 pregnant women in defendants’ custody for

9 some period of time. Joinder is inherently impractical because the number of unnamed, future class

10 members who will be pregnant while in defendants’ custody is unknown and unknowable, and, given

11 the transient nature of the plaintiff population and the temporal limitations of pregnancy, their

12 identities will vary. Proposed class members are highly unlikely to file individual suits on their own

13 behalf given the practical, legal, monetary, and fear-based barriers that impede their access to counsel
to challenge defendants’ abusive, coercive and punitive regime---not to mention defendants’ active 14
measures preventing proposed class members from communicating amongst themselves and with 15
legal counsel.

16

57. There are numerous common issues of both law and fact (R. 23(a)(2)), including but

17 not limited to the factual occurrence, vel non, of: i) defendants’ programmatic coercion for abortions,

18 ii) abuse and mistreatment of pregnant prisoners which threaten the viability of fetuses and often

19 terminate pregnancies, iii) prohibiting class members from communicating amongst themselves and

20 with legal counsel, iv) failure to develop statutorily required care plans, v) discrimination against

21 women in access to services, classes, ability to work, rights and privileges, and, vi) failure to comply
22 with state laws and regulations on meeting the needs of women’s reproductive and menstrual needs. 23 Legal questions, regarding, e.g, the applicability of the various state statutes mentioned above, the
Constitutional standards to be applied in assessing the plaintiffs’ claims, and the like, will plainly be 24
the same with respect to all individual class members. 25
58. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of members of the Plaintiff 26 Class, (R.23(a)(3)), and of members of the Subclass in particular, where all the pregnant women
27 prisoners, past, present and to come, complain in the same terms of the ill effects of defendants’
28 nonfeasance and maltreatment, and failure to follow the law. The fact that different individuals

Page 18 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 19 of 24

1 suffered or may suffer different degrees of injury---obviously only certain ones suffered miscarriage,
for example---is not a bar to certification, particularly where, as here, the defendants have “acted or 2
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final 3
injunctive relief;” per Section (b)(2) of the Rule. The underlying injuries flowing from practice and
4 policy are common to all pregnant women at Santa Rita to some serious, health-threatening degree, as

5 we have shown and will show.

6

59. The named plaintiffs will---and are able to---fairly and adequately protect the interests

7 of the Plaintiff Subclass, per Sub.(a)(4) of the Rule. The named plaintiffs have no interest at odds in

8 any way with those of the Subclass, and each has affirmed to counsel her desire and willingness to

9 pursue the matter on behalf of the other women who will come into Santa Rita with child. The
10 attorneys representing the named plaintiffs are experienced civil rights practitioners, well able to
11 prosecute and carry on substantial federal constitutional litigation such as this, and with access to additional help which is even now being assembled for the larger work. The Undersigned represent
12 to the Court their determination to see this matter through---both as to the urgent immediate
13 pregnancy issues and the County defendants’ broader gender/sex discrimination practices against
14 women---and, by the way, we hereby respectfully request that we be designated by the Court as 15 counsel for the Class of present and future women prisoners at Santa Rita, and the Subclass of those
16 among them who are pregnant.

17

60. From the pleadings, and particularly the many sworn affidavits submitted with

18 plaintiffs’ pending renewed injunction motion, it is clear the defendants acted and now act and will

19 act “on grounds generally applicable to” the Subclass, in any case, thereby “making final injunctive
20 relief appropriate” to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified
21 under R.23(b)(2). Certainly, also it is patent that both factual and legal questions common to the Subclass predominate here over individual concerns, so certification is also proper under Section
22 (b)(3).
23 61. In sum, plaintiffs are entitled to have the Subclass of pregnant prisoners certified pro
24 tanto at the very least, or otherwise separately from the main class alleged herein, so that the 25 proceedings regarding emergency relief for all pregnant women who are in or may come into Santa
26 Rita can go forward without hindrance; and work on the claims of the Class as a Whole can abide

27 further attention from the parties and the Court in the near future.

28 //

Page 19 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 20 of 24

1

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

2

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

4 62. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 of this
5 Complaint. These facts constitute violations of plaintiffs and class members rights to substantive due
6 process guaranteed pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States

7 Constitution.

8

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

Unreasonable Denial of Necessary Medical Care to Pre-Trial Detainees

Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

10

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

11 63. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 of this
12 Complaint. These facts constitute unreasonable denial of necessary medical care to pretrial detainees,
13 including pregnant prisoners in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

14 States Constitution.

15

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Deliberate Indifference

Violations of the 8th and 14th Amendments 17

18

64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 of this

19 Complaint. These facts constitute deliberate indifference to the serious medical care need of State

and local Prisoners in violation of the Eighth and Fourteen Amendments of the United States 20

Constitution. 21 22

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Discriminatory Treatment of Pregnant Women

23

Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

24

65. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 64 of this

25 Complaint. These facts constitute discriminatory treatment of pregnant women in violation of the

26 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

27

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28

Discriminatory Treatment of Women in Jails

Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Page 20 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 21 of 24

1

66. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 of this

2 Complaint. These facts constitute discriminatory treatment of pregnant women in violation of the

3 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

4

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

6

7

67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this

8 Complaint. These facts constitute cruel and unusual punishment of pretrial detainees and prisoners in
violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 9
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10
Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments

11

68. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this

12 Complaint. These facts constitute interference, suppression and denial of Plaintiffs and class

13 members rights to free speech, including the right to protest conditions, protected under the First and

14 Fourteenth Amendments.

15

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Bane Act

(Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820(a))

17 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 68

18 of this Claim.

19

70. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted

20 interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs’ peaceable exercise and

21 enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of

22 California, in violation of California Civil Code §52.1. Defendants County of Alameda, Alameda

23 County Sheriff’s Office, Gregory Ahern,, Does 1-50, acting under color of state law and as policy-
24 making authorities, maintained policies, customs, or practices permitting or deliberately indifferent 25 to, or failed to maintain policies, customs, or practices when it was obvious that they were needed to
prevent the violations of plaintiffs and class members First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteen 26
Amendment rights protected by he U.S. Constitution and art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution. 27
71. Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 28 OFFICE are indirectly and vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior, for

Page 21 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 22 of 24

1 injuries proximately caused by acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment.
2 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
3 OFFICE, GREGORY J. AHERN, BRETT M. KETELES, TOM MADIGAN, T. POPE, T.
4 RUSSELL, D. SKOLDQVIST, LT. HATTAWAY, SGT. CALAGARI, DEPUTY DIVINE (#512),
5 DEPUTY DEBRA FARMANIAN, DEPUTY WEATHERBEE (#238), DEPUTY TANIA POPE,
6 DEPUTY WINSTEAD, DEPUTY CAINE, ALAMEDA COUNTY and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1

7 – 50 actions and inactions, Plaintiffs suffered injuries entitling them to receive compensatory

8 damages against said defendants.

9

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10

Negligence

11

73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of this

Complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim. 12

74. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiffs and class members to ensure that 13
defendants did not cause unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiffs, and a duty of care to hire,

14 train, supervise and discipline Jail employees so as to not cause harm to plaintiff and class members

15 and to prevent violations of their constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

16

75. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care

17 defendants owed to plaintiffs and class members

18

19

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to:

21

1. Certify the Class of women prisoners at Santa Rita under Rule 23, F.R. Civ P., and also

22

the Subclass of women prisoners who are pregnant, and permit the named plaintiffs and

23

their counsel to represent the Class and Subclass and to proceed accordingly. In the

alternative, hold certification of the broad class in abeyance pending further development of 24
the grounds for it, but recognize the Subclass for all purposes connected with its plea(s) for 25
equitable relief herein.

26

2. Make findings of fact reflecting the general and specific failings and inadequacies of both

27

groups of defendants’ approaches to and practice in the care of pregnant prisoners, the

28

pattern and practice of defendants’ non-feasance and maltreatment of pregnant prisoners,

Page 22 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 23 of 24

1

and defendants’ violations of statutory, regulatory and constitutional requirements in

dealing with pregnant prisoners. 2
3. Initiate a serious effort, perhaps with a Rule to Show Cause, to bring about defendants’ 3
early compliance with the community treatment program law Penal Code §1170., and/or

4

any other feasible and available means and steps to get and keep pregnant women out of the

5

Santa Rita jail.

6

4. In the event a ready process for getting and keeping plaintiffs out of the jail is not readily

7

found, and to the extent and for the time any pregnant women are ordered held in the

8

Sheriff’s custody, enter a preliminary and permanent Injunction which will,

9

A. Prohibit defendants from:

10

a. coercion or pressure on pregnant prisoners to consent to a preterm termination of

11

their pregnancy;

b. placing pregnant prisoners in solitary confinement, and/or ordering them to submit 12
to multiple strip searches and body cavity searches without first utilizing less punitive 13
and intrusive means including urine tests and having objectively reasonable grounds

14

to suspect them of hiding contraband;

15

c. placing pregnant prisoners outdoors without adequate outerwear, and clothing;

16

d. holding pregnant prisoners outdoors against their will for any length of time, or

17

keeping the heat down in residential units, and the bright lights on all night;

18

e. punishing or threatening to punish women prisoners for exercising their right to free

19

speech during meals or during ‘pod time’;

20

f. touching or searching plaintiff’s food unless defendants’ hands are covered in clean,

21

and new sanitary gloves;

g. coerce or pressure or attempt to persuade pregnant prisoners to agree to abortions; 22

h. intervening or interfering with attorney client communications

23 And,

24

B. Affirmatively Order and direct defendants to:

25

a. Fully comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations, and develop a

26

legitimate individual treatment plan for each pregnant prisoner, and carry it out

27

completely!

28

b. Fully comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations for a sufficient,

Page 23 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 72 Filed 04/12/18 Page 24 of 24

1

balanced, nutritious diet approved by a doctor;

c. Fully comply with state law on provision of appropriate and sufficient materials for 2
each woman prisoner “necessary for (1) personal hygiene with regard to her menstrual 3
cycle and reproductive system” (Penal Code §3409) during the entire duration of her

4

incarceration under the custody of defendants;

5

d. No less than the minimum outdoor exercise prescribed by state regulations;

6

e. Permit confidential legal contact visits between plaintiffs, class members and their

7

attorneys;

8

5. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction on behalf of the broad Class of women

9

prisoners which will counter and remedy the County defendants’ broader

10

unconstitutional practice(s) of discrimination against women in general, compared to

11

men, as complained of and to be shown further;

6. Award compensatory and punitive damages to individual plaintiffs against defendants in 12
amounts to be determined at trial; 13
7. Award costs and fees for this action, including attorneys’ fees;

14

8. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

15

16

LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG

17

_____/s/ Yolanda Huang_______

18

YOLANDA HUANG

19

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

20

____/s/ Dennis Cunningham_____

21

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 24 of 24

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 8

1

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543

2 475 14th Street, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140

4 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410

5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910 115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110 7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

13

14

15 16

JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS, DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY ERWIN, on behalf

No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD

of themselves and others similarly situated, 17
Plaintiffs,
18 vs.

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND FOR
CONSOLIDATION WITH UPSHAW et al. vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY

19

3:18-cv-07814-JD

20 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et

21 al.,

Defendants.

22 TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART and

ANDREA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of 23 themselves and others similarly situated,

Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JD

24

25

Plaintiffs,

26 vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY
27 SHERIFF’S OFFICE; et al., Defendants.
28 TO THE COURT, ALL DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

1
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 8

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Pursuant to the Court’s invitation on 2/28/19, plaintiffs by counsel —hereby propose to 2
end the mediation process, after a year with no results, and come back in front of the Court. Then, 3
with its leave, we would ask the Court to consolidate the UPSHAW et al. vs. ALAMEDA
4 COUNTY, et al. 3:18-cv-07814-JD (herein after the “Sleep case”) with the main case

5 MOHRBACHER, ET AL. V. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al. 3:18-cv-00050-JD,

6 (hereinafter the “Main case”), and give us 20-30 days to submit an amended, omnibus complaint,

7 charging systemic, endemic, categorically unconstitutional maltreatment of women at Santa Rita

8 Jail—especially including pregnant women, and in violation of rights of those unborn—

9 encompassing all the particulars of apparent ongoing constitutional wrongdoing, under both 8th

10 and 14th Amendments, including other emergent claims, which we have detected in a year of
11 detailed communications with women in and out of Santa Rita.1
We will be seeking intervention by the Court in the form of specific directions for reform, 12
and change, prohibitions on various wrong actions, and setting standards, all based on findings 13
across a broad front of particular claims. 14
A working but unrefined outline of these Claims or categories of claims, could be as

15 follows:

16

1. Constantly Bad, Insufficient, non-nourishing Food (especially for pregnant women);

17 after earnest promises; for example live, wriggling maggots in the beans, one night about two

18 weeks ago, on five trays randomly chosen by the deputy.2

19

2. Bad Medical Care; poorly trained, incompetent, careless, indifferent personnel, and

20 defective equipment; poor and dangerously inaccurate record-keeping and medicine scans;
21 wretched mistreatment of women in drug withdrawal; and more; the onerous $3.00 fee to submit, simply submit, a request to see a medical person remains, despite defendants’ promise way last
22 Spring, and menstrual pads are still in constant short supply, etc;
23

24 1 This has been mainly accomplished and recorded by our invaluable Investigator, Carey

25 Lamprecht, a certified paralegal, who is a true and accurate repository and source of good

information about daily life and events in the Women’s section of Santa Rita Jail from early Spring, 26 2018 to now. Such investigation necessitated by the lack and failure of defendants to provide

27

accurate data and information about the workings of the jail. 2 This shocking episode is recounted for its shock value, without a doubt; because it illustrates the

28 degree of abandon, and, objectively, wantonness, as it were, with which the women are treated in this

jail.

2
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 3 of 8

1

3. A Corrupted, disrupted grievance process, wherein forms are withheld or disappeared

by hostile deputies after submission, and complaints which do make it through are invariably 2
whitewashed, and offending deputies never held accountable; 3
4. A Corrupted disciplinary process; frequent illicit group punishments, etc, and no clear
4 written rules, but mostly made-up on the spot, ongoing denial of (useless) handbooks, random

5 summary punishment by unreasonable and humiliating strip and ‘squat and cough’ searches, and

6 undue denial of yard, classes and mail; more;

7

5. Maladministration in so many ways: prolonged, unjustified, punitive confinement to cells;

8 the limited “POD” (out–of–cell) time then often scheduled at 6:00 am, then cut off early; access to
9 phones limited to these early hour POD times when lawyers, etc. cannot be reached, 3 a.m. pill call
10 and much-too-early wake-up times (as we saw); reclassification as punishment; great over-use of 11 shackling; a gross ITR room where women must wait hours for “processing” when returning from
Court, and pregnant ones get no priority, etc, etc, etc. Women required to maintain cell cleanliness 12
but provided only Cleaning times and supplies have not improved, etc, etc. These defendants are 13
deep dug in; 14
6. Failure to properly screen, train, supervise and discipline line officers to counter and block 15 abusive tendencies; indulgence of misconduct, and ‘mean deputies’ whose tyrannies—in what has
16 been called an “operational disconnect”, whereby the commanders have no ‘situational awareness’ of
17 how officers on the line behaving---and other warning signs are ignored. The mean deputies are at

18 the heart of the problem here, along with obtuse, prejudiced administrative policy & practice.

19 Examples are replete including the regular discard of the few, but important personal possession these

20 women have, including family photos, cards from children, and in one instance, a woman’s ring, the

21 last memento from her deceased father;

7. Unspoken Policy of constant, deliberate, unjustifiably punitive and abusive infliction of 22

fear, guilt, shaming, discomfort, neglect, misery and suffering, all unjustified, and gratuitous and 23
laced with malice, by officers in charge of daily life; and,

24

8. An ongoing factual dispute wherein defendants deny these wrongdoings, particularly

25 claims that guards are mean and nasty with repeated assertions that the guards have families and love

26 their children, to which plaintiffs respond with the research and findings of Phillip Zimbardo, author

27

28

3
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 4 of 8

1 and master of the Stanford Prison Experiment who documented that “[t]here were no bad apples in the barrel, it was the barrel itself that created evil.” 3
2
Further, we ask the Court: 3
1. To make specific orders for Defendants to halt the night time sleep disruption at Santa

4 Rita Jail;

5

We will be asking the Court:

6

2. To consider making specific orders, after hearings, on acute specific problems (such as

7

spoiled food, inadequate nutrition for pregnant women); or in the alternative,

8

3. To consider initiating specific inquiries with an eye to developing both a record of

9

things that have happened, and evidence of the violations alleged, and disposition of

10

specific issues; and,

11

4. Class Certification - to make short work of the decision to certify the class of these

women, booked into SRJ (and out, for some relevant period after), and a subclass of 12
those who are pregnant—where we will also be asserting a second sub-class, of 13
addicted women, who go into withdrawal in custody, and are all too often treated

14 punitively and inadequately, and with callous and deliberate indifference, if not

15

outright cruelty under an 8th Amendment standard.

16

5. To make specific provisions for ample, effective access to the Women for counsel—

17

well beyond the current apparently baseless restrictions on access which defendants

18

enforce 4, let alone the types of harassment, resistance, and delay we meet so often—to

19

and including prohibiting counsels from meeting with more than one prisoner at a

20

time. The bar on group meetings denies opportunities for the women to discuss,

21

understand and reach agreement(s) about the case, and for development of live,

current evidence of the ongoing tyrannies plaintiffs suffer under as complained of 22
herein. 23
6. 24

25

26 3 Zimbardo, Philip G. Open Forum, 05/17/2004, Attached as Exhibit A.
27 4 Each housing unit in Santa Rita Jail has only one (1) attorney interview room. which quickly fill up. 28 Further SRJ limits attorney visits to 56 hours permitted out of 168 hours in a week, and of those 56
hours, only 28 fall within tradition work times.

4
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 5 of 8

1

In Conclusion, we believe there is good law on the issues and facts at hand. We look forward

to digging in on all these issues. 2
Dated: March 14, 2019 3

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG

4 By:__/s/ Yolanda Huang____________________

5

YOLANDA HUANG

6

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

7 By:__/s/ Dennis Cunningham___
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 6 of 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

EXHIBIT A

24

25

26

27

28

6
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE MEDIATION AND CONSOLIDATE CASES Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ,United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 JD

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 7 of 8

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 133 Filed 03/14/19 Page 8 of 8

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 164 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned to case
18-cv-00050-JD Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office
I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case determination.

Case

Title

Related Not Related

19-cv-07423-JSC Gonzalez v. Ahern

X

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re- noticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned judge.

1

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 164 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLERK’S NOTICE

The court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related and no reassignments shall occur.

Dated: May 15, 2020

By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

2