Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 1 of 14
ADRMOP,PROTO,REFSET−LB,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−07814−JD

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County et al Assigned to: Judge James Donato Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Settlement) Demand: $100,000 Relate Case Case: 3:18−cv−00050−JD Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 8th Amendment
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/31/2018 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Tikisha Upshaw

represented by 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 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tyreka Stewart on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

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

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

Plaintiff
Andrea Hernandez on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

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

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

V. Defendant Alameda County

represented by Gregory B. Thomas Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP 1901 Harrison Street Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612−3501 510−273−8780

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 2 of 14

Defendant Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern
Defendant D. Houghtelling Assistant Sheriff
Defendant Commander Tom Madigan

Fax: 510−839−9104 Email: gthomas@bwslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Augusto Slater Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612−3501 510−273−8780 Fax: 510−839−9104 Email: mslater@bwslaw.com 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Temitayo O. Peters (See above for address)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 3 of 14

Defendant Captain D. Hesselein
Defendant Captain Tara Russell
Defendant Captain D. Skoldkvist TERMINATED: 08/19/2019
Defendant Deputy Watson
Defendant Deputy Stinson

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

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 4 of 14

Defendant Deputy Sensiba
Defendant Deputy Henderson
Defendant Deputy Guerra
Defendant Deputy Crandall

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) 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
Michael Augusto Slater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 5 of 14

Defendant Deputy Chandra
Defendant Deputy Burbank
Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Office
Interested Party Wellpath, Inc.

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

Date Filed 12/31/2018

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for Violation of Civil and Constitutional Rights; Demand for Jury Trial against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 6 of 14

12/31/2018 12/31/2018 12/31/2018
01/02/2019 01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/04/2019 01/04/2019
01/07/2019 01/09/2019 01/09/2019 01/23/2019

0971−12962599.). Filed by Tikisha Upshaw, Tyreka Stewart. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Propose) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/31/2018) Modified on 1/3/2019 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2018)
2 Application for Refund, Receipt Number 0971−12962599 for Duplicate Charge by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/31/2018) Modified on 1/3/2019 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2018)
3 MOTION to Relate Case to Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office, 13:18−cv−50−JD filed by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/31/2018) Modified on 1/3/2019 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/31/2018)
4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
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. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 1/14/2019. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
5 Proposed Summons. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 4/5/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/12/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
7 Summons Issued as to Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
8 Refund Status re 2 Application for Refund DECLINED. (rghS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
9 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Notice of Related Case served on ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY SARTIN, DEPUTY KRANTAVILLE, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA on January 4, 2019, filed by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/4/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
10 Application for Refund re 1 Complaint,, Receipt Number 26EEC8Q7 Duplicate Charge for Filing Fee by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/7/2019) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
11 Refund Status re 10 Application for Refund APPROVED. (rghS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2019) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
12 ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/9/19. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2019) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
13 Case reassigned to Judge James Donato. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero 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 (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2019) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 7 of 14

01/29/2019 01/29/2019 01/30/2019 01/30/2019
01/31/2019
02/04/2019 02/04/2019 02/06/2019

14 First Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Alameda County Sheriff's Office from Depriving and Disturbing Women Prisoner's Sleep filed by Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points & Authorities, # 2 Declaration Dr. Jesse Ghannam, # 3 Declaration Dr. Zeitzer, # 4 Declaration Tikisha Upshaw, # 5 Declaration Tyreka Stewart, # 6 Declaration Crystal Emond, # 7 Declaration Sindel Botelho, # 8 Declaration J. Tony Serra, # 9 Declaration Y. Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
15 Declaration in Support of 14 First Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Alameda County Sheriff's Office from Depriving and Disturbing Women Prisoner's Sleep Format Corrected− J. Zeitzer Declaration filed byAndrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart. (Related document(s) 14 ) (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
16 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Application for TRO, Memorandum of P&A and all Supporting Declarations served on defendant Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Gregory Thomas on 01.29−30.2019, filed by Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Courtesy Copy to Defendants' Counsel)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
17 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDAS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING TIME TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO PLANITIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 15 Declaration in Support, 16 Affidavit of Service, 14 First Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Alameda County Sheriff's Office from Depriving and Disturbing Women Prisoner's Sleep filed by Alameda County. Responses due by 2/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF GREGORY B. THOMAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDAS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING TIME TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO PLANITIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
18 Order re 14 Ex Parte Application entered by Judge James Donato. The Court declines to consider an ex parte TRO in the circumstances of this case. Ex parte TRO applications are disfavored, particularly when, as here, notice can be readily provided to a known opposing party, and the requested relief appears to go beyond preserving the status quo. Granny Goose Foods, Inc., v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438−39 (1974); Reno Air Racing Assn, Inc., v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties are directed to agree on a briefing and hearing schedule, and are urged to consider going directly to a preliminary injunction motion rather than a short−term TRO and then an injunction motion. The proposed schedule should be filed by February 5, 2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. Motion Hearing set for 2/21/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 2/13/2019. Replies due by 2/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration Dr. Jesse Ghannam, # 3 Declaration Dr. J. Zeitzer, # 4 Declaration Tikisha Upshaw, # 5 Declaration Tyreka Stewart, # 6 Declaration Sindel Botelho, # 7 Declaration Crystal Emond, # 8 Declaration J. Tony Serra)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Briefing and Hearing Schedule filed by Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
21 ORDER. Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion is February 13, 2019, and plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply is February 18, 2019. The preliminary injunction hearing is set for February 28, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge James Donato on 2/6/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2019) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 8 of 14

02/06/2019 02/13/2019 02/13/2019
02/13/2019
02/15/2019 02/18/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2019) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S OPPOSITION TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Alameda County. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/13/2019) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
23 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION GRANTING CO. OF ALAMEDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH OPP.TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNTION re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S OPPOSITION TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Alameda County. Responses due by 2/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF GREGORY B. THOMAS ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 2 Proposed Order GRANTING CO. OF ALAMEDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service OF CD CONTAINING UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/13/2019) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
24 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 23 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION GRANTING CO. OF ALAMEDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH OPP.TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNTION re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED, 22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S OPPOSITION TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) filed byAlameda County. (Attachments: # 1 MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION OF EXHIBITS A, B, C, E AND F ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 2 Declaration OF HEIDI BURBANK ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 3 Declaration OF GARRETT DAGNEAU ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 4 Declaration OF JEFF GOULD, M.D. ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 5 Declaration OF KORI GUERRA ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 6 Declaration OF ANGELIQUE HENDERSON ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 7 Declaration OF PATRICK KENNEDY ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 8 Declaration OF PHILLIP LAWRENCE ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 9 Declaration OF THOMAS MADIGAN ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 10 Declaration OF TIMOTHY M. WESIG ISO CO. OF ALAMEDA'S OPP. TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/13/2019) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
25 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 23 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION GRANTING CO. OF ALAMEDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH OPP.TO PLFS. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNTION re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ) filed byAndrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Yolanda Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/15/2019) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
26 REPLY (re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byAndrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Marcaysha Alexander, # 2 Declaration Alexis Wah, # 3 Declaration Dr. Jess Ghannam, # 4 Declaration Dr. Jess Marc Zeitzer, # 5 Declaration Yolanda Huang, # 6 Supplement Notice of Witness Availability)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/18/2019) (Entered: 02/18/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 9 of 14

02/19/2019 02/21/2019
02/28/2019 03/06/2019 03/13/2019
03/14/2019 03/27/2019 03/28/2019
04/01/2019 04/01/2019 04/11/2019
04/11/2019

27 Proposed Order re 19 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Andrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT filed by Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 3/7/2019. Replies due by 3/14/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 2/28/2019. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/28/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
30 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) filed byTyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Yolanda Huang)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/6/2019) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
31 REPLY (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT ) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT filed byGregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/13/2019) (Entered: 03/13/2019)
32 Statement Proposal to Terminate Mediation and for Consolidation, Set CMC by Andrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
33 ORDER RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Parties to file a joint proposed order by April 11, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/27/2019. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
34 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 3/28/2019) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
35 ORDER. In light of the parties' joint request, Dkt. No. 34 , the hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to June 20, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/1/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2019) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT. Motion Hearing set for 6/20/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2019) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
36 Letter Brief re 33 Order, Terminate Motions filed byGregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)(Related document(s) 33 ) (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 4/11/2019) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
37 Letter Brief From Plaintiffs re: Proposed Preliminary Injunction order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Plaintiffs Proposed Order re: Preliminary Injunction)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 4/11/2019) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 10 of 14

04/22/2019 04/22/2019 04/25/2019
05/15/2019 05/16/2019 06/06/2019 06/10/2019 06/13/2019 06/17/2019
06/20/2019 06/20/2019

38 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/22/2019. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
39 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 02/28/2019 before Judge James Donato by Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson, for Court Reporter Vicki Eastvold. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
40 Transcript of Proceedings held on 2/28/19, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Vicki Eastvold, telephone number 218−355−8781. 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 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. Redaction Request due 5/16/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/28/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2019. (veS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2019) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
41 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 30 Opposition/Response to Motion, 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT, 35 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Set Hearings, 31 Reply to Opposition/Response, To Continue hearing from June 20, 2019 to June 27, 2019 filed by Andrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 5/15/2019) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
42 ORDER. At the joint request of the parties, the hearing on defendants' 28 motion to dismiss is continued to June 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/16/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2019) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
43 Ex Parte Application re 38 Order to Modify Judge Donato's April 22, 2019, Supplemental Order re Preliminary Injunction filed by Wellpath, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration ISO of Ex Parte Application)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 6/6/2019) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
44 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 43 Ex Parte Application re 38 Order to Modify Judge Donato's April 22, 2019, Supplemental Order re Preliminary Injunction ) filed byTikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Yolanda Huang In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 6/10/2019) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
45 Ex Parte Application re 42 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings, for Concurrent Case Management Conference for June 27, 2019 filed by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
46 ORDER. Plaintiff's ex parte application for a case management conference is granted. The parties will submit a joint case management statement by June 20, 2019. A case management conference is set for June 27, 2019, to be held concurrently with the hearing on defendants motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/17/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2019) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
47 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.), Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss COMPLAINT. Motion Hearing continued in light of a criminal trial to 8/1/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. (Related documents(s) 28 )(lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2019) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
48 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Initial Case Management Conference continued to 8/1/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2019) (Entered: 06/20/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 11 of 14

06/27/2019
07/11/2019 07/17/2019 07/18/2019 07/19/2019 07/19/2019 07/19/2019 07/22/2019 07/22/2019 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/14/2019

49 MOTION to Certify Class on Limited Issue filed by Andrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. Motion Hearing set for 8/1/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 7/11/2019. Replies due by 7/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points & AUthorities, # 2 Affidavit of Dr. Jamie Zeitzer, # 3 Affidavit of Tikisha Upshaw, # 4 Affidavit of Dennis Cunningham)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 6/27/2019) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
50 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 49 MOTION to Certify Class on Limited Issue ) filed byGregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice)(Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 7/11/2019) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
51 Ex Parte Application re 50 Opposition/Response to Motion, To Strike Pages 16, 17 & 18 filed by Tikisha Upshaw. (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 7/17/2019) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
52 REPLY (re 49 MOTION to Certify Class on Limited Issue ) filed byAndrea Hernandez, Tyreka Stewart, Tikisha Upshaw. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Dr. Jamie Zeitzer, # 2 Declaration Dr. Jess Ghannam, # 3 Declaration Tikisha Upshaw, # 4 Declaration Jaclyn Mohrbacher, # 5 Declaration Denise Rohrbach, # 6 Declaration Yolanda Huang, # 7 Declaration Dennis Cunningham, # 8 Declaration Molly Batchelder)(Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
53 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 51 Ex Parte Application re 50 Opposition/Response to Motion, To Strike Pages 16, 17 & 18 ) filed byGregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
54 ORDER. At the parties' joint request, the motion hearing currently scheduled for August 1, 2019, is continued to September 12, 2019, which is the Court's next available date. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/19/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
55 OBJECTIONS to re 52 Reply to Opposition/Response, Evidence Filed by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification by Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
56 ORDER. Plaintiffs' ex parte application 51 to strike a portion of defendants' opposition is denied. The Court's standing rules permit briefs in excess of 15 pages, but less than 25 pages, for class certification motions. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/2/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2019) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
57 ORDER. A hearing is set for Tuesday, August 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. on non−party Wellpath, Inc.'s ex parte application 43 to modify the Court's April 22, 2019, Supplemental Order re Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/22/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2019) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by Temitayo O. Peters (Peters, Temitayo) (Filed on 8/8/2019) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
59 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Augusto Slater (Slater, Michael) (Filed on 8/8/2019) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion Hearing held on 8/13/2019. ; ***Motions terminated: 43 Ex Parte Application re 38 Order

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 12 of 14

08/14/2019 08/19/2019
08/30/2019 09/01/2019
09/12/2019 09/13/2019 09/13/2019 09/13/2019 09/16/2019 09/18/2019
09/27/2019 09/27/2019

to Modify Judge Donato's April 22, 2019, Supplemental Order re Preliminary Injunction filed by Wellpath, Inc..; denying 43 Ex Parte Application Total Time in Court: 12 minutes. Court Reporter: Ana Dub. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/14/2019) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
61 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on August 13, 2019 before Judge James Donato by Wellpath, Inc., for Court Reporter Ana Dub. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 8/14/2019) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
62 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant D. Skoldqvist [FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)] filed by Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 8/19/2019) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
63 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Alameda County. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 8/30/2019) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
64 Transcript of Proceedings held on August 13, 2019, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Ana M. Dub, CSR No. 7445, RDR, CRR, telephone number (415) 290−1651; ana_dub@cand.uscourts.gov. 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 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 61 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/2/2019. (Related documents(s) 61 ) (amdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2019) (Entered: 09/01/2019)
65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion Hearing held on 9/12/2019. ; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to DismissTotal Time in Court: 29 minutes. Court Reporter: JoAnn Bryce. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/12/2019) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
66 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING IN−PERSON SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The court sets an in−person Settlement Conference for 9/30/2019 at 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2019) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
67 ORDER. At the parties' joint request, the case is referred to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for settlement proceedings. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/13/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2019) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2019) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
68 ORDER RE 23 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/16/2019. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2019) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
69 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 9/12/2019 before Judge James Donato by Gregory J. Ahern, Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Burbank, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Crandall, Deputy Guerra, Deputy Henderson, D. Hesselein, D. Houghtelling, Tom Madigan, Tara Russell, Deputy Sensiba, Deputy Stinson, Deputy Watson, for Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 9/18/2019) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
70 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byAlameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 9/27/2019) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
71 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT re: Discovery and Plaintiffs' Nighttime Sleep Concerns filed by Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office. (Thomas, Gregory) (Filed on 9/27/2019) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 13 of 14

09/30/2019
09/30/2019 10/08/2019 11/21/2019 11/21/2019

72 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. By 10/15/2019, the parties will exchange lists of all the issues that they want resolved. For the plaintiffs, that will be their proposed list of issues to be addressed by way of non−monetary settlement. For the defendants, that will be their list of potential issues (such as medical interventions, safety issues, and sanitation issues) that require sleep−time interventions, and their proposals for how to address them. The County will provide both lists to CFMG. The court asks CFMG to review the medical issues with the County, which will provide any feedback issues to the plaintiffs by 10/28/2019. The plaintiffs then can provide this information to their medical expert for a preliminary reaction and must share this with the County defendants by 11/8/2019. Counsel must thereafter confer by email initially and in any event by telephone no later than 11/13/2019 to identify the issues to be addressed at the 11/22/2019 settlement conference. The parties must lodge their revised proposals (as part of their settlement submissions) with the court no later than 11/15/2019 at 2 p.m. and may do so by email.
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)
73 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Settlement Conference set for 11/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Settlement Conference Statements due by 11/15/2019. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 09/30/2019. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2019) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
74 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/12/19, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510−910−5888, joann_bryce@cand.uscourts.gov. 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 until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction after 90 days. 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 69 Transcript Order, ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2020. (Related documents(s) 69 ) (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
75 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)
76 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 in−person 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)

Case: 3:18-cv-7814 As of: 07/18/2020 04:58 PM PDT 14 of 14

11/21/2019 12/16/2019 03/13/2020
03/24/2020

Set/Reset Hearing. Settlement Conference set for 3/17/2020 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
77 NOTICE of Change of Address by Yolanda Huang (Huang, Yolanda) (Filed on 12/16/2019) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
78 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)
79 ORDER. Plaintiffs' 49 motion to certify on a limited issue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) is terminated without prejudice. The motion seeks to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), reserving damages claims for a possible motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs' brief arguments, Dkt. No. 49−1 at 8, do not show "whether the adjudication of the certified issues would significantly advance the resolution of the underlying case, thereby achieving judicial economy and efficiency" at this time. Valentino v. Carter−Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2020) (Entered: 03/24/2020)

 
 Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 25

1

Yolanda Huang (State Bar No. 104543)

2 LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

499 14th Street, Suite 300 3 Oakland, California 94612

4

Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698

5 E-Mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com

6 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910 115A Bartlett St.
7 San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 285-8091 8 Facsimile: (415) 285-8092
9 E-Mail: denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tikisha Upshaw, Tyreka Stewart and
11 Andrea Hernandez

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

15 TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART and Case No. ANDREA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves

16 and others similarly situated,

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL

17

Plaintiffs,

AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

18 vs.
19 ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY
20 SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY
J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. 21 HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM
22 MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
23 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
24 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY
CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY 25 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50.

CLASS ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

26

Defendants.

27

28

30

1

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 2 of 25

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. This is a civil rights class action in which the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a

3 class of similarly situated individuals, seek relief from Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights and

4 privileges secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

5

2. Alameda County Jails consists of two facilities, Glen Dyer Jail in Oakland and Santa Rita

6 Jail in Dublin. Women, including pregnant women are held only at the Santa Rita Jail. Pregnant women
are housed with other prisoners. The conditions described herein apply equally to pregnant prisoners. 7
3. In the cells, the lights are never off. Even at night the lights are only slightly dimmed and
8 the lighting is bright enough to read. Outside of the cells are tier lights. The jail schedule calls for the

9 overhead tier lights, and the lights in the common areas to go out at 11 p.m., and breakfast is served

10 between 4 and 4:30 a.m. This schedule designed by defendants at Santa Rita jail prevent any prisoner

11 from being able to have sleep durations of more than five and a half (5.5) hours a night, assuming that the
12 prisoner is able to sleep with 24-hour lights in their cells. In addition, although the schedule theoretically permits a sleep duration of up to five and a half hours; on a regular basis, and with great
13 frequency, sheriff deputies routinely disrupt prisoners’ limited sleep duration, often hourly, through their
14 activities and conduct including repeatedly shining bright white flashlights into prisoners’ eyes; banging
15 keys and flashlights on metal doors; forcing prisoners to wake up and acknowledge the presence of

16 sheriff deputies; turning on and leaving on overhead lights; yelling and shouting; creating loud noises;

17 operating machines; making announcements over the public address system; and having prisoner
18 activities including medical appointments and medication distribution at 3 a.m. 4. Prisoners at the Santa Rita Jail suffer from chronic deprivation of sleep and disturbance of
19 sleep. This ongoing, daily sleep deprivation and disturbance has created significant negative impacts on
20 prisoners’ abilities to function at many levels. Prisoners are negatively impacted cognitively,
21 functionally, and psychiatrically. Cognitive impairment adversely impacts pretrial prisoners’ ability to
22 assist in their legal defense. Prisoners’ overall health and immune systems are negatively impacted

23 resulting in health issues including bacterial and viral infections. Pregnant women are subject to more

24 significant negative health impacts from sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation creates higher levels of

pro-inflammatory serum that are associated with postpartum depression and preterm delivery. 25
5. Prisoners’ efforts to grieve this situation were prevented by defendants’ refusal to permit 26
grievances through withholding of blank grievance forms, destruction of completed grievance forms, or
27 retaliation for the filing of grievances. Grievances submitted and received were overwhelmingly denied.

28

30

2

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 3 of 25

1

6. As a result of this significant sleep deprivation and sleep disruption, and the resulting

2 emotional and cognitive impairment, prisoners find themselves short tempered and irritable, experience
3 difficulty exercising emotional control, unable to handle frustration and often lack the necessary behavior controls demanded by the jail system. Sleep deprivation causes more sensitivity to physical pain. As a
4 result of this significant sleep deprivation and disruption, prisoners suffer disciplinary and punitive
5 consequences with ensuing additional deprivations including loss of telephone and visiting privileges,
6 loss of the ability to purchase commissary and placement into solitary confinement, the added social and

7 sensory isolation of solitary confinement compounds the cognitive, functional and psychiatric

8 impairments already existing due to sleep disruption and deprivation.

9

7. This civil rights class action lawsuit seeks to end this long-standing unconstitutional

practice at both Alameda County Jail facilities. The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of 10
themselves and those similarly situated against Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (“County”); THE 11
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (“ACSO”); GREGORY J. AHERN, INDIVIDUALLY AS

12 SHERIFF OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ASSISTANT SHERIFF D.

13 HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA

14 RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY

15 SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY

CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50 16
8. Without the Court’s intervention, the Defendants in this action will continue to violate the 17
Eighth Amendment and State standards by deliberately depriving, preventing, interrupting and disturbing
18 the sleep of prisoners at an Alameda County Jails.

19 Plaintiffs TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART and ANDREA HERNANDEZ, by and
20 through their attorneys, brings this action on behalf of themselves and other women prisoners similarly
21 situated and alleges as follows:

22

23

JURISDICTION

9. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. 24
§ 1343(a)(3) (civil rights). This Court may grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

25

10. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331 (claims arising under the

26 United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address deprivations, under color of state

27 authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution), and, by

28

30

3

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 4 of 25

1 pendent jurisdiction, California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 and the aforementioned statutory and

2 constitutional provisions.

3

11. Plaintiffs further invoke this Court's supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367, over any and all state law claims and causes of action which derive from the same nucleus of 4
operative facts and are part of the same case or controversy that gives rise to the federally based claims

5 and causes of action.

6

12. Plaintiffs filed a governmental claim with the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA on November 1,

7 2018. These claims were rejected on December 7, 2018.

8

13. VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

9

14. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of

the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. The claims alleged herein arose in the County 10
of Alameda, State of California. Therefore, venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the

11 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division or Oakland

12 Division.

13

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and every Defendant because, upon

14 information and belief, all Defendants were residents of California, were employed in California, or

15 otherwise conducted business in California, and all were acting under color of law during all relevant

times. 16 17
17.

16. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury of all issues in this matter pursuant to Federal

18 Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

19

18. PLAINTIFFS

20

19. Plaintiff, TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART and ANDREA HERNANDEZ are

21 pretrial detainees housed at the Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California, in Alameda County and under the
authority of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. 22
20. Plaintiff UPSHAW and HERNANDEZ are currently incarcerated in what ACSO names 23
“administrative segregation” which is essentially solitary confinement. Plaintiff UPSHAW has been 24 previously housed in a 2-person cell. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ has been previously housed in 2-man cells
25 and in the 18-person cells.

26

21. Plaintiff STEWART is currently housed in a two-person cell in Housing Unit 21.

27

22. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ believes that she is currently pregnant although her pregnancy has

28 not yet been confirmed by a medical examination.

30

4

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 5 of 25

1

23. All Plaintiffs have been and remain residents of California.

2

DEFENDANTS

3

24. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY is a county in the State of California.

25. Defendant ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE ( “ACSO”) is a law enforcement 4
agency within ALAMEDA COUNTY and, relevant here, is charged with operating the Santa Rita Jail.

5 The ACSO has failed to properly train and supervise and failed to require compliance with existing

6 policies and procedures, by officers, deputies and other employees who had custody of PLAINTIFF and

7 class members at Santa Rita or Glen Dyer Jail, and failed and refused to adopt appropriate and necessary

8 policies and procedures regarding the treatment and care of PLAINTIFF and class members;

9

26. Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, the

Sheriff of Alameda County. As Sheriff of Alameda County, Defendant AHERN holds the command and 10
policy making position with regard to County Jails, including Santa Rita Jail. Defendant Sheriff AHERN 11
has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the

12 unconstitutional and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at Santa

13 Rita Jail, as described fully below. Sheriff AHERN has, wholly or in part, directly and proximately

14 caused and, in the absence of the injunctive relief which PLAINTIFF seek in this Complaint, will

15 continue in the future to proximately cause, the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below.
Defendant Sheriff AHERN is sued in his individual capacity. 16
27. Defendant Assistant Sheriff D. HOUGHTELLING is, and at all times relevant to this 17
Complaint was, the Assistant Sheriff of Alameda County in charge of the Detentions and Corrections 18 Unit ("DCU"), which includes the Santa Rita Jail. As Assistant Sheriff of Alameda County in charge of
19 DCU, Defendant D. HOUGHTELLING has at times relevant to this Complaint held a command and

20 policy making position with regard to County Jails, including Santa Rita Jail. Defendant Assistant

21 Sheriff D. HOUGHTELLING has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or
22 knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at Santa Rita Jail, as described fully below. Assistant Sheriff D.
23 HOUGHTELLING has, wholly or in part, directly and proximately caused and, in the absence of the
24 injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint, will continue in the future to proximately cause,
25 the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below. Assistant Sheriff D. HOUGHTELLING is sued

26 in his individual capacity.

27

28. Defendant TOM MADIGAN is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, the

28 Commander in Charge of Alameda County Sheriff Office’s Detentions and Corrections Unit (“DCU”)

30

5

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 6 of 25

1 which includes the Santa Rita Jail. As the Commander in Charge of DCU, Defendant MADIGAN has at

2 times relevant to this Complaint held a command and policy making position with regard to County Jails,
3 including Santa Rita Jail. Defendant MADIGAN has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions,
4 policies, customs and practices that prevail at Santa Rita Jail, as described fully below. Defendant
5 MADIGAN has, wholly or in part, directly and proximately caused and, in the absence of the injunctive
6 relief which Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint, will continue in the future to proximately cause, the

7 injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below. Defendant MADIGAN is sued in his individual

8 capacity.

9

29. Defendant T. RUSSELL, D. HESSELEIN and D. SKOLDKVIST are, and at all times

relevant to this Complaint were, the Detention and Corrections Captains of ACSO. As the captains with 10
direct supervision over Glen Dyer and Santa Rita Jail, Defendant RUSSELL, HESSELEIN, and 11
SKOLDKVIST are responsible for the daily conditions and operations of Santa Rita Jail, including the

12 training and supervision of floor deputies including defendants DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY

13 STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY

14 CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50. Defendant

15 RUSSELL and HESSELEIN and SKOLDKVIST are regularly, if not daily, on the premises at an
Alameda County Jail. It is their responsibility to be knowledgeable and familiar with the actual daily 16
conditions and operations of Santa Rita Jail and Glen Dyer Jail. As the Detention and Corrections 17
Commanders of ACSO, Defendants RUSSELL, HESSELEIN, and SKOLDKVIST have caused, created, 18 authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and
19 inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at Santa Rita Jail, as described

20 fully below. Defendant RUSSELL, HESSELEIN and SKOLDKVIST have, wholly or in part, directly

21 and proximately caused and, in the absence of the injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek in this

22 Complaint, will continue in the future to proximately cause, the injuries and violations of rights set forth

fully below. Defendant RUSSELL, HESSELEIN and SKOLDKVIST are sued in their individual 23
capacities.

24

30. DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY

25 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY

26 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 25 are housing unit deputies, who each caused some of the injuries,

27 each contributed to the injuries, deprivations and losses complained of herein and is each sued in their

28 individual capacities by taking actions to disrupt and interrupt Plaintiffs and class members ability to

30

6

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 7 of 25

1 sleep; including shining bright flashlights into the eyes of sleeping prisoners; disrupting prisoners’ sleep

2 by forcing prisoners to wake up during designated sleep periods; banging on the metal doors to force

3 sleeping prisoners to wake up; and, making loud noises sufficient to wake up sleeping prisoners.
31. Does 26 through Does 50 are command staff and sheriff deputies who staff Glen Dyer and 4
Santa Rita Jails and all of whom contributed to the injuries, deprivations and losses complained of herein. 5 The Doe defendants are sued in their individual capacities.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7

I. SLEEP DEPRIVATION

8

32. The ACSO and its chiefs, commanders and other officials operate the Alameda County

9 Jails including Glen Dyer located in Oakland and Santa Rita located in Dublin. Of the two county jails
located in ALAMEDA COUNTY, women are housed only at the Santa Rita Jail. 10
33. Santa Rita Jail is a "mega-jail" and ranks as the third largest facility in California and the 11
fifth largest in the nation. Designed to hold up to 4,000 prisoners, it currently holds on average 2,500

12 prisoners with about 10% or 250 of those being women. Men and women are segregated.

13

34. Santa Rita is composed of numbered housing units, with various configurations of cells

14 for prisoners, including two-person cells, 18-person cells with 9 sets of bunk beds, and solitary

15 confinement single person cells. In each of the housing units at Santa Rita Jail, whether two-person cell,

solitary confinement or what ACSO terms “dormitory” 18-person cells, Plaintiffs and all prisoners are 16
subjected to lights 24 hours a day. Main lights in the common areas are turned off at 11 am, Cell lights 17
are dimmed, but still bright enough to read by. If you are able to sleep with cell lights on, theoretically
18 the night time sleep schedule provides for at most five and a half hours of sleep per night.

19

35. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an adult between the ages of

20 18 and 60 needs 7 or more hours of sleep per night for good health. Not getting enough sleep is linked

21 with many chronic diseases and conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and

22 depression. The National Institute of Health has published research showing that sleep deprivation
negatively impacts cognitive functioning over time, contributes to accidents and errors and alterations in 23
metabolic and endocrine function of individuals, including increases in pro-inflammatory serum
24 cytokines which has serious negative consequences for pregnant women.

25

36. Although the schedule provides for a possible five and a half hours of sleep, the entity

26 defendants and SHERIFF AHERN have several practices, customs, and/or policies that cause to

27 PLAINTIFFS and all members of the prisoner class to be chronically deprived of the essential and

28 human need for sleep.

30

7

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 8 of 25

1

II.

LIGHTING SCHEDULE

2

35. Light disrupts human sleep and Alameda County Jails’ lighting causes and/or contributes

3 to the prisoners’ regular and chronic sleep deprivation.
36. Prisoners are in a lit environments 24 hours each day because the lights in their cells 4
remain lit, albeit dimmed. The dim condition of cell lights is still bright enough to read by. Furthermore, 5 at times, particularly in Housing Unit 24 the main overhead lights are either left on, or for unknown

6 reasons turned on after 11 p.m.

7

37. Assuming arguendo that the dimmed lights at 11 p.m., are dim enough not to interfere

8 with sleep, the night time sleep schedule is only for a maximum of five and a half hours. The jail turns

9 lights back on to full illumination between 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. to serve breakfast.
38. Once breakfast is served, the jails commences full throttle activities with the attendant 10
lights and noise including the clearing of breakfast trays, cell and housing unit cleaning, public 11
announcements, the movement of prisoners who are required to attend court; “pill call” for medication
12 distribution, and classes.

13

39. As a result, the longest period of time in which PLAINTIFFS or any prisoner in Santa

14 Rita Jail is theoretically able to sleep is 5 to 5.5 hours, far less than the United States Center for Disease

15 Control’s recommended 7 hours. Many prisoners have a more difficult time getting any regular sleep

because of the 24 hours lights. 16

III.

VISUAL SAFETY CHECKS

17

40.

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, tit. 15, § 1027.5, routine visual safety checks

18 must be conducted of all prisoners at least hourly.

19

41.

At the Santa Rita Jail, defendants DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY

20 CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK and Does 1 to 25 do not limit their hourly

21 routine checks to visual observations. Instead, said defendants engage in activities to actually wake up
22 prisoners during the sleep period by shining bright white light flashlights into the eyes of sleeping prisoners, demanding that prisoners wake and respond or acknowledge the guards but during these
23 checks. If the bright flash lights do not cause the sleeping prisoner to respond or acknowledge the
24 deputy, said deputies will bang on the metal doors with keys, or flash lights in order to force prisoners to
25 awaken and acknowledge the deputy. If banging does no work, guards will enter the cell and yell the

26 prisoner’s name until the prisoner wakes up. Thus, defendants force prisoners to awaken almost hourly.

27

42.

These practices cause and/or contributes to PLAINTIFFS’ sleep deprivation.

28

30

8

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 9 of 25

1

IV.

MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING

2

43.

During the nighttime sleep hours, the sheriff deputies on duty have fewer responsibilities

3 for prisoners because prisoners are locked down in their cells. The ACSO has a policy and practice of
performing maintenance work and cleaning during the nighttime sleep hours, including vacuuming, 4
repairs and cleaning of metal portions of the jail, using of machinery and equipment and other tasks 5 which cause a significant amount of noise. Sheriff deputies and prisoner workers yell at each other and

6 slam the metal doors without regard to the prisoners’ sleep.

7

44.

This constant, loud, and excess noise during the night regularly interrupts the limited sleep

8 of the prisoners, causing and/or contributing to their persistent sleep deprivation.

9

V.

NEW-HIRE TRAINING & MALE DEPUTIES

45.

The ACSO conducts a significant amount of new-hire training during the nighttime hours.

10

All deputies of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office have their first assigned duty at a jail. As new hires,

11 these new deputies receive assignments to the least desirable shifts, which is the graveyard shift.

12 Therefore, all of their on the job training is conducted at night, and primarily during the nighttime sleep

13 hours. This training includes whole cell searches where sheriff deputies, often in swat uniforms, and

14 heavily armed, announce their entrance. All prisoners are required to wake up and lie face forward on

15 the floor of their cells. New hires are trained in the process, whereby some prisoners are then
handcuffed, and prisoners are then evacuated and sequestered one at a time to other areas of the jail, 16
including the outside yard, the multi-purpose room and the isolation cells. New hires are trained on how 17
to do full body searches in the isolation cells. New hires are trained on the sequestering. New hires are 18 trained on how to conduct cell searches. These exercises and practices require that all prisoners wake up,
19 and often stand or otherwise remain awake until the exercise is completed.

20

46.

When male deputies enter the female housing units at night, their presence will be loudly

21 broadcast, and the order will be issued that all women have to cover themselves up for the male deputy

22 entering the housing unit.

47.

These actions are so disruptive and loud that they cause and/or contribute to the prisoners’

23

sleep deprivation.

24

VI.

PILL CALLS & JAIL ACTIVITIES

25

49.

During these nighttime hours, ACSO distributes medication or provides medical attention.

26 These activities and services are announced by loud verbal announcements, sometimes through the

27 public address system, broadcast to all prisoners.

28

30

9

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 10 of 25

1

50.

These actions are so disruptive and loud that they cause and/or contribute to the prisoners'

2 sleep deprivation.

3

VII. EFFORTS TO BLOCK CELL LIGHT SUBJECT PRISONERS TO PUNISHMENT

51.

For Plaintiffs and members of the prisoner class, they must live with the light in their

4

cells on 24 hours a day, and many attempt to devise means to block the light. Blocking the light is a

5 prohibited activity in the jail, which subjects prisoners to punishment.

6

52.

Some prisoners try to hide from the ever-present light in their cell by placing blankets

7 over their head and eyes. However, when defendants DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY GUERRA,

8 DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK and Does 1 to 25 do checks on

9 prisoners, they demand that prisoners wake and move especially for those prisoners trying to sleep with

blankets over their eyes. 10

53.

These conditions actions practice causes and/or contributes to PLAINTIFFS’ and

11 members of the prisoner class’ sleep deprivation.

12

VIII. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT HAS GREATTER SLEEP LIMITATIONS

13

54.

In the segregation or solitary confinement cells, prisoners are allowed out only one at a

14 time, for an hour, into the common area. Access to telephones and showers are available only in the

15 common area.

55.

The hours in which prisoners are allowed out into the common area are scheduled up to 1

16

a.m. As a result, the common area and housing unit lights are often on until 1 a.m. and as a result the 17
nighttime sleep hours for the segregation or solitary confinement cells is limited to at most 3 and a half

18 hours, from 1 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. When there is pill call at 3 a.m., the maximum possible night time

19 uninterrupted sleep time is only 2 hours from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m.

20

56.

These conditions actions practice causes and/or contributes to PLAINTIFFS’ and

21 members of the prisoner class’ sleep deprivation.

22

57.

Plaintiff UPSHAW’s continuous sleep deprivation over the two years of her pretrial

incarceration has had a marked negative effect on her mental well-being, her psychological and physical 23
health, and her decision-making ability. Plaintiff UPSHAW has gotten sick more often due to a

24 weakened immune system. She has trouble with thinking and concentrating and has had difficulty

25 assisting her attorneys in preparing her legal defense on her pending charges. Due to prior accidents and

26 injuries, Plaintiff Upshaw has chronic pain. As a result of the sleep deprivation, she is now experiencing

27 increased sensitivity to pain, which results in her needing anti-inflammatory and pain medication on a

28 constant basis. Because the jail has refused to consistently make these medications available, Plaintiff

30

10

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 11 of 25

1 Upshaw is in physical pain, 24 hours a day. Plaintiff UPSHAW has difficulty with situations that require

2 patience and has become moody and quick-tempered. She has had difficulty understanding what others
3 say, and has had difficulty communicating clearly to others. As a result, whereas earlier on, she was able to avoid conflicts, or de-escalate situation, in the Fall of 2018, she was unable to calm or avoid an
4 argument with another prisoner, who was also sleep deprived and therefore short tempered and irritable.
5 As a result, Plaintiff UPSHAW was disciplined, resulting in loss of privileges, and further punished by
6 transfer to a segregation cell (solitary confinement) which included a complete loss of privileges, mental

7 health counseling, and various other punishments. Plaintiff UPSHAW is now confined to her cell 23

8 hours a day and has been deprived of all social interaction. The negative impacts of sleep disruption and

9 sleep deprivation is now compounded by her physical and social isolation.

58.

Plaintiff STEWART has been in custody for five months. In the five months of her

10

incarceration she is already suffering from significant sleep disturbance due to the regular sleep

11 deprivation with significant impacts on her abilities to function at many levels. She is impaired

12 cognitively, functionally and psychiatrically. She cannot assist in her defense in a meaningful manner

13 and is cognitively impaired. It appears that her overall health is being negatively impacted.

14

59.

Plaintiff HERNANDEZ feels and believes that she is pregnant although her pregnancy, in

15 the early stages, has not yet been confirmed by a medical test. Plaintiff HERNANDEZ has a personal
history of mental/emotional health challenges and has been under the care of medical staff for her mental 16
/emotional health issues since she was 18. Pregnancy is a time in which women are at a particular risk 17
for denial of sleep because of the physical changes of pregnancy. Pregnancy is also a time in which 18 women are at a heightened risk of depression. Sleep deprivation causes systemic inflammation through
19 higher plasma concentrations of pro-inflammatory serum cytokine levels which have been associated

20 with pregnancy and postpartum depression and negative maternal and fetal outcomes including preterm

21 delivery. Because plaintiff Hernandez is currently housed in solitary confinement, she is isolated 23
22 hours a day, denied the ability to have social interactions, denied the ability to take classes. In addition, she is subjected to significant sleep disturbance which the jail schedule only often permits only 3 hours
23 for undisturbed sleep. Plaintiff Hernandez is currently at risk due to sleep deprivation and disruption for
24 increased mental and emotional instability and impaired cognitive functions, as well as adverse
25 pregnancy outcomes.

26

60.

As a result of this sleep disturbance and sleep deprivation, Plaintiffs’ and all class

27 members’ overall health are negatively impacted. They are experiencing memory loss, loss of words,

28 loss of names, difficulty remembering sequences of events. They are subject to depression, anxiety, and

30

11

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 12 of 25

1 emotional distress. They are subject to overall health detriments, including a compromised immune

2 system, and an increased sensitivity to pain

3

POLICY, CUSTOM, OR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS

4

61. Defendant GREGORY AHERN, was a final policy-making authority for Defendants

ALAMEDA COUNTY and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE as it relates to the training, 5
supervision, and discipline of sheriff’s deputies employed at the Santa Rita Jail and acting under his

6 command. See Cal. Const, art. XI, § 1(b).

7

62. Defendant HOUGHTELLING, as the assistant sheriff and defendant MADIGAN as the

8 Commander and Does 11-20 were the supervisory officers over the detentions and corrections unit,

9 are/were policy-making authorities, based on a delegation of authority, for Defendants ALAMEDA
10 COUNTY and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE as it relates to the training, supervision, and discipline of sheriff’s deputies employed at the Santa Rita Jail and acting under their command.
11 Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, GREGORY AHERN,
12 HOUGHTELLING TOM MADIGAN, and DOE 11 to 20, acting under color of state law and as
13 policymaking authorities, knew or should have known that, resulting from their inappropriate and

14 inadequate policies, customs or practices regarding prisoners basic human need for sleep, subordinate

15 employees under their command, including Defendants DOE 1 thru DOE 10 were implementing and

16 maintaining the scheduling, programming and practices at Santa Rita Jail, which only permits all

prisoners, at the most, 5.5 or less of nighttime sleep; and which subordinate employees under their 17

command, including Defendants DOE 1 thru DOE 10 routinely disrupted, prevented and interfered with 18
night-time sleep.

19

63. Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

20 GREGORY AHERN, HOUGHTELLING, TOM MADIGAN, and DOE 11 to 20, were or should have

21 been on notice of these policies, customs, or practices or the inadequacy of the policies, customs or

22 practices through multiple sources including prior litigation wherein the plaintiffs complained of lights
23 being left on all night; (Mohrbacher v. 3:18-cv-00050-JD, Dkt. 18, Dkt . 72, Dkt 103). Plaintiffs and members of the class had attempted, repeatedly, to file grievances regarding this issue, but in numerous
24 occasions were denied Santa Rita Jail grievance forms, and were told that prisoners could not grieve the
25 schedule, the sleep disturbance or the lights, and for this reason only know of one successful grievance
26 during this time on this subject. Federal courts in the 9th Circuit have held since 1990 that there is no

27 legitimate penological justification for forcing prisoners to be in cells “constantly illuminated” which

28 causes physical and psychological harm.

30

12

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 13 of 25

1

64. On information and belief, additional evidence and information related to Defendants

2 ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, GREGORY AHERN, D.
3 HOUGHTELLING, TOM MADIGAN, Does 26 to Does 50’s policies, customs, or practices will be sought and obtained during the course of this litigation. Although access to the existence or absence of
4 internal policies, customs, or practices prior to discovery is necessarily limited, on information and
5 belief, Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, GREGORY
6 AHERN, D. HOUGHTELLING TOM MADIGAN, Does 26 to Does 50’s have access to and/or

7 knowledge of past and subsequent events and to statements of internal policies, customs, or practices at

8 issue and, in some respects, may be in sole possession of evidence and facts needed to support or refute

9 these claims.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10
65. All Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all women who are now, or will be in the
12 future, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jails (“Prisoner Class”).

13

Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)

14

66. The Prisoner Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the class is

15 impracticable and unfeasible. Currently, there are 200 women prisoners in custody on any one day in
Santa Rita Jail and approximately 9,500 women are processed and incarcerated during the year in Santa 16
Rita Jail. All prisoners in the Jails are subject to Defendants policies and procedures regarding sleep 17
denial and sleep disturbance and the refusal to permit grievances. Due to these policies and procedures, 18 all prisoners in the Jails are currently harmed or are at substantial risk of being harmed, by these Jail
19 practices.

20

67. The Prisoner Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary

21 course of business by Defendants.

22

Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)

68. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the Prisoner Class, including, but 23
not limited to:

24

a. Whether the jail’s requirement that prisoners be in lit surroundings 24 hours a day

25

violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual

26

Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article

27

I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution;

28

30

13

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 14 of 25

1

b. Whether Defendants’ scheduling to provide for only a maximum potential duration of

2

five and a half (5.5) hours of nighttime sleep violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

3

Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to

the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution; 4
c. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of regulation sleep disruption violates the

5

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

6

of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and

7

17 of the California Constitution;

8

d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of not permitting prisoners to have a

9

sufficient block of uninterrupted sleep poses a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners in their

custody; 10
e. Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the Prisoner Class members’ 11
risk of injury and harm from the scheduling of an insufficient duration of sleep and the regular

12

disruption of the limited sleep duration they are provided;

13

69. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that

14 their actions violate the law.

15

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)

70. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the 16
proposed class as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct, and their 17
claims are based on the same theory of law as the Prisoner Class claims.

18

19

Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

20

71. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the putative

Prisoner Class members and diligently service as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs’ interests are co21
extensive with those of the Prisoner Class and Plaintiffs have no conflict(s) of interest that would be

22 antagonistic to those of the other class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and

23 experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation and who possess the

24 resources necessary to fairly and adequately represent the Prisoner Class.

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)

26

72. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the basis of 27
the claims of the Prisoner Class are common to and apply generally to all members of the Prisoner Class.

28

30

14

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 15 of 25

1 All of the Jails’ policies are centrally promulgated, disseminated, and enforced by Defendants. The

2 injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply as a whole to all members of the

3 Prisoner Class.
73. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The claims of the 4
class members arise from the actions that resulted in damages to the class representatives and are based 5 on the same legal theories.

6

PRISONER SUB-CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

7

(Pregnant Women Prisoners)

8

74. All Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)

9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all pregnant women who are now, or will
be in the future, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jails (“Prisoner Class”). 10
Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 11
75. The Pregnant Prisoner -Sub Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of

12 the class is impracticable and unfeasible. On information and believe, plaintiffs allege that 10% of all

13 women prisoners in Santa Rita are pregnant, so that the current sub-class numbers 20 women. Within a

14 year’s time, plaintiffs assert that Santa Rita Jail processes and houses approximately 950 pregnant

15 women. Pregnant women are housed amongst all the other prisoners. There is no separate facility for
pregnant women. Pregnant women are subject to the same schedules and same housing conditions as all 16
prisoners. All prisoners in the Jails are subject to Defendants policies and procedures regarding sleep 17
denial and sleep disturbance and the refusal to permit grievances. Due to these policies and procedures, 18 all prisoners in the Jails are currently harmed or are at substantial risk of being harmed, by these Jail
19 practices.

20

76. The jail is required to conduct pregnancy tests if requested or if the prisoner exhibits

21 symptoms of pregnancy. The Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class members are identifiable using records

22 maintained in the ordinary course of business by Defendants.
Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) 23

24

77. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class,

including, but not limited to: 25
a. Whether the jail’s requirement that prisoners be in lit surroundings 24 hours a day

26

violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual

27

Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article

28

I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution;

30

15

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 16 of 25

1

b. Whether Defendants’ scheduling to provide for only a maximum potential duration of

2

five and a half (5.5) hours of nighttime sleep violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

3

Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to

the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution; 4
c. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of regulation sleep disruption violates the

5

Due the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual

6

Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article

7

I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution;

8

d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of not permitting pregnant prisoners to have

9

a sufficient block of uninterrupted sleep poses a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners and

their unborn fetuses in their custody; 10
e. Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the Pregnant Prisoner Sub11
Class members’ risk of injury and harm from the scheduling of an insufficient duration of sleep

12

and the regular disruption of the little sleep they are given, insufficient as it is;

13

78. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying

14 that their actions violate the law.

15

Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)

79. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the 16

Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of 17
conduct, and their claims are based on the same theory of law as the Prisoner Class claims.

18

Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

19

80. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Pregnant

20 Prisoner Sub-Class and diligently service as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs’ interests are co-extensive

21 with those of the Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class and Plaintiffs have no conflict(s) of interest that would be

22 antagonistic to those of the other class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and

experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation and who possess the 23
resources necessary to fairly and adequately represent the Prisoner Class.

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)

25

81. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

26 Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the basis of

27 the claims of the Prisoner Class and Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class are common to and apply generally to

28 all members of the Prisoner Class. All of the Jails’ policies are centrally promulgated, disseminated, and

30

16

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 17 of 25

1 enforced by Defendants. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply as a

2 whole to all members of the Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class.

3

82. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Pregnant Prisoner Sub-

Class. The claims of the Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class arise from the actions that resulted in damages to 4
the class representatives and are based on the same legal theories.

5

6

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7 VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY DENYING PLAINTIFF AND

8

OTHER PRISONERS THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO NECESSARY SLEEP

9

(Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

83. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the Prisoner Class and 10
Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent 11
relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

12

84. The First Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and

13 the prisoner class against Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

14 OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING,

15 COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL,

CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, AND DOES 1 THRU 50. 16
85. By their policies and practices described above, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the 17
Prisoner Class and Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class they represent, to a substantial risk of serious harm and
18 injury from the harmful and inhumane effects of daily insufficient sleep duration.

19

86. These policies and practices have been, and continue to be, implemented by Defendants

20 and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law,

21 in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and the Prisoner Class’ ongoing

22 deprivation of due process rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments, are not rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose or 23
is excessive in relation to any such nonpunitive governmental purpose.

24

87. The policies, practices and customs described above are the official policies, practices and

25 customs of Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and are the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs

26 being subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The policies,

27 practices and customs described above include Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s failure to train its

28 staff in the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the violations described above.

30

17

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 18 of 25

1

88. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and

2 have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Prisoner Class and Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class they represent

request relief as outlined below. 4
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5

6

VIOLATION OF EIGTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

(BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO SLEEP) 7
(Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 8
89. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and Prisoner Class and

9 Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent

10 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

11

90. The First Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ, the

12 Prisoner Class and Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class against Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. 13
HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA 14
RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, AND DOES 26 THRU 50. 15 By their policies and practices described above, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the class members they
16 represent, to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the harmful and inhumane effects of daily

17 insufficient sleep duration. A minimal duration of sleep is a minimal civilized measure of the necessity

18 of life.

19

91. These policies and practices have been, and continue to be, implemented by Defendants

and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, 20
in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and all class members’ ongoing

21 deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth Amendment.

22 The policies, practices and customs described above are the official policies, practices and customs of

23 Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and are the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs being

24 subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The policies, practices

25 and customs described above include Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s failure to train its staff in
the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the violations described above. 26
92. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and 27
have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined below.

30

18

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 19 of 25

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

3

(SLEEP DISRUPTION)

(Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 4

93. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the Prisoner Class and 5
Pregnant Prisoner Sub-Class repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent
6 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

7

94. The Third Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and

8 all class members they represent against Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY

9 SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D.

10 HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA

RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY 11
SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY 12
CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50,

13

95. By their policies, practices and direct actions described above, Defendants subject

14 Plaintiffs and the class members they represent, to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the

15 harmful and inhumane effects of regular sleep disturbance.

16

96. These policies, practices and direct actions have been, and continue to be, implemented by

17 Defendants and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert with them under color

18 of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and the Prisoner Class’

19 ongoing deprivation of due process rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Fifth and

20 Fourteenth Amendments, are not rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose or

21 is excessive in relation to any such nonpunitive governmental purpose.

22

97. The policies, practices and direct actions described above are the official policies,

23 practices and customs of Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and are the direct and proximate cause

24 of Plaintiffs being subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth

25 Amendment. The policies, practices and customs described above include Defendant COUNTY OF

26 ALAMEDA’s failure to train its staff in the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the violations

27 described above.

28

98. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and

30

19

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 20 of 25

1 have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined below.

3

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4

VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

5

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OF REGULAR SLEEP DISRUPTION

6

(Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

7

8

99. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the prisoner class and

pregnant prisoner subclass and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent relevant, as if 9
fully set forth in this Claim.

10

100. The Fourth Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ

11 and the class members against Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

12 OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING,

13 COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL,
14 CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50,
15 101. Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
16 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
17 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY

18 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50, acting or purporting to act in the performance of his/her official

19 duties by subjecting Plaintiffs and the members of the prisoner class’ to ongoing and regular sleep
20 disturbances in violation of their rights secured by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 102. Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
21 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
22 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY
23 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50’s acting or purporting to act in the performance of their official

24 duties as law enforcement officers, failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to complained of

25 actions of deliberating disturbing and interfering with Plaintiffs and the members of the prisoner class’

26 right to the human necessity of sleep, in violation of their rights secured by the Eighth Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution. 27
103. Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 28

30

20

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 21 of 25

1 GREGORY AHERN, D. HOUGHTELLING, TOM MADIGAN, and DOE 26-50, acting under color of

2 state law and as policymaking authorities, knew or should have known that subordinate employees under
3 their command, including Defendants DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA,
4 DEPUTY BURBANK and DOE 1 through DOE 25, were inadequately trained, supervised, or
5 disciplined resulting from their inadequate policies, customs, or practices concerning the actions of
6 regularly disturbing and interfering with prisoners’ sleep in violation of Plaintiff s and the prisoner class

7 members’ right to the human necessity of sleep, secured by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S.

8 Constitution.

9

104. The policies, practices and direct actions described above are the official policies,

practices and customs of Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, and are the direct and proximate cause 10
of Plaintiffs and the prisoner class members’ and the pregnant prisoner sub-class being subjected to 11
known risks of serious harms in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The policies, practices and customs

12 described above include Defendant COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’s failure to train its staff in the face of an

13 obvious need for training to prevent the violations described above.

14

105. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and

15 have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined below. 16

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17
(Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution)

18

106. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the prisoner class and

19 pregnant prisoner sub-class they represent re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent

20 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

21

107. The Fifth Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and

22 HERNANDEZ and all class members against all Defendants.
108. Defendants, by deliberately preventing Plaintiffs and members of the prisoner class from 23
being able to obtain adequate sleep both by limiting the available time for night time sleep and through
24 actions that interrupt, interfere, disrupt and disturb night time sleep, imposes an atypical, substantial, and

25 different hardship on the prisoner in relation to the ordinary incidents of incarcerated life, so as to create

26 a liberty interest protected by due process. By their policies and practices described above, Defendants

27 subject Plaintiffs and the Prisoner Classes they represent, to a substantial risk of harm due to the denial of

28 due process in relationship to the ordinary, human requirement of sleep. These policies and practices

30

21

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 22 of 25

1 have been, and continue to be, implemented by Defendants and their agents or employees in their official

2 capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and the Prisoner Classes’ ongoing deprivation of 3 rights secured by the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7.

4

109. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and

have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct. 5

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent request relief as outlined below.

7

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

NEGLIGENCE

9 110. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the prisoner class and
10 pregnant prisoner sub-class repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 82 to the extent

11 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

12

111. The Sixth Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW , STEWART and

13 HERNANDEZ and the class members against Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN

TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY 14

SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY 15
CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50.

16

112. Defendants SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D.

17 HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA

18 RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY

19 SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY

20 CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50’s actions and inactions were motivated by

evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Eighth 21
and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, or were wantonly or oppressively done.

22

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA

23 COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D.

24 HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA

25 RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY

26 SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY
CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50 and DOE 1 to 20’s actions and inactions, 27
Plaintiffs and members of the class suffered injuries entitling them to receive compensatory damages 28

30

22

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 23 of 25

1 against Defendants ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF

2 GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING, COMMANDER TOM

3 MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST,
DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY 4
GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 5 THRU 50.and DOE 1 to 20’s

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and class members pray for relief as hereunder appears.

7

8

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
10 (Cal. Gov. Code § 820(a))
11 114. PLAINTIFFS UPSHAW , STEWART and HERNANDEZ and the class members repeat
12 and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 53 to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

13 The Seventh Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs UPSHAW, STEWART and HERNANDEZ and all

14 class members against Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL,

15 CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA,
16 DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50.
17 115. Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
18 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
19 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY

20 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50 acting or purporting to act in the performance of their official

21 duties as peace officers, engaged in outrageous conduct and, as a result that outrageous conduct.
22 Plaintiffs and members of plaintiff class did suffer and continue to suffer severe emotional distress. 116. Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
23 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
24 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY
25 BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50 actions and inactions constituted oppression and/or malice

26 resulting in great harm to Plaintiffs and members of plaintiff class.

27

117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN

28 TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY

30

23

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 24 of 25

1 SENSIBA, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY

2 CHANDRA, DEPUTY BURBANK AND DOES 1 THRU 50 actions and inactions, Plaintiffs and all
3 members of plaintiff class suffered injuries entitling them to receive compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL, CAPTAIN D.
4 SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY WATSON, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
5 HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA, DEPUTY
6 BURBANK, AND DOES 1 THRU 50.

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and class members prays for relief as hereunder appears.

8

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

9

Plaintiffs and the class and subclass they represent have no adequate remedy at law to redress the

wrongs suffered as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer 10
irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the Defendants as 11
alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief they request. Plaintiffs and Defendants have an

12 actual controversy and opposing legal positions as to Defendants’ violations of the constitutions and laws

13 of the United States and the State of California. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue

14 are paramount under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of California.

15

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF and all class members prays for judgment and the following relief

against DEFENDANTS as follows: 16

1. Enter injunctive relief directing DEFENDANTS, absent exigent circumstances to: 17
a. Prohibit over-head light, loud noise, public address system announcements and

18

scheduled prisoner activities for at least a 7-hour period each night;

19

b.

Prohibit correctional staff from waking prisoners during the nighttime sleeping

20

hours including during any safety checks;

21

c. Prohibit maintenance and cleaning work during night time sleep hours;

22

d. Prohibit new hire staff training during night time sleep hours; and,

e. Provide all prisoners with the ability to have uninterrupted and undisturbed block 23
of night time sleep of no less than 7 hours.

24

2. Award compensatory and punitive damages;

25

3. Award declaratory relief according to proof;

26

4. Award PLAINTIFFS costs and expense of this action and reasonable attorney's fees in

27 accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other appropriate authority;

28

5. An order retaining jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

30

24

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/31/18 Page 25 of 25

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

2 future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

3

6. Such other and further relief as the case requires and the Court deems just and proper.

4 Dated: December 31, 2018
5

LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG

6

7

By:__/s/ Yolanda Huang____________________

YOLANDA HUANG 8

9

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

10

By:__/s/ Dennis Cunningham___

DENNIS CUNNINGHAM

11

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

25

COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

31

Upshaw et al v. Alameda County, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. _

 
 Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

TIKISHA UPSHAW, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JD
ORDER RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Re: Dkt. No. 19

12

13

Plaintiffs are women pretrial detainees housed in jails maintained and operated by

14 defendants Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiffs brought a class

15 action complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that defendants violated their

16 constitutional rights through jail procedures that deprived them of a minimal level of nightly sleep.

17 Dkt. No. 1. The challenged procedures include a “pill call” to give medications to detainees that

18 starts at 2:30 a.m. followed by breakfast service at 4:00 a.m., and cell checks every 30 minutes at

19 night using flashlights and overhead lights. Pending resolution of the Section 1983 claims on the

20 merits, plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to prohibit these and other practices that prevent

21 sleep. Dkt. No. 19. The request for an injunction is granted in part.

22

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiff Upshaw is housed in the Santa Rita Jail facility, where she has been in detention

24 for over 26 months as she waits for her trial. Dkt. No. 19-4 ¶ 9. Plaintiff Stewart is also housed in

25 the Santa Rita Jail and has been waiting for her trial for over six months. Dkt. No. 19-5 ¶ 1.

26 Plaintiff Hernandez was released from custody and will not considered for purposes of the

27 injunction motion.

28

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

The salient facts are undisputed. Declarations from deputy sheriffs who work the

2 5:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. shift in the jail establish that defendants maintain the following schedule as

3 part of their standard operating procedures:

4

8:00 p.m.: Cell cleaning by inmates begins.

5

11:00 p.m.: Lights out, subject to delays for unfinished cleaning.

Main lighting is dimmed but tier lighting in aisles outside cells

6

stays on.

7

2:30 a.m.: Cell-by-cell pill call by a deputy and nurse for inmates

with pre-breakfast medication requirements. 8

4:00 a.m.: Main lights turned on for breakfast service. 9

4:30 a.m.: Main lights dimmed but not extinguished after

10

breakfast.

11 Declaration of Deputy Guerra, Dkt. No. 24-5 ¶¶ 2, 5-7, 11; Declaration of Deputy Burbank, Dkt.

12 No. 24-2 ¶¶ 2, 5-7, 10.

13

In practice, then, defendants give detainees no more than five hours of lights-out time, and

14 on occasion even less if cell cleaning isn’t finished. That minimal time is further disrupted after

15 just three-and-a-half hours by a team handing out prescriptions in the dead of night. Defendants

16 also acknowledge that they make “mandatory” announcements over the public address system

17 during the lights-out hours. Guerra Decl., Dkt. No. 24-5 ¶ 13. Plaintiffs have submitted

18 declarations stating that they cannot sleep through these activities, and often get as little as three

19 hours of uninterrupted sleep each night. See, e.g., Declaration of Tikisha Upshaw, Dkt. No. 19-4

20 ¶¶ 9-10; Declaration of Tyreka Stewart, Dkt. No. 19-5 ¶ 1.

21

The sleep disruptions inherent in this standard schedule are compounded by a cell-by-cell

22 safety and general observation check that deputies do every 30 minutes for 24 hours a day and

23 seven days a week. See Guerra Decl., Dkt. No. 24-5 ¶ 9. During nighttime hours, the deputies

24 rely on ambient light to see into the cells, and may shine a flashlight in as well to make sure the

25 detainee is not in distress. Deputies may also open the cell door and call the inmate’s name. Id.

26 ¶ 10; Burbank Decl., Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶ 9.

27

28 2

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 3 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

LEGAL STANDARDS

2

Preliminary injunctions are “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter

3 v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary

4 injunction must establish that he [or she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that he [or she] is

5 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities

6 tips in his [or her] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20;

7 see also Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (same). In our circuit, a plaintiff may also

8 obtain a preliminary injunction under a “sliding scale” approach by raising “serious questions”

9 going to the merits of plaintiff’s claims and showing that the balance of hardships tips “sharply” in

10 his or her favor. A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Becerra, 901 F.3d 1166, 1167 (9th

11 Cir. 2018); Vanguard Outdoor LLC v. City of L.A., 648 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir. 2011). At “an

12 irreducible minimum,” the party seeking the injunction “must demonstrate a fair chance of success

13 on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Airbnb, Inc. v. City and Cnty. of

14 San Francisco, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citation omitted); see also Garcia,

15 786 F.3d at 740.

16

The merits determination here is made in the context of plaintiffs’ status as state pretrial

17 detainees. The parties focused almost entirely on the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and

18 unusual punishment for those convicted of an offense, but plaintiffs are not in jail after a trial and

19 conviction. As pretrial detainees, they are entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause in

20 the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the specific substantive guarantees of the federal

21 Constitution. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 and n.16 (1979); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange,

22 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). The Eighth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor in

23 the sense that a jail condition deemed to be cruel and unusual would necessarily amount to an

24 impermissible punishment of a pretrial detainee, but plaintiffs have rights beyond those afforded

25 to the duly convicted. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a broader

26 class of interests than the Eighth Amendment, and proscribes any conduct that amounts to

27 punishment, cruel or otherwise, of a person detained before trial. Bell, 441 U.S. at 535-37;

28 Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2013); Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205. 3

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 4 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Keeping jails safe and secure is, of course, a legitimate and important governmental

2 interest, and the expert judgment of the agencies and officers about the policies and procedures

3 needed to achieve that goal should be respected. Bell, 441 U.S. at 546-47; Florence v. Bd. of

4 Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 326 (2012). To amount to a

5 punishment, the pretrial detention condition must cause harm that exceeds or is independent of the

6 inherent discomforts of confinement, and must be rationally unrelated to a legitimate nonpunitive

7 governmental objective or be excessive in relation to that purpose. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135

8 S.Ct. 2466, 2473-74 (2015); Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004). In the

9 absence of evidence of an express intent to punish, “it may be possible to infer a given restriction’s

10 punitive status ‘from the nature of the restriction.’” Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205 (quoting Valdez v.

11 Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002)).

12

Because plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are presented under Section 1983, plaintiffs must

13 show that the challenged conditions were part of a policy, custom or practice officially adopted by

14 defendants. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). They must also

15 establish that the policy or custom “evince[s] a ‘deliberate indifference’ to the constitutional right

16 and [is] the ‘moving force behind the constitutional violation.’” Rivera v. City of L.A., 745 F.3d

17 384, 389 (9th Cir. 2014). Constitutional deprivations that are the product of mere negligence or

18 accident are not actionable. Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2472.

19

With respect to the record before the Court, each side filed a blizzard of objections to the

20 other’s declarations and other evidence. The rules of evidence do not strictly apply to preliminary

21 injunction proceedings, and the Court will use its broad discretion to evaluate the record as it

22 currently stands. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1250 n.5

23 (9th Cir. 2013); Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). In any event, the

24 findings and conclusions here are based mainly on undisputed facts.

25

DISCUSSION

26

There is no question that running a jail is an extremely difficult task, and the discretion of

27 the sheriff’s department to solve problems and protect the health and safety of detainees should be

28 treated with a substantial measure of deference. It is equally true that detention in jail is not 4

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 5 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 expected to be a pleasant or comfortable experience. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-

2 49 (1981).

3

But the Constitution does not permit inhumane treatment of duly convicted prisoners,

4 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), all the more so for pretrial detainees who have not

5 had their day in court. And when the state takes a person into custody for any reason, the

6 Constitution imposes a duty to provide for the detainee’s basic human needs. DeShaney v.

7 Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989). Conditions of confinement

8 that deprive detainees of those needs or “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”

9 violate the Constitution. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at

10 347).

11

Defendants do not dispute that “sleep undoubtedly counts as one of life’s basic needs.”

12 Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 1999). No reasonable person would disagree that

13 “sleep is critical to human existence.” Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir. 2013).

14 Conditions of confinement that prevent prisoners from getting at least a minimal amount of sleep

15 have been held to violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.

16 See, e.g., id.; Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996); Tafari v. McCarthy, 714 F.

17 Supp. 2d 317, 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). A constitutional deprivation necessarily follows under the

18 Fourteenth Amendment for conditions that unreasonably deprive pretrial detainees of sleep.

19

Defendants do not contest that the nighttime schedule and cell checks are an official policy

20 and practice undertaken deliberately and purposefully. They argue mainly that they need to run

21 the jails under these conditions for legitimate purposes. Specifically, defendants assert that the

22 nighttime schedule of 2:30 a.m. pill calls and 4:00 a.m. breakfast service is intended to manage the

23 medical needs of detainees and make sure they are up and ready to go for morning court calls. See

24 Guerra Decl., Dkt. No. 24-5 ¶ 11; Burbank Decl., Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶ 10; Declaration of Phillip

25 Lawrence, Dkt. No. 24-8 ¶ 34.

26

These are certainly legitimate goals, but defendants have not shown that the near-constant

27 disruptions during the five hours of lights-out time are reasonably related to those purposes. No

28 one can argue with the proposition that detainees with medical needs should get their 5

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 6 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 prescriptions, but why at 2:30 a.m.? Defendants do not say, and they have not proffered any

2 declarations or other evidence from healthcare professionals indicating that a 2:30 a.m. delivery

3 time is a medical necessity or even a good practice. Defendants offer only an opinion by a retired

4 captain from another sheriff’s office to the effect that jail administrators are not doctors and just do

5 what they’re told by the medical professionals. Lawrence Decl., Dkt. No. 24-8 ¶¶ 10, 41. That

6 cursory comment hardly establishes the reasonableness of a 2:30 a.m. pill call.

7

Defendants also assert that the pill call is reasonable because some medications should be

8 taken before breakfast, which starts at 4:00 a.m. Dkt. No. 24 at 9; Guerra Decl., Dkt. No. 24-5

9 ¶¶ 7-11; Burbank Decl., Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶¶ 6, 10; Declaration of Angelique Henderson, Dkt. No.

10 24-6 ¶ 10. That is untenable bootstrapping because defendants do not proffer any facts showing

11 that turning the main lights on and serving breakfast throughout the jail at 4:00 a.m. is itself

12 justified. Defendants make conclusory statements that they need to do this to make sure they can

13 transport detainees to court for morning proceedings, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 24 at 9; Lawrence Decl.,

14 Dkt. No. 24 ¶ 34, but they again offer no concrete evidence explaining why this is so. There is

15 nothing in the record to show that breakfast at 4:00 a.m. is reasonably related to meeting the

16 hearing times or other judicial needs of the courts handling the criminal cases of the detainees in

17 defendants’ custody.

18

While defendants are entitled to a good measure of deference in operating the jails, the

19 nighttime schedule as it currently stands is not reasonable on the record before the Court. The

20 Court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits for this particular part

21 of their Fourteenth Amendment claim. At the very least, they have raised a serious question about

22 the constitutionality of defendants’ nighttime policies and resulting sleep deprivation for

23 detainees. The Court also finds that plaintiffs have established irreparable harm. That is because

24 plaintiffs have made out the likelihood of a constitutional deprivation, which “unquestionably

25 constitutes irreparable injury.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012). An

26 injunction to prevent the violation of constitutional rights is also, perforce, in the public interest.

27 Id.; see also Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). With respect to

28 the “serious questions” test, the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs’ favor for the same 6

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 7 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 reasons, and because the government cannot be harmed by an injunction that forbids an

2 unconstitutional practice. Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013).

3

The policy of cell checks every 30 minutes leads to a different result. Defendants have

4 established, with no meaningful opposition by plaintiffs, that this policy is consistent with safety

5 standards mandated for local detention facilities by California state regulations. See Dkt. No. 24 at

6 7-8 (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15). In addition, defendants have shown that they have

7 implemented procedures to minimize the intrusiveness of the checks by, for example, shining

8 flashlights indirectly into cells and other techniques. See Declaration of Thomas Madigan, Dkt.

9 No. 24-9 ¶ 3; Guerra Decl., Dkt. No. 24-5 ¶ 10; Burbank Decl., Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶ 9. Plaintiffs

10 challenge the extent to which these techniques are actually used, but the record is at best sharply

11 conflicted on the facts, and the Court cannot say that plaintiffs have carried their burden for a

12 preliminary injunction at this time. So, too, for plaintiffs’ other sleep-related complaints.

13

The final question concerns the scope of the injunction for the sleep deprivations caused

14 by the nighttime schedule. The Court typically has broad discretion to correct constitutional

15 violations. See Doe v. Kelly, 878 F.3d 710, 720 (9th Cir. 2017). But the Prison Litigation Reform

16 Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) imposes some limits on prospective relief in an action involving prison

17 conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a); Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998).

18 Under the PLRA, a preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than

19 necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive

20 means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

21

The Court finds that the best approach to fashioning a remedy is for the parties to meet and

22 confer on a form of injunction that is consistent with the PLRA and meets defendants’ operational

23 needs, while ensuring a reasonable amount of sleeping time for detainees in a manner consistent

24 with this order. The parties should file a joint proposed order by April 11, 2019. To be clear, this

25 is not an opportunity to re-argue the injunction or submit new evidence or declarations. This is

26 intended to be a practical effort to draft a properly tailored injunction.

27

28 7

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 33 Filed 03/27/19 Page 8 of 8

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

CONCLUSION

2

A preliminary injunction is granted on terms consistent with this order and subject to the

3 Court’s review of the parties’ submission.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: March 27, 2019

6

7

8

JAMES DONATO United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

 
 Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 38 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 3

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

TIKISHA UPSHAW, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JD
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 33

12

13

In the order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court concluded

14 that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on, or at the very least raised a serious question

15 about, the merits of their constitutional claims for sleep deprivation caused by defendants’

16 nighttime policies and practices. Dkt. No. 33. The Court asked the parties to jointly submit a

17 proposed form of order that would balance defendants’ legitimate custodial concerns with

18 plaintiffs’ right to a reasonable amount of sleeping time. Id. at 7. The Court expressly advised the

19 parties not to use the drafting assignment to try to re-argue the injunction motion or add new

20 evidence to the record. Id.

21

The parties were not able to agree on a form of order, and submitted separate proposals.

22 The Court finds that plaintiffs’ proposed order, Dkt. No. 37, substantially conforms to the

23 evidence and record before the Court.

24

Defendants’ version is considerably less faithful to the record and the Court’s prior order.

25 Defendants drafted their proposed form of injunction on the basis of alleged medical concerns that

26 they did not mention, let alone document with declarations or other evidence, during the initial

27 injunction proceedings. The Court previously noted that defendants did not provide any

28 meaningful evidence on these topics. See Dkt. No. 33 at 5-6. Even now, defendants again do not

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 38 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 3

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 tender any actual evidence but merely recount what some unnamed individuals of unknown

2 qualifications “represented” to their attorney about the scheduling of the morning medication pass

3 or “pill call.” Dkt. No. 36 at 2. This is exactly the kind of backdoor effort to re-litigate the

4 injunction that the Court directed the parties not to do, and it is all the more improper because the

5 lack of evidentiary support makes it impossible for the Court to evaluate defendants’ statements.

6 The Court declines to tailor the injunction on the basis of this inadequate record, which is entirely

7 of defendants’ own making.

8

Consequently, defendants Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and Alameda County, and all

9 their officers, agents, employees, successors, and those acting in concert with them, are enjoined

10 as follows:

11

1. Absent exigent circumstances, in the jails operated by defendants:

12

a. Main housing lights will be turned off from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. each

13

weekday when a local state or federal court is in session.

14

b. Main housing lights will be turned off from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on

15

weekends and holidays, and any other day on which local courts are closed.

16

c. Breakfast will be served to inmates no earlier than 5:00 a.m. each weekday

17

when a local state or federal court is in session.

18

d. Breakfast will be served to inmates no earlier than 6:00 a.m. on weekends

19

and holidays, and any other day on which local courts are closed.

20

e. The medication pass for inmates will take place no earlier than 5:00 a.m.

21

each weekday when a local state or federal court is in session.

22

f. The medication pass for inmates will take place no earlier than 6:00 a.m. on

23

weekends and holidays, and any other day on which local courts are closed.

24

2. Absent exigent circumstances, defendants will make reasonable efforts to refrain

25

from making announcements over the jail public address system during the times

26

when the main lights are turned off.

27

3. Absent exigent circumstances, defendants will make reasonable efforts to refrain

28

from performing routine cleaning and maintenance work in areas where inmates

2

Case 3:18-cv-07814-JD Document 38 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 3

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

sleep during the hours when the main housing lights are turned off.

2

4. “Exigent circumstances” consist of medical or custodial emergencies, and

3

circumstances that pose a danger to health and safety.

4

5. Defendants may request, on a case-by-case basis, that the Court modify the terms

5

of this injunction to accommodate specific medical needs for individual inmates.

6

Such requests must be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury from a

7

treating physician or other healthcare professional attesting to the nature of the

8

issue and the medical necessity for a departure from the terms herein.

9

6. The Court waives any payment or posting of security by plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

65(c).

11

7. The injunction will remain in effect pending further order of the Court.

12

8. These terms do not apply to the portions of the jails that are used as dedicated

13

hospital units.

14

The Court finds that these provisions “extend no further than necessary to correct the harm

15 the court finds requires preliminary relief” and are “the least intrusive means necessary to correct

16 that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: April 22, 2019

19

20

21

JAMES DONATO United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3