Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:1

1 Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

E-Mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com 2 David S. McLane, SBN 124952

3

E-Mail: dmclane@kmbllaw.com Ronald O. Kaye, SBN 145051

4 E-Mail: rok@kmbllaw.com

5

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230

6 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone: 626-844-7660

7 Facsimile: 626-844-7670

8 Melissa Goodman, SBN 289464

9 E-Mail: MGoodman@aclusocal.org

Brendan M. Hamme, SBN 285293 10 E-Mail: BHamme@aclusocal.org

11

Peter J. Eliasberg, SBN 189110 E-Mail: PEliasberg@aclusocal.org

12 ACLU Foundation of Southern CA

1313 West 8th Street 13 Los Angeles, California 90017

14

Telephone: 213-977-9500 Facsimile: 213-977-5299

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

18

DAN MCKIBBEN, PEDRO GUZMAN, NICK OU, SEAN LINT, TIMOTHY

) Case No. )

19 WALKER, ILICH VARGAS, )

CLASS ACTION

WILLIAM KENNEDY, JONATHAN 20 ROBERTSON, STEVE aka LYNN )

) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

21

PRICE, BRYAN BAGWELL, CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD, FREDERICK CROCKAN,

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF )

22 TAHEASH WHITE, MICHAEL aka MADISON ) 1. 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Equal

HATFIELD, and KEVIN aka VERONICA 23 PRATT, all individually and as class

) Protection) ) 2. Ca. Civ. Code §52.1

24 representatives,

)

3. Cal Civ. Code §815.6 ) 4. Cal. Const. Art. I, §7 and

25

Plaintiffs,

) Cal. Govt. Code ) §11135(a) (Injunctive

26

) Relief Only)

vs.
27

) ) DEMAND FOR JURY

28 (continued on next page) )

) TRIAL

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:2

1 SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually

)

and in his official capacity; GREG

)

2 GARLAND, individually and in his official

)

3

capacity; JEFF ROSE, individually and in his ) official capacity; SARGEANT JAMESMAHAN, )

4 individually and in his official capacity;

)

5

CORPORAL CASTILLAS, individually and in his)

official capacity; COUNTY OF SAN

)

6 BERNARDINO, a governmental entity; SAN )

BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

)

7 DEPARTMENT, a California public entity;

)

8 and DOES 1 through 10, )

)

9

Defendants.

)

________________________________________ )

10

11 I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12

1. San Bernardino County Jail (hereafter “the Jail”) is run by the San

13 Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “SBCSD”). The Jail maintains

14 an “Alternative Lifestyle Tank” (hereafter “ALT”) at the West Valley Detention

15 Center (hereafter “WVDC”) to which all inmates who self-identify as gay,

16 bisexual, and/or transgender (hereinafter “GBT inmates”) are automatically

17 transferred and isolated from the general population. References in this Complaint

18 to “GBT” inmates refer to such inmates housed in the ALT. The WVDC is the

19 only SBCSD jail facility that houses self-identified GBT inmates.

20

2. Plaintiffs, and the classes they seek to represent, bring this action to

21 challenge the systematic discrimination and denial of equal treatment experienced

22 by GBT inmates at the WVDC. GBT inmates are not given equal access to

23 opportunities to reduce their sentences, services, programs and facilities, and are

24 often treated in an abusive and neglectful manner. In short, GBT inmates at

25 WVDC serve longer sentences and endure substantially worse conditions of

26 confinement simply because they are gay, bisexual or transgender. The conditions,

27 restrictions, denials of access and opportunities, and unequal treatment for GBT

28 inmates are the same regardless of whether one is gay, bisexual or transgender.

1

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:3

1

3. One of the major purposes of sentencing is rehabilitation. Yet, GBT

2 inmates have no access to drug treatment, education and work programs designed

3 to help inmates succeed in society when released. To the extent they may have

4 limited access on rare occasions, it is substantially less than that available to non-

5 GBT inmates and wholly at the arbitrary whim of WVDC officials. Thus, not only

6 are GBT inmates denied equal opportunities for rehabilitation inside jail, they

7 suffer more on the outside since they are not provided the tools to increase their

8 odds of rehabilitation. Unlike the male, non-GBT general population, sentenced

9 GBT inmates at WVDC are generally not allowed to participate in the inmate work

10 program, and, to the extent they may occasionally have limited access, it is

11 substantially less than that available to non-GBT inmates. GBT inmates serve

12 longer sentences than non-GBT inmates because they cannot enjoy the sentence-

13 reduction benefits that come with work credits. GBT inmates also do not get the

14 privileges that come with working, which include day-long access to the day room,

15 and getting a longer amount of time to spend with visitors. GBT inmates cannot be

16 trustees and, in the event they may be, are denied the full benefits afforded other

17 trustees.

18

4. GBT inmates are allowed substantially less time outside their cells on

19 a daily basis and given substantially less access to recreational and other activities

20 than both non-GBT general population inmates and non-GBT inmates placed in

21 other forms of special housing. They are living in a locked down status without any

22 security justification. GBT inmates who are housed in the ALT are generally

23 locked inside their cells for approximately 22 and one-half hours or more a day,

24 regardless of their security classification. Time out of cells for ALT inmates during

25 the two years prior to this lawsuit was, for a long period, only 45 minutes to an

26 hour a day. Recently, in response to Plaintiffs’ notice of potential litigation,

27 Plaintiffs’ investigation of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs’

28 counsel’s letter to WVDC and Plaintiffs’ 910 claims, there has been some increase,

2

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 4 of 61 Page ID #:4

1 but it is still far less than time afforded non-GBT inmates, who generally are

2 housed in dorms where they are allowed out of their cells all day, or in cells where

3 they are allowed out of their cells for longer periods of time. There is no legitimate

4 security justification to deny GBT inmates equal time out of their cells, particularly

5 given that they have access to their own segregated day room, which could protect

6 their security and allow them greater time out of their cells. Moreover, when a

7 GBT inmate in the ALT causes a disturbance, all ALT inmates get locked down in

8 their cells all day whereas in general population only the inmates involved in the

9 disturbance are locked down.

10

5. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates are not

11 allowed to access religious services outside their unit, or religious services inside

12 the unit, including chaplains and bibles. To the extent they may occasionally have

13 limited access, it is substantially less than that available to non-GBT inmates and

14 wholly at the arbitrary whim of WVDC officials.

15

6. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates are not

16 allowed to access educational programming such as occupational classes,

17 vocational classes, and GED classes. GBT inmates are not allowed to participate in

18 educational programs provided to general population inmates. They are also not

19 provided with separate educational programs.

20

7. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates do not

21 have access to drug rehabilitation programs. This is true even if GBT inmates are

22 sentenced to serve their time in a rehabilitation program. GBT inmates cannot earn

23 time off their sentences for participating in programs such as “Inroads” at Glen

24 Helen, as GBT inmates cannot be housed at Glen Helen. Thus, GBT inmates serve

25 longer sentences than non-GBT inmates.

26

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, unlike the non-GBT

27 population inmates, due to unwarranted dislike by SBCSD employees and an

28 unwarranted fear of AIDS, deputies generally do not conduct the required safety

3

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 5 of 61 Page ID #:5

1 checks for GBT cells mandated by Title 15, which are required to ensure inmate

2 safety.

3

9. GBT inmates are regularly subjected to abusive conduct and

4 derogatory name-calling by SBCSD deputies based on their sexual orientation and

5 gender identity.

6

10. Some GBT inmates have been retaliated against by SBCSD deputies

7 when they have complained about conditions in the ALT, and the discriminatory

8 treatment of GBT inmates.

9

11. The foregoing conditions of confinement violate Plaintiffs’ rights to

10 equal protection of the laws under both Article I §7 of the California Constitution

11 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and related

12 statutes incorporating, inter alia, equal protection standards. Although jails have an

13 obligation to protect the safety of inmates who may be subject to victimization and

14 thus can, when appropriate, place such inmates in some form of protective custody,

15 such placements are not a permissible basis upon which to subject GBT inmates to

16 significantly worse conditions, deprive them of access to programs and privileges,

17 or subject to them to abuse based on their sexual orientation or their gender

18 identity.

19

12. This action is brought independently under the California Constitution

20 and California statutes incorporating those provisions directly or indirectly, as well

21 as under the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs

22 emphasize the independent character of the California claims because the

23 California Supreme Court has expressly held that differential treatment of gay

24 people is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny, an issue not yet squarely

25 addressed by the United States Supreme Court. In addition, California claims are

26 not subject to the requirements, limitations and restrictions of the Prison Litigation

27 Reform Act (“PLRA”). Plaintiffs contend that the conduct alleged herein is

28 unconstitutional whatever level of scrutiny is employed – whether it is strict

4

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 6 of 61 Page ID #:6

1 scrutiny, heightened scrutiny or rational basis scrutiny, for there is no legitimate

2 penological reason to treat GBT inmates worse than non-GBT inmates just because

3 of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

4

13. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action and seek injunctive relief

5 and damages under both state and federal law.

6 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

14. Plaintiffs present federal claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

8 Accordingly, federal jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331

9 and 1343. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are so related to their federal law claims that

10 they form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, supplemental

11 jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C.

12 §1367.

13

15. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of acts of the San Bernardino County

14 Sheriff’s Department in the County of San Bernardino, State of California.

15 Accordingly, venue is proper within the Eastern Division of the Central District of

16 California.

17 III. PARTIES

18

A. Plaintiffs

19

16. Class Representatives No Longer In Custody: Plaintiffs Dan

20 McKibben, Peter Guzman, Nick Ruttana Ou, and Sean Lint were, but are not

21 presently, incarcerated at WVDC, held in the ALT, and subjected to unequal 22 treatment and access to services and programs, and other violations of law as is

23 elaborated further on in this Complaint. The unequal treatment and access and 24 other violations of law were based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation or gender 25 identity, and their classification as GBT inmates. The four are not prisoners within 26 the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) at the time of the filing 27 of this Complaint. They seek to act as class representatives for the federal damages 28 class – they are the only representatives of this class – and are also state damages

5

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 7 of 61 Page ID #:7

1 class representatives as they have filed and been denied state administrative 910

2 claims. They are at times referred to as the “Federal Damages Class

3 Representatives.” They are also among the California Damages Class

4 Representatives.

5

17. Class Representatives In Custody At WVDC: Plaintiffs Timothy

6 Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve aka Lynn 7 Price1, and, Michael aka Madison Hatfield are currently incarcerated at WVDC.

8 They have been subjected, and will continue to be subjected, to unequal treatment

9 and access to services and programs, and other violations of law as is elaborated in

10 this Complaint. The unequal treatment, unequal access and other violations of law

11 elaborated in this Complaint were and are based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation or

12 gender identity, and their classification as GBT inmates.

13

a. Plaintiffs Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

14

Hatfield are the only class representatives for the state

15

injunctive relief classes and are at times referred to as the

16

“California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives.”

17

b. Plaintiffs Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

18

Hatfield are also among the “California Class Damages

19

Representatives” because either they have filed an

20

administrative 910 claims on behalf of all GBT inmates at the

21

WVDC which have been rejected, or are covered by such

22

claims because all 910 claims were filed as class claims.

23

c. Walker and Vargas (but not Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

24

Hatfield) are also the only class representatives for the federal

25

26

27

1Steve Price, aka Lynn Price, Michael Hatfield aka Madison Hatfield and Kevin aka Veronica Pratt, are transgender persons who, out of respect and preference, will be

28 referred to as Lynn Price, Madison Hatfield and Veronica Pratt, and with use of the

pronoun “she” throughout this Complaint.

6

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 8 of 61 Page ID #:8

1

injunctive relief class and are at times referred to as the

2

“Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representatives.”

3 18.

Class Representatives In Custody At Facilities Other Than

4 WVDC: Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Fredrick Crockan,

5 Taheash White, and Kevin aka Veronica Pratt, are currently incarcerated in

6 different County or California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

7 facilities, and have filed and been denied state administrative 910 claims. They are

8 solely California damages class representatives. Every named class representative

9 filed an administrative 910 claim on behalf of all GBT inmates at the WVDC

10 which has been rejected, or are covered by such claims because all 910 claims

11 were filed as class claims. They are among the class representatives for the

12 California damages class. The “California Damages Class Representatives” are at

13 times collectively referred to by that name.

14

19. Different and overlapping Plaintiffs are acting as representatives for

15 different classes. The classes and class representatives identified in this Complaint

16 are: 1) Federal Damages Class (McKibben, Guzman, Ou and Lint); 2) California

17 Damages Class (McKibben, Guzman, Ou, Lint, Walker, Vargas, Kennedy,

18 Robertson, Price, Bagwell, Crawford, Crockan, White, Hatfield and Pratt); 3)

19 Federal Injunctive Relief Class (Walker, Vargas) and 4) California Injunctive

20 Relief Class (Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price, and Hatfield). While the

21 various class representatives overlap in certain respects, they differ as follows:

22

a. The Federal Damages Class representatives are individuals who

23

were, within the relevant time periods, GBT inmates housed in

24

the ALT, but are not currently in custody in any detention

25

facility, jail or prison and are not “prisoners” within the

26

meaning of the PLRA. The Federal Damages Class extends to

27

all former or present GBT inmates detained at WVDC within

28

two years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and extending into

7

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 9 of 61 Page ID #:9

1

the future until such time as the unlawful conduct alleged herein

2

ceases or resolution of this case.

3

b. The California Damages Class representatives are individuals

4

who are or were, within the relevant time periods, GBT inmates

5

housed in the ALT. Unlike the Federal Damages Class

6

representatives, the California Damages Class representatives

7

include individuals who are currently “prisoners” within the

8

meaning of the PLRA, which statute does not apply to their

9

claims under California law. All such class representatives were

10

in custody at WVDC on or after October 9, 2013 (six months

11

prior to the filing by Veronica Pratt of a Govt. Code § 910

12

claim on behalf of all similarly situated individuals on April 9,

13

2014, which makes the beginning of the California class

14

damages period October 9, 2013). The California Damages

15

Class extends to all former or present GBT inmates detained at

16

WVDC beginning October 9, 2013, and extending into the

17

future until such time as the unlawful conduct alleged herein

18

ceases or resolution of this case.

19

c. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class representatives are

20

individuals who are currently in custody at WVDC, confined in

21

the ALT, who have exhausted or attempted to exhaust, or could

22

not exhaust because they were prevented through the conduct of

23

the SBCSD from exhausting their remedies within the SBCSD.

24

d. The California Injunctive Relief Class representatives are

25

individuals who are currently in custody at WVDC, and

26

confined in the ALT.

27

20. The following chart identifies each Named Plaintiff, what class or

28 classes each seeks to represent, and their current inmate status.

8

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 10 of 61 Page ID #:10

1

NAME

2 Dan McKibben
3
4 Pedro Guzman

5
Nick Ou
6

7 Sean Lint

8
Tim Walker
9

10
11 Ilich Vargas

12

13 William Kennedy

14

15 Jonathan Robertson
16

17
Steve Price, aka Lynn Price
18

19
20 Christopher Crawford

21
22 Kevin Pratt, aka Veronica Pratt
23
24 Bryan Bagwell

25
26 Fredrick Crockan

27

28

CLASS

INMATE STATUS

Federal and California Damages Classes

Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal and California Damages Class

Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal and California Damages Class

Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal and California Damages Class

Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal and California Inmate at WVDC Injunctive Relief Classes, California Damages Class

Federal and California Inmate at WVDC Injunctive Relief Classes, California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Damages Class Inmate at Valley State Prison

California Damages Class Inmate at Riverside County Jail

California Damages Class Inmate at C.I.M., Chino

California Damages Class Inmate in North Kern State Prison

9

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 11 of 61 Page ID #:11

1

NAME

CLASS

INMATE STATUS

2 Taheash White
3

California Damages Class Inmate at C.I.M., Chino

4
Michael Hatfield, aka MadisonCalifornia Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC

5 Hatfield

Class, California Damages

6

Class

7

8

21. All Plaintiffs identified in the foregoing paragraphs have filed 910

9 Administrative Claims with the State and County both on an individual basis and

10 as class representatives, or as set forth above, are included in the 910 claims

11 because all 910 claims were filed as class claims to include all GBT persons at the

12 WVDC. All 910 claims have been rejected by both the County of San Bernardino

13 and the State of California as of the date of filing of this Complaint.

14

B. Defendants

15

22. Defendant County of San Bernardino (hereafter “County”) is a public

16 entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendant

17 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is a public entity within the meaning

18 of California law, and is a County agency. These Defendants are sued in their own

19 right for a County and/or SBCSD policy, practice or custom that caused Plaintiffs’

20 injuries in violation of one or more federal constitutional guarantees under 42

21 U.S.C. §1983, and on Plaintiffs’ state law claims for injunctive relief based on

22 violations of mandatory duties under California Government Code §815.6, the

23 state constitutional provisions identified above and Civil Code §52.1.

24

23. Defendant John McMahon (hereafter “McMahon”) is the Sheriff of

25 San Bernardino County, and is the policy maker for the SBCSD. He is sued in his

26 official and individual capacities for both injunctive relief and damages under both

27 California and Federal law.

28

10

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 12 of 61 Page ID #:12

1

24. Defendant Greg Garland (hereafter “Garland”) is the Deputy Chief in

2 charge of the Corrections Bureau which oversees all San Bernardino County jail

3 facilities, including the WVDC, Central, Glen Helen and Adelanto facilities.

4 Garland is sued in his individual capacity for damages only under both California

5 and Federal law.

6

25. Defendant Jeff Rose (hereafter “Rose”) is a deputy sheriff holding the

7 rank of captain. He is the commanding officer of WVDC. Rose is sued in his

8 individual capacity for damages only under both California and Federal law.

9 26.

Defendant Sergeant James Mahan is a deputy sheriff holding the rank

10 of sergeant. He is involved in handling grievances by GBT persons in the ALT at

11 WVDC, and is responsible for determining programs to which GBT inmates are

12 eligible. Mahan is sued in his individual capacity for damages only under both

13 California and Federal law.

14

27. Defendant Castillas is a deputy sheriff holding the rank of corporal.

15 He is in charge of classification and placement of GBT inmates in the ALT, and is

16 involved in reviewing grievances by inmates in the ALT. Castillas is sued in his

17 individual capacity for damages only under both California and Federal law.

18

28. All Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was intentional, and/or was

19 done with reckless disregard for, and/or deliberate indifference toward, Plaintiffs’

20 rights.

21 29 . Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

22 sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants

23 by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will give notice of this Complaint, and of one or

24 more DOES’ true names and capacities, when ascertained.

25

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that

26 Defendants DOES 1 through 5 are responsible in some manner for the damages

27 and injuries hereinafter complained of.

28

11

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 13 of 61 Page ID #:13

1

31. DOES 6 through 10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “SBCSD

2 Supervisory Defendants”) were and/or are now responsible for the SBCSD jails.

3 Among other duties, they are responsible for the training, supervision, control,

4 assignment and discipline of both sworn and civilian personnel of the SBCSD and

5 County who work in, operate, administer and manage the jails, and for the

6 formulation, promulgation, adoption, application, administration and enforcement

7 of the policies, rules, regulations and practices of the SBCSD jails.

8

32. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs further allege that, at all times

9 relevant herein, Defendants participated in, approved, and/or ratified the

10 unconstitutional or illegal acts that occurred within SBCSD jails which are

11 complained of herein.

12

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that, at all

13 times relevant herein, the individual Defendants, and each of them, were the

14 agents, servants and employees of their respective employers (Defendants SBCSD

15 and the County) and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency and

16 employment with the knowledge and consent of their principals and employers. At

17 all times herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting under the color of state

18 law.

19 IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20

34. Inmates in SBCSD custody who self-identify as GBT during the

21 booking process are automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. The ALT is

22 currently located in Unit 1F and consists of 16 cells, each of which house two

23 inmates, that are isolated from the general population dorms and cells at WVDC.

24 There are two tiers or levels – the upper tier and the lower tier – each of which has

25 8 cells. The ALT has its own day room. The ALT is closed off from other inmates.

26 GBT inmates are denied the opportunity to participate in programs that are offered

27 to non-GBT inmates as described below, are not allowed to participate in the same

28 rehabilitation programs as offered non-GBT inmates, are not allowed the same

12

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 14 of 61 Page ID #:14

1 opportunities to earn time off their sentences as non-GBT inmates, and are not

2 allowed equal time out of their cells as non-GBT inmates.

3

35. For most of the past two years, GBT inmates housed in the ALT were

4 locked inside their cells for approximately 23 hours or more a day, regardless of

5 their level of custody. Prior to approximately March 2014, SBCSD allowed GBT

6 inmates to exit their cell for only 45 minutes to 1 hour per day. Inmates in general

7 population during this entire period either lived in dormitory style units, where

8 they are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally

9 allowed out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in

10 special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were

11 generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily. Thus, GBT inmates’ cell

12 confinement was dramatically different and more limited than non-GBT inmates in

13 special housing during this period. After being notified on March 28, 2014 that

14 their housing of GBT inmates was being investigated, after the initial 910 class

15 claims were filed on April 9, 2014, and after being notified by Plaintiffs’ counsel

16 that its GBT practices were discriminatory on May 2, 2014, SBCSD began to allow

17 GBT inmates living on the top tier of the ALT out of their cells for about an hour

18 to an hour and a half a day, and to continue to allow GBT inmates living on the

19 bottom tier approximately forty five minutes out of their cells.

20

36. Defendants do not provide GBT inmates time out of their cells equal

21 to general population inmates, who are generally housed in dorm settings, and

22 allowed outside cell access all day.

23

37. Unlike inmates in general population, ALT inmates get locked down

24 in their cells all day when any GBT inmates cause disturbances, whereas in general

25 population only the inmates involved in the disturbance are locked down.

26

38. The increased lock down for GBT inmates does not further any

27 legitimate penological purpose, and there is no reasonable necessity for the

28 differential treatment. Up to 32 GBT inmates can be housed in the ALT cells, and

13

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 15 of 61 Page ID #:15

1 there are 5 tables that can seat 32 inmates in the ALT day room. Thus, the GBT

2 inmates could be let out of their cells all day without compromising their safety.

3 They also could be housed dormitory style in a unit that would protect their safety,

4 or other SBCSD facilities that could safely afford them equal time out of their

5 cells, including Adelanto, Glen Helen and Central facilities.

6

39. On information and belief, SBCSD generally prohibits GBT inmates

7 who have been sentenced and are housed in the ALT from participating in the

8 inmate work program. Sentenced inmates can receive 1 day of work time credit for

9 each 4 days they do not refuse to satisfactorily perform labor as assigned by the

10 sheriff. Cal. Penal Code §4019. Additionally, by depriving them of jobs, GBT

11 inmates are denied access to the day room all day like non-GBT inmates; they do

12 not get increased visiting time of 30 to 45 minutes like non-GBT inmates (but

13 rather receive only the regular 20 minutes); and they do not have the opportunity or

14 ability to go beyond their immediate area like non-GBT inmates who work.

15 Consequently, sentenced GBT inmates serve longer sentences than non-GBT

16 inmates because SBCSD denies them access to work assignments. In contrast,

17 SBCSD permits sentenced, non-GBT inmates in general population to receive such

18 credit. Thus, sentenced non-GBT inmates receive work time credits, whereas GBT

19 inmates do not. Separate GBT crews could be created and work together as a

20 separate crew (e.g., in the law library, work crews outside the jail, work in the

21 kitchen or laundry all in one shift, or as trustees in the ALT). They could also work

22 with non-GBT inmates when it is safe to do so, as there is no legitimate

23 penological reason categorically to forbid them from working together. There are

24 numerous occasions when GBT inmates are together with non-GBT inmates such

25 as in the medical unit, in holding tanks prior to being transported to court, and

26 when being transported back and forth to court.

27

40. On information and belief, and only in response to Plaintiffs’

28 Counsel’s letters, Plaintiffs’ investigation into the conditions of the ALT at the

14

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:16

1 WVDC, Plaintiffs’ 910 claims and the threat of a separate lawsuit by Plaintiff

2 Guzman, SBCSD has just recently begun allowing a single GBT inmate at a time

3 to work. Plaintiff Guzman and, after his release, class member Robert Torres,

4 were permitted to work in the law library. They were and are, however, denied

5 work credit and additional privileges that other non-GBT workers receive, such as

6 day-long access to the day room, and getting a longer amount of time to spend with

7 visitors. As a result, even the single GBT inmate who is allowed to work is treated

8 in a discriminatory manner and forced to serve a longer sentence than their

9 similarly situated non-GBT counterparts.

10

41. On information and belief, SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates from being

11 trustees while non-GBT inmates are allowed to serve as trustees. Both pretrial and

12 sentenced inmates may act as trustees. Trustees are let out of their cells all day,

13 have longer visits, and get more time outside. GBT inmates cannot even be trustees

14 in the ALT. There is no legitimate penological purpose served by not allowing

15 GBT inmates to serve as trustees since they interact with non-GBT inmates, as set

16 forth in paragraph above. Even non-GBT inmates who are charged with violent

17 crimes, including murder, are allowed to be trustees for the ALT, including one

18 inmate charged with triple murder, two with double murder, and one with

19 manslaughter. Yet GBT inmates may not be so assigned.

20

42. On information and belief, SBCSD refuses to provide educational

21 programs or training to GBT inmates at WVDC. SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates

22 from participating in regional occupational classes, vocational educational classes,

23 and GED classes along with the general population. Non-GBT inmates have access

24 to such educational and other programming. SBCSD also does not provide

25 educational or other programs separately for GBT inmates.

26

43. On information and belief, SBCSD denies GBT inmates access to

27 religious services. SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates from attending congregational

28 prayer with other inmates or having group services inside the ALT, denies them

15

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 17 of 61 Page ID #:17

1 access to bibles, and prevents chaplains from visiting their cells. In contrast, non-

2 GBT inmates have access to religious services and materials.

3

44. On information and belief, SBCSD provides GBT inmates with

4 unequal access to drug rehabilitation programs. GBT inmates who request to

5 participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at the Glen Helen

6 Rehabilitation Center are denied access because they cannot be housed there. In

7 contrast, SBCSD transfers non-GBT inmates to the “INROADS” drug treatment

8 program. GBT inmates who were sent to Glen Helen for drug treatment were sent

9 back to the WVDC once it was learned by sheriff’s officials at Glen Helen they

10 were GBT. On information and belief GBT inmates are sometimes given access

11 instead to a self-study, “journaling,” rehabilitation program. This program is

12 nothing like the full rehabilitation program at Glen Helen and, even if it were

13 comparable, GBT inmates in the self-study program do not earn time off their

14 sentences like inmates in the Glen Helen program.

15

45. On information and belief, SBCSD deputies regularly fail to perform

16 hourly safety checks or walk-throughs in the ALT as required by Title 15 Code of

17 Regulations. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD deputies intentionally

18 avoid going near the cells in the ALT. In contrast, deputies conduct regular walk-

19 throughs of non-GBT inmates’ cells and the general population dorms.

20

46. GBT inmates at the WVDC are subjected to a pattern of harassing

21 behavior by SBCSD deputies, which includes derogatory name calling, neglect,

22 and humiliation. Deputies call GBT inmates “faggots,” “sissies,” “bitches,” and

23 “freak shows,” in addition to other derogatory and demeaning names, on a regular

24 basis.

25

47. On information and belief, GBT inmates housed in the ALT also

26 receive harsher punishments than non-GBT inmates in general population. SBCSD

27 deputies discipline inmates housed in the ALT with group punishment, but

28 discipline non-GBT inmates in general population on an individual basis. SBCSD

deputies use scare tactics as disciplinary measures by placing GBT inmates who

16

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 18 of 61 Page ID #:18

1 are at risk of physical or sexual assault in cells with intimidating non-GBT

2 inmates.

3

48. On information and belief, SBCSD deputies have retaliated against

4 GBT inmates who have complained about the discriminatory treatment and refused

5 to then move to general population out of concern for their safety. On April 30,

6 2014, Defendant Castillas told class representatives Christopher Crawford, Bryan

7 Bagwell, Fredrick Crockan, Madison Hatfield, Timothy Walker and class member

8 Larry Meyer that they now had the option to live in general population. Crawford,

9 Walker and Crockan had already filed 910 claims, while Bagwell and Meyer had

10 already received correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel and a questionnaire

11 concerning the treatment of GBT inmates at the WVDC. The above-mentioned

12 inmates refused to transfer to the general population out of concern for their safety

13 and well-being, and because they felt they would be forced to hide their sexual

14 orientation or gender identity. On information and belief, the jail’s rationale for

15 housing GBT inmates in the ALT is inmate safety, and the offer to place them in

16 the general population as identified GBT inmates was a cynical attempt to defend

17 against the Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination and to force GBT inmates to the

18 Hobson’s choice of exposure to extreme violence in the general population, or

19 acceptance of the discrimination against GBT inmates housed in the ALT. On

20 information and belief, SBCSD then retaliated against these six inmates by giving

21 them less time outside of their cells.

22

49. In addition to filing Govt. Code §910 claims, Plaintiffs have engaged

23 in pre-litigation settlement efforts. Specifically, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter

24 consisting of the aforementioned complaints, and asked that Defendants

25 immediately cease and desist their unlawful practices. Defendants declined to

26 attempt to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims without the need for litigation, and have

27 denied Plaintiffs’ administrative 910 claims that have been filed. To date, and to

28 Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Defendants continue to engage in the unlawful practices

detailed in this complaint.

17

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 19 of 61 Page ID #:19

1

50. Defendants will continue their aforementioned policies and practices

2 unless enjoined and restrained by the Court. Without injunctive relief applicable to

3 the class as a whole, the class members will suffer irreparable harm for which there

4 is no adequate remedy at law in that their constitutional and statutory rights will be

5 systematically violated. Without the intervention of this Court, Defendants will

6 continue these unconstitutional practices.

7

51. Defendants have the resources and money to properly house and

8 provide programmatic access to GBT inmates in a constitutional manner that does

9 not violate their equal protection rights. On or about February 6, 2014, the SBCSD

10 opened the Adelanto Jail facility, a state-of-the-art facility that cost the County

11 $145.4 million. Adelanto opened with over 200 available beds, yet Defendants

12 continue to house the GBT inmates in a dehumanizing and discriminatory manner.

13

52. The differential treatment outlined in this Complaint serves neither a

14 legitimate compelling interest, nor a substantial state interest, nor is it narrowly

15 tailored to serve any such interests.

16

53. In engaging in the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and

17 each of them, acted with a discriminatory intent toward GBT inmates, and/or with

18 deliberate indifference to, or a reckless disregard for the rights of GBT inmates.

19

54. As a result of the discriminatory conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs

20 have suffered damages, including emotional distress damages and pain and

21 suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial.

22

55. In engaging in the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and

23 each of them, acted maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, and otherwise in a

24 manner entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.

25 V. CLAIMS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

26

A. TIMOTHY WALKER

56. Timothy Walker was arrested by SBCSD on or around April 8, 2013.
27

Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was transferred to the
28

18

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 20 of 61 Page ID #:20

1 ALT at the WVDC. He is currently housed there, and will be housed there for the

2 foreseeable future.

3

57. From approximately April 8, 2013 to the present, Mr. Walker has

4 been housed in the ALT, first located in Unit 12A and currently in Unit 1F. During

5 that time, Mr. Walker was let out of his cell, on average, approximately 45 minutes

6 to an hour and one-half a day. Although some inmates on the top tier, including

7 Walker, have very recently been given up to three hours of time out of cell in

8 response to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s letters and the threat of litigation, they are still

9 subject to discriminatory treatment compared to the time out of cell provided to

10 non-GBT inmates, as discussed above. He, along with the other ALT inmates, has

11 been required to eat meals in his cell, unlike non-GBT inmates.

12

58. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, as an inmate

13 in the ALT Walker was not permitted to work. Walker requested participation in

14 the work program by submitting official Inmate Request Slips on June 4, 2013,

15 July 1, 2013, and July 25, 2013. SBCSD denied each request by stamping his

16 requests slips “DENIED” or “NOTHING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME”. On

17 information and belief, positions were, in fact, available even when the denial

18 stated that nothing was available. Thus, Mr. Walker could not earn money and

19 work credit, and will serve a longer sentence than if he had been able to work and

20 receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

21

59. Recently, in response to grievances he filed in early September 2014

22 and notice of this pending lawsuit, Walker was told he was eligible to obtain a job.

23 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, to date, Mr. Walker has not been given a

24 job. Out of the hundreds of inmates housed in the ALT since Mr. Walker has been

25 there, only two others have had jobs. Pedro Guzman, who threatened legal action,

26 was allowed to work in the library, and Robert Torres, who replaced Mr. Guzman

27 when he was released. No others have been permitted to work.

28

60. Nor has Mr. Walker been permitted to be a trustee in the ALT.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the trustees who work in the ALT--

19

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 21 of 61 Page ID #:21

1 bringing food to the cells of inmates housed in the ALT-- are non-GBT pre-trial

2 inmates, and in the past have been awaiting trial on serious charges such as murder

3 and manslaughter. Yet, they have been allowed to work as trustees while the GBT

4 inmates have not.

5

61. Mr. Walker properly filed grievances on June 28, 2013 and May 15,

6 2014 regarding SBCSD’s policy of not allowing GBT inmates to participate in the

7 inmate work program. SBCSD responded on June 26, 2013, concluding that

8 Walker’s allegations were unfounded because he was involved in a mutual combat

9 fight, and thus ineligible for work assignment on that basis. On June 27, 2013, Mr.

10 Walker filed a grievance appeal disagreeing with these findings, stating that he was

11 disciplined for the fight prior to receiving his sentence and before he could even be

12 considered for work assignment, and thus should have been eligible for a work

13 assignment. SBCSD responded on July 3, 2013 concluding that, “regardless of

14 when Mr. Walker received his discipline, that discipline automatically excludes

15 him from becoming an inmate worker at any time while in Sheriff’s custody per

16 Detention/Correction’s policy.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD’s

17 policy prohibiting Mr. Walker from work assignment is pretextual because straight

18 inmates have participated in the work program even though they were disciplined

19 for fighting. Moreover, in a vague manner, he was recently told by Defendant

20 Mahan that he was eligible for a job, though he has not been given one. Because

21 he has not been permitted to work, Mr. Walker is serving a longer sentence than

22 non-GBT inmates who can earn work credits.

23

62. Mr. Walker is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

24 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

25 inmates at WVDC. Mr. Walker requested educational programs by submitting an

26 official Inmate Request Slip on July 1, 2013. SBCSD denied his request, stamping

27 “NOTHING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME” on to his request slip. On information

28 and belief, however, educational programs were available to non-GBT inmates.

20

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 22 of 61 Page ID #:22

1

63. Mr. Walker is unable to participate in religious services inside the

2 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

3

64. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Mr. Walker is unable to

4 participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at Glen Helen

5 Rehabilitation Center. Since he filed his 910 claim, the jail has given him “IN

6 ROADS” in the form of a self-study program, but not at Glen Helen. He is not

7 receiving credit off his sentence like non-GBT inmates who participate in the

8 program. The self-study program itself is not proper or effective drug

9 rehabilitation programming.

10

65. Mr. Walker’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on

11 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

12 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never check Mr.

13 Walker’s or other inmate’s cells.

14

66. Mr. Walker has been and remains subject to harassment, name calling,

15 neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being

16 referred to as a “bitch” and “high school girl.”

17

67. Mr. Walker has been retaliated against for complaining about his

18 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant Castillas asked Mr. Walker to sign a

19 paper agreeing to go to general population where he would be responsible for his

20 own safety. He declined as being housed in general population and identified as

21 GBT would subject him to violence. The SBCSD offered the same transfer to

22 Plaintiffs Crockan, Bagwell and Hatfield, and to class member Larry Meyer. They

23 all declined due to safety concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated by placing these

24 inmates on the bottom tier of the ALT, which meant less time out of their cells. All

25 of these inmates had previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.

26

68. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

27 Mr. Walker has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

28

69. During all times Mr. Walker has been in custody at WVDC, he has

been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

21

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 23 of 61 Page ID #:23

1

B. Dan MCKIBBEN

2

70. Dan McKibben was arrested for a probation violation and booked into

3 SBCSD on or around March 21, 2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the

4 booking process, he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He was

5 released in or around June 2014, and is currently out of custody.

6

71. During all times Mr. McKibben was in custody at WVDC, he was

7 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

8 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day, which time was used for the showers.

9 Meals were given inside the cell, not outside in the day room where there were

10 tables. Non-GBT inmates in general population either lived in dormitory style

11 units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they

12 were generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates

13 placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,

14 were and are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

15

72. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, as an inmate in

16 the ALT Mr. McKibben was not permitted to be a trustee or work at WVDC.

17 Because he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good time work

18 credits. As a result, Mr. McKibben served a longer sentence than he would have

19 had he been able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code

20 §4019.

21

73. Mr. McKibben was unable to participate in regional occupational

22 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

23 population of inmates at WVDC.

24

74. Mr. McKibben was unable to participate in religious services inside

25 the ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

26

75. Mr. McKibben’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by

deputies on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a
27

regular basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though
28

they never checked Mr. McKibben’s cell. Mr. McKibben was subject to

22

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 24 of 61 Page ID #:24

1 harassment, name calling, neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at

2 WVDC. The deputies called the ALT the “fag bin” or “queer quarters”.

3

76. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

4 Mr. McKibben has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

5

77. Mr. McKibben did not file grievances about the conditions due to his

6 fear of retaliation. To avoid trouble with the guards that he knew others

7 experienced, he “kept his mouth shut.”

8

78. During all times Mr. McKibben was in custody at WVDC, he was

9 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

10

79. Mr. McKibben is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate

11 within the meaning of the PLRA.

12

C. PEDRO GUZMAN

13

80. Pedro Guzman was housed by SBCSD beginning on approximately

14 January 21, 2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was

15 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He was subsequently released in

16 or about late August, 2014, and is currently out of custody.

17

81. During all times Mr. Guzman was in custody at WVDC, he was

18 confined to his cell for approximately 22 and one-half hours a day. He was only

19 allowed out of his cell for one and one half hours a day, except when he got a job

20 (see the following paragraph) and was allowed out to work. Non-GBT inmates in

21 general population either lived, or continue to live in dormitory style units. They

22 were and are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were

23 generally out of their cells during most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates

24 placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,

25 were generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

26

82. On or about June 24, 2014, after threatening litigation, Mr. Guzman

was the first GBT person allowed to work. He was placed in the law library.
27

However, Mr. Guzman is informed and believes, based on statements made to him
28

by Sergeant Mahan, that he did not earn work credit, unlike non-GBT inmates. As

23

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 25 of 61 Page ID #:25

1 a result, Mr. Guzman served a longer sentence than he would have had he been

2 able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019. Further,

3 unlike non-GBT inmates, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Mr. Guzman did

4 not received the perks of being a worker. For example, he did not receive access to

5 the day room all day, his visits were limited to 15 minutes rather than 30 to 45

6 minutes, and he did not have additional access to the outside, all in contrast to non-

7 GBT workers. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Mr. Guzman and Robert

8 Torres, after Mr. Guzman was released, have been the only GBT persons allowed

9 to work at WVDC, and only in response to the threat of litigation. Mr. Guzman

10 was not allowed the opportunity to work as a trustee.

11

83. Mr. Guzman was unable to participate in regional occupational

12 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

13 population of inmates at WVDC.

14

84. Mr. Guzman was unable to participate in religious services inside the

15 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

16

85. Mr. Guzman’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

17 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

18 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

19 never checked Mr. Guzman’s cell. Mr. Guzman was subjected to harassment, name

20 calling, neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including

21 being called a “damn faggot”, and having his face slammed against the bars by a

22 deputy for no reason other than being GBT.

23

86. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

24 Mr. Guzman has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

25

26

87. During all times that Mr. Guzman was in custody at WVDC, he was

27 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra. Mr.

28 Guzman is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate within the meaning

of the PLRA.

24

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 26 of 61 Page ID #:26

1

D. NICK OU

2

88. Nick Ou was arrested by the Colton Police Department on or about

3 April 25, 2014, and was booked into the WVDC on that date. Upon self-

4 identifying as gay during the booking process, he was transferred to the ALT at

5 WVDC after a brief placement in the general population. He was subsequently

6 released in or about late August 2014, and is currently out of custody.

7

89. During all times Mr. Ou was in custody at WVDC, he was confined to

8 his cell for approximately 22 to 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of his

9 cell, on average, for 1 to one and a half hours a day . He was required to eat in his

10 cell, like all GBT inmates, even though there was seating for 32 in the day room

11 that could accommodate all 32 inmates in the ALT. Non-GBT inmates in general

12 population either lived in dormitory style units, where they were not confined to

13 cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally out of their cells at least 3

14 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

15 informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or

16 more daily.

17

90. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Ou was not

18 permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. He attempted

19 to work and put in a work request slip, but was told he was ineligible due to his

20 “medical condition,” which SBCSD claimed would not allow him to climb stairs,

21 even though he was housed on the upper tier and had to climb stairs several times a
22 day. He filed a subsequent request and was told he was not medically cleared. He
23 then sought medical clearance from his doctor, which he received. He submitted 24 another request, which was denied. Defendants’ rationale for denying him work 25 was discriminatory and pretextual. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory 26 conduct, Mr. Ou could not earn money or good time work credits, and thereby
served a longer sentence than he would have had he been able to work and receive
27
early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.
28

25

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 27 of 61 Page ID #:27

1

91. Mr. Ou was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

2 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

3 inmates at WVDC.

4

92. Mr. Ou was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

5 in person, a chaplain did not visit, and did not have access to religious services

6 outside the ALT.

7

93. Mr. Ou’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on a

8 routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

9 deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they never

10 checked Mr. Ou’s cell. Mr. Ou was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect,

11 and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

12

94. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

13 Mr. Ou has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

14

95. During all times when Mr. Ou was in custody at WVDC, he was

15 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra. Mr.

16 Ou is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate within the meaning of the

17 PLRA.

18

E. SEAN LINT

19

96. Sean Lint was arrested by the Barstow Police Department and booked

20 by the SBCSD into the WVDC in or around April or May, 2014. Upon self-

21 identifying as gay during the booking process, he was automatically transferred to

22 the ALT at WVDC. He was released in or around June or July 2014, and is

23 currently out of custody.

24

97. During all times Mr. Lint was in custody at WVDC, he was confined

25 to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of his cell

26 for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population either

lived and continue to live in dormitory style units. They were and are not confined
27

to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally out of their cells most
28

non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

26

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 28 of 61 Page ID #:28

1 status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three

2 hours or more daily.

3

98. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Lint was not

4 permitted to be a trustee or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because he

5 was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good time work credits. As

6 a result, Mr. Lint served a longer sentence than he would have had he been able to

7 work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

8

99. Mr. Lint was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

9 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

10 inmates at WVDC.

11

100. Mr. Lint was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

12 in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

13

101. Mr. Lint’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on

14 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

15 deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they never

16 checked Mr. Lint’s cell. He was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect,

17 and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being called a

18 “faggot.”

19

102. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

20 Mr. Lint has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

21

103. During all times Mr. Lint was in custody at WVDC, he was subjected

22 to all the conditions of confinement explained Section IV, supra. Mr. Lint is not

23 currently in custody and, thus is, not an inmate within the meaning of the PLRA.

24

F. Lynn Price

25

104. Lynn Price was arrested by SBCSD in late July of 2014. Upon self-

26 identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was transferred to the

27 ALT at the WVDC.

She is currently housed there and will be housed there for

28 the foreseeable future. Ms. Price has also been housed in the ALT during past

27

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 29 of 61 Page ID #:29

1 periods of incarceration at WVDC as well, including in 2012 and February of

2 2014.

3

105. During all times Ms. Price has been in the ALT tank, she has been

4 confined to her cell anywhere from 22 to 23 hours a day, and only allowed out of

5 her cell for approximately one hour to two hours a day. That is only very recently

6 in response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter and the threat of litigation. She is

7 informed and believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in

8 dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in

9 which they are generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT

10 inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang

11 members, are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

12

106. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Price has not

13 been permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Thus,

14 she could not earn money or good time work credits. As a result, Ms. Price is

15 serving a longer sentence than she would have if she were allowed to work and

16 receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

17

107. Ms. Price is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

18 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

19 inmates at WVDC. On or about September 13, 2014, Ms. Price requested a GED

20 program. On or about September 24, 2014, Ms. Price was verbally told that a GED

21 program had to be court ordered. Shortly thereafter, she filed a grievance on that

22 and other issues related to the discriminatory treatment of GBT inmates. The

23 grievance was returned to her by Deputy Allen, who informed her that she could

24 only file a grievance on a single issue, and if she wanted to work she would have to

25 go to general population.

26

108. Ms. Price is unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

27 in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

28

109. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Ms. Price is unable to

participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at Glen Helen

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 30 of 61 Page ID #:30

1 Rehabilitation Center. In the 1980s, Ms. Price was housed at Glen Helen, at which

2 time they were aware of her gender identity. They did not then offer the

3 rehabilitation programs currently offered.

4

110. Ms. Price’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on a

5 routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

6 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never check Ms.

7 Price’s cell.

8

111. Ms. Price is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

9 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

10

112. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

11 Ms. Price has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

12

113. During all times Ms. Price has been in custody at WVDC, she has

13 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

14

G. ILICH VARGAS

15

114. Ilich Vargas was housed by the SBCSD at the WVDC on or about

16 December 13, 2012 in the general population, as he did not disclose his bisexual

17 orientation. Upon self-identifying as bisexual in general population, he was

18 transferred to the WVDC ALT tank in October 2013. He is currently housed as a

19 pre-trial inmate in the ALT.

20

115. During all times Mr. Vargas has been in the ALT tank, he has been

21 confined to his cell anywhere from 22 to 23 hours a day, and only allowed out for

22 approximately one hour to two hours a day. That is only very recently in response

23 to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter and the threat of litigation. He is informed and
24 believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in dormitory style 25 units where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in which they were 26 generally out of their cells during most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates
placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,
27
are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.
28

29

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 31 of 61 Page ID #:31

1

116. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Vargas has

2 not been permitted to be a trustee in the ALT, and thereby be out of his cell all day.

3

117. Mr. Vargas is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

4 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

5 inmates at WVDC.

6

118. Mr. Vargas is unable to participate in religious services inside the

7 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

8

119. Mr. Vargas’ cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on

9 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

10 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never checked

11 Mr. Vargas’ cell.

12

120. Mr. Vargas is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

13 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being called a “faggot”

14 by nursing staff.

15

121. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

16 Mr. Vargas has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

17

122. During all times Mr. Vargas has been in custody at WVDC, he has

18 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

19

H. WILLIAM KENNEDY

20

123. William Kennedy was arrested by the Redlands Police Department,

21 and was booked into WVDC by the SBCSD on or around June 13, 2014. Upon

22 self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was automatically

23 transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He has been at the WVDC since that time in the

24 ALT, and is currently still in custody.

25

124. During all times Mr. Kennedy has been in custody at WVDC, he has

26 been confined to his cell approximately 22 to 23 hours a day, during which time he

has to take a shower and make any necessary phone calls. Mr. Kennedy is
27

informed and believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in
28

dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in

30

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 32 of 61 Page ID #:32

1 which they were generally out of their cells for many hours a day. Non-GBT

2 inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang

3 members, are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

4

125. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Kennedy has

5 not been permitted to be a trustee, and thus be allowed out of his cell all day.

6

126. Mr. Kennedy is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

7 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

8 inmates at WVDC.

9

127. Mr. Kennedy is unable to participate in religious services inside the

10 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT. He

11 has asked for religious services and a chaplain, but has never received a response.

12

128. Kennedy is unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

13 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

14

129. Mr. Kennedy’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies

15 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

16 basis, deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never

17 check Mr. Kennedy’s or other inmate’s cells.

18

130. Mr. Kennedy is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

19 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC. For example, the inmates are

20 called “girls” or are told “hot dogs are what you like” by deputies.

21

131. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

22 Mr. Kennedy has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

23

132. During all times Mr. Kennedy has been in custody at WVDC, he has

24 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

25

I.

JONATHAN ROBERTSON

26

133. Jonathan Robertson has been at the WVDC from August 22, 2012,

and upon self-identifying as gay on or about January 5, 2014, he was automatically
27

transferred to the ALT at WVDC. Since that time he has primarily been housed in
28

31

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 33 of 61 Page ID #:33

1 the ALT in pre-trial confinement, although he has been transferred to general

2 population for brief periods, on information and belief, as retaliation.

3

134. During all times Mr. Robertson has been in custody at WVDC, he has

4 been confined to his cell approximately 23 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates in

5 general population either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined

6 to cells at all and are out all day, or live in cells in which they were generally out of

7 their cells at least 3 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due

8 to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their

9 cells three hours or more daily.

10

135. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Robertson is

11 not permitted to be a trustee and be allowed out of his cell during the day like other

12 trustees.

13

136. Mr. Robertson is unable to participate in regional occupational

14 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

15 population of inmates at WVDC.

16

137. Mr. Robertson is unable to participate in religious services inside the

17 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

18

138. Mr. Robertson’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies

19 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

20 basis, deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never

21 check Mr. Kennedy’s or other inmate’s cells.

22

139. Mr. Robertson is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

23 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC. For example, Mr. Robertson and

24 other inmates in the WVDC are called “bitches”, “fags”, “girls”, “punks”,

25 “motherfucker”, and “disgusting” and told to “stop being a little bitch,” by the

26 deputies.

27

140. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

28 Mr. Robertson has experienced severe emotional distress and depression and has

32

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 34 of 61 Page ID #:34

1 made multiple suicide attempts without having been given a psychological

2 evaluation.

3

141. During all times Robertson has been in custody at WVDC, he has

4 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

5

J. CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD

6

142. Christopher Crawford was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD on

7 multiple occasions including in February 2012, December 2013, and most recently,

8 on February 10, 2014. Each time, upon self-identifying as gay during the booking

9 process, he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC.

10

143. Christopher Crawford was transferred to state custody on or around

11 April 12, 2014 and is no longer in SBCSD custody. He is currently a prisoner

12 within the meaning of the PLRA.

13

144. During all times Mr. Crawford was in custody at WVDC, he was

14 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

15 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general

16 population either lived and continue to live in dormitory style units, where they are

17 not confined to cells at all, or lived and continue to live in cells in which they are

18 generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in

19 special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were

20 generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

21

145. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr.

22 Crawford was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at

23 WVDC. Because he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good

24 time work credits. As a result, Crawford served longer sentences than he would

25 have had he been able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal

26 Code §4019.

146. Crawford was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,
27

vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of
28

inmates at WVDC. He and other inmates in the ALT were not allowed access to

33

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 35 of 61 Page ID #:35

1 educational programming provided to general population inmates and were also

2 not given access to any separate educational programming.

3

147. Mr. Crawford was unable to participate in religious services inside the

4 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

5

148. Mr. Crawford’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by

6 deputies on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a

7 regular basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though

8 they never checked Mr. Crawford’s or other inmate’s cells.

9

149. Mr. Crawford was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

10 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

11

150. Mr. Crawford was subjected to disproportionate punishment

12 compared to non-GBT inmates in general population. On one occasion, SBCSD

13 deputies punished Mr. Crawford for participating in mutual combat with another

14 inmate by placing him in a cell with a high-power, straight inmate.

15

151. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Mr. Crawford and other

16 inmates in the “ALT” were subjected to group, rather than individual, punishment.

17 For example, after the incident where Mr. Crawford engaged in mutual combat, all

18 inmates in the ALT were punished as a group, and were permitted even less time

19 out of their cells than the scant amount of time they were normally allowed. When

20 two non-GBT inmates in general population get into mutual combat typically only

21 those two individuals are punished, not the entire dorm.

22

152. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

23 Mr. Crawford has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

24

153. Mr. Crawford was unable to file any grievances at WVDC because,

25 when he attempted to do so, deputies told him his grievances were “ungrievable.”

26

154. During all times Mr. Crawford was in custody at WVDC, he was

27 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

28

34

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 36 of 61 Page ID #:36

1

K. VERONICA PRATT

2

155. Veronica Pratt was arrested by SBCSD on or around August 4, 2013.

3 Upon self-identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was

4 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. Pratt was subsequently released.

5

156. Ms. Pratt was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD and once again,

6 Ms. Pratt was placed in the ALT. She was released a second time on or about

7 June 6, 2014 to the custody of the Riverside County Jail, and is currently in that

8 facility.

9

157. During all times Ms. Pratt was in custody at WVDC, she was confined

10 to her cell approximately 23 hours a day. She was only allowed out of her cell for

11 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population either

12 lived and continue to live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to

13 cells at all, or lived and continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of

14 their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing

15 due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of

16 their cells three hours or more daily.

17

158. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Pratt was not

18 permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because she

19 was not permitted to work, she could not earn money or good time work credits.

20 As a result, Ms. Pratt served a longer sentence than she would have had she had

21 been able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

22

159. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

23 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

24 inmates at WVDC. On November 27, 2013, Ms. Pratt filed a grievance requesting

25 access to vocational education classes. SBCSD responded on December 3, 2013,

26 stating that her grievance was unfounded because vocational programs and

INROADS are court ordered programs, and she was not sentenced to these
27

programs.
28

35

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 37 of 61 Page ID #:37

1

160. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in religious services inside the

2 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

3

161. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

4 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

5

162. Ms. Pratt’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on

6 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

7 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never checked

8 Ms. Pratt’s or other inmate’s cells.

9

163. Ms. Pratt was subject to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

10 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

11

164. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

12 Ms. Pratt has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

13

165. During all times Pratt was in custody at WVDC, she was subjected to

14 all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

15

L. BRYAN BAGWELL

16 166.

Bryan Bagwell was booked by SBCSD into the WVDC on or about

17 December 13, 2013. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he

18 was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. As of June 4, 2014, he was

19 transferred to California Institute for Men of the California Department of

20 Corrections and Rehabilitation.

21

167. During all times Mr. Bagwell was in custody at WVDC, he was

22 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed to be

23 out for approximately one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population

24 either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or

25 live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most non-

26 sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or
27

more daily.
28

36

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 38 of 61 Page ID #:38

1

168. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Bagwell was

2 not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because

3 he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good time work credits.

4 As a result, Mr. Bagwell is serving a longer sentence than he would have had he

5 was able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

6

169. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Bagwell was

7 not permitted to work as a trustee.

8

170. Mr. Bagwell was unable to participate in regional occupational

9 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

10 population of inmates at WVDC.

11

171. Mr. Bagwell was unable to participate in religious services inside the

12 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

13

172. Mr. Bagwell’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

14 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

15 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

16 never checked Mr. Bagwell’s cell.

17

173. Mr. Bagwell was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

18 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

19

174. Mr. Bagwell has been retaliated against for complaining about his

20 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant Castillas asked him to sign a paper to go

21 to general population where he would be responsible for his own safety. Mr.

22 Bagwell declined the offer as being housed in general population and identified as

23 GBT would subject him to violence. SBCSD offered the same transfer to Plaintiffs

24 Crockan, Hatfield and Walker, and to class member Larry Meyer. All said “no”

25 due to safety concerns. Jail personnel retaliated by placing these inmates on the

26 bottom tier of the ALT and giving them less time out of their cells. All of these

27 inmates had previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.

28

175. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

Mr. Bagwell has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

37

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 39 of 61 Page ID #:39

1

176. When trying to file a grievance, Mr. Bagwell was told that he would

2 not get one, and that he could “shut the f___ up!” When he tried to file a grievance

3 about guards routinely turning off the TV in the day room during the very short

4 period of time ALT inmates were allowed out of their cells, the guards would not

5 give him a form. Mr. Bagwell was able to file a grievance only after great effort.

6

177. During all times Mr. Bagwell was in custody at WVDC, he was

7 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

8

M. FREDRICK CROCKAN

9

178. Fredrick Crockan was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD on or

10 around October 13, 2013. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process,

11 he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He is currently housed in

12 State prison.

13

179. During all times Mr. Crockan was in custody at WVDC, he was

14 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

15 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general

16 population either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells

17 at all, or live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most

18 non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

19 status, e.g. informants and gang members, are generally let out of their cells three

20 hours or more daily.

21

180. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr.

22 Crockan was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at

23 WVDC. Because he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good

24 time work credits. As a result, Mr. Crockan will serve a longer sentence than he

25 would have if he was able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal

26 Code §4019.

181. Crockan was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,
27

vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of
28

inmates at WVDC.

38

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 40 of 61 Page ID #:40

1

182. Crockan was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

2 in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

3

183. Crockan was unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

4 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

5

184. Mr. Crockan’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

6 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

7 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

8 never checked Mr. Crockan’s cell.

9

185. Mr. Crockan was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

10 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

11

186. Mr. Crockan was retaliated against for complaining about his

12 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant Castillas asked Crockan to sign a paper to

13 go to general population where he would be responsible for his own safety. Mr.

14 Crockan declined because being housed in general population would identify him

15 as being GBT and would subject him to violence. SBCSD offered the same

16 transfer to Plaintiffs Hatfield, Bagwell and Walker, and to class member Larry

17 Meyer. All declined the offer due to safety concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated

18 by placing Hatfield, Bagwell, Walker and Meyer on the bottom tier of the ALT and

19 gave them less time out of their cells. All of these inmates had previously filed 910

20 administrative claims against the county.

21

187. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

22 Mr. Crockan has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

23

188. Mr. Crockan filed several grievances regarding the conditions of

24 confinement for GBT inmates at WVDC, but all of his requests have been denied.

25

189. During all times Mr. Crockan was in custody at WVDC, he was

26 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

27

N. TAHEASH WHITE

190. Taheash White was arrested by SBCSD on or about February 24,
28

2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was

39

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 41 of 61 Page ID #:41

1 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He subsequently was released and

2 is now in state custody.

3

191. During all times Mr. White was in custody at WVDC, he was

4 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

5 his cell for approximately 45 minutes to one hour per day. He is informed and

6 believes that straight inmates in general population either lived and continue to live

7 in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived and

8 continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most

9 non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

10 status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three

11 hours or more daily.

12

192. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. White was

13 not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because

14 he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or good time work credits.

15 As a result, Mr. White will serve a longer sentence than he would have if he was

16 able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

17

193. Mr. White was unable to participate in the Glen Helen “INROADS”

18 program that would have reduced his sentence and given him drug rehabilitation

19 treatment.

20

194. Mr. White was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

21 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

22 inmates at WVDC.

23

195. Mr. White was unable to participate in religious services inside the

24 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

25

196. Mr. White’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

26 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

27 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

28 never checked Mr. White’s cell.

40

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 42 of 61 Page ID #:42

1

197. Mr. White was subject to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

2 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

3

198. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

4 Mr. White has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

5

199. Mr. White tried to filed grievances about the conditions in the ALT

6 but the guards would not give him grievance forms since they say ALT inmates’

7 complaints about the conditions in the dorm are “not grievable.”

8

200. During all times Mr. White was in custody at WVDC, he was

9 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

10

O. MADISON HATFIELD

11

201. Madison Hatfield was arrested by the Fontana Police Department and

12 booked into custody by the SBCSD at the WVDC on or about April 1, 2014. Upon

13 self-identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was transferred to

14 the ALT at WVDC. She was subsequently released to a sober living facility, and in

15 October, 2014, was transferred back from the sober living facility to the ALT of

16 the WVDC.

17

202. During all times Ms. Hatfield was in custody at WVDC, she was

18 confined to her cell for approximately 23 hours a day. She was only allowed out of

19 her cell for approximately 45 minutes to one hour per day. She is informed and

20 believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either lived and continue to

21 live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived and

22 continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells most non-

23 sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

24 informants, gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or more

25 daily.

26

203. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Hatfield

was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC.
27

Because she was not permitted to work, she could not earn money or good time
28

work credits. As a result, Ms. Hatfield served a longer sentence than she would

41

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 43 of 61 Page ID #:43

1 have if she was able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code

2 § 4019.

3

204. Ms. Hatfield was unable to participate in regional occupational

4 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

5 population of inmates at WVDC.

6

205. Ms. Hatfield was unable to participate in religious services inside the

7 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

8

206. Ms. Hatfield’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

9 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

10 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

11 never checked Ms. Hatfield’s cell.

12

207. Ms. Hatfield was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

13 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

14

208. She was retaliated against for complaining about her treatment. On

15 April 30, 2014, Defendant Castillas asked her to sign a paper to go to general

16 population where she would be responsible for her own safety, and she said no as

17 being housed in general population and identified as GBT would subject her to

18 violence. SBCSD offered the same transfer to Plaintiffs Crockan, Bagwell and

19 Walker, and to class member Larry Meyer. All declined the offer due to safety

20 concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated by placing these inmates on the bottom tier

21 of the ALT and gave them less time out of their cells. All of these inmates had

22 previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.

23

209. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

24 Ms. Hatfield has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

25

210. Ms. Hatfield filed grievances regarding the conditions of confinement

26 for GBT inmates at WVDC, but all of her requests were denied.

27

211. During all times Ms. Hatfield was in custody at WVDC, she was

28 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

42

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 44 of 61 Page ID #:44

1 VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

2

212. GBT inmates in the ALT, including Plaintiff class representatives,

3 repeatedly have faced serious obstacles when they tried to utilize the grievance

4 procedure to complain about their lack of access to work opportunities, programs,

5 drug rehabilitation and other issues related to conditions and treatment. Many

6 GBT inmates have either attempted to file grievances and exhaust but have been

7 prevented by the SBCSD from fully exhausting; been intimidated into not filing

8 grievances and thereby have been prevented from exhausting since the SBCSD has

9 made it clear through its actions that the inmates are not eligible for programs and

10 filing grievances will be futile; or, nonetheless, have overcome intimidation by the

11 SBCSD and have fully exhausted. Because there are only two federal injunctive

12 relief class representatives currently in custody in WVDC, Timothy Walker and

13 Ilich Vargas, we focus on them. There are no Federal Damages Class

14 Representatives, and thus the only Named Plaintiffs required to exhaust

15 administrative remedies before filing suit are Walker and Vargas.

16

213. In August 2014 Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representative

17 Timothy Walker attempted to file a grievance with T.W., a deputy, about how little

18 time GBT inmates got out of their cells, and their lack of access to work

19 opportunities, educational opportunities, drug rehabilitation programming, and

20 religious services; the lack of safety checks in the unit; and the harsher punishment

21 imposed on GBT inmates. He had filed grievances in the past that were rejected
22 without a legitimate basis, but wanted to file a grievance covering all GBT
23 members in the ALT and to list all of his complaints concerning lack of time out of 24 the cell, programing and rehabilitation, and work opportunities. One or two days 25 later, Sergeant Mahan approached Mr. Walker and told him that, if he processed 26 the grievance, Mr. Walker would get an additional twenty days added to his
sentence for allegedly “abusing” the grievance process. Because he did not want to
27
risk serving extra time, Mr. Walker told Sgt. Mahan not to process the grievance.
28

43

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 45 of 61 Page ID #:45

1

214. On the other hand, Ilich Vargas was able to exhaust, overcoming great

2 odds, and after multiple attempts to do so. On April 16, 2014, Vargas received a

3 response to a grievance concerning discriminatory treatment of GBT inmates in the

4 ALT. Among other things, the response stated that “portions of the complaint that

5 are a mass grievance will not be investigated since mass grievance complaints are

6 not investigated.” Vargas was also informed that “[f]urther grievances on this

7 matter may lead to disciplinary action.” Despite being told that further grievances

8 would lead to disciplinary action, Mr. Vargas filed a grievance over the denial of

9 equal opportunities for GBT inmates in the WVDC, including a grievance over

10 lack of time out of his cell, denial of programs, religious programs, and trustee

11 opportunities. On September 3, 2014, the SBCSD responded to his grievance by

12 telling him that he was abusing the grievance process, that he had fully exhausted

13 his complaints over the lack of opportunities and programming in the ALT of the

14 WVDC, and that his grievance constituted an abuse of the grievance process and

15 would subject him to discipline if he pursued it. Because he would be disciplined

16 for pursing his grievance, he decided not to pursue it. Thus, even when a GBT

17 inmate exhausts, a clear message is sent to all the GBT inmates not to pursue

18 grievances over their discriminatory treatment in the WVDC.

19

215. SBCSD has repeatedly intimidated GBT inmates away from filing

20 grievances, mishandled grievances, provided misinformation about the grievance

21 process and particularly group grievances, and rejected grievances about

22 discriminatory conditions in the ALT. As a result, most GBT inmates in the ALT

23 stopped filing grievances because they felt threatened or intimidated, or were

24 unable to pursue their core claims of discrimination against those held in the ALT.

25

216. Through intimidation, creating obstacles in attempting to file

26 grievances, mishandling grievances, and by misinforming GBT inmates when or

27 over what topics they could file grievances, the SBCSD has created

28 insurmountable barriers in the grievance process. When GBT inmates have filed

grievances, or grievance denial appeals concerning conditions in the ALT, SBCSD

44

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 46 of 61 Page ID #:46

1 repeatedly has mishandled them or has given GBT inmates misinformation about

2 their access to the grievance procedure. Many GBT inmates have filed grievances

3 about matters that affect not only themselves, but all people in the ALT. SBCSD

4 repeatedly told GBT inmates that such grievances are “ungrievable,” and have

5 explicitly stated in grievance responses and grievance appeal responses that

6 inmates cannot submit group grievances, that “mass” grievance complaints are not

7 investigated, and that “mass” grievances cannot be appealed. This has occurred

8 despite the fact that “group” grievances are specifically allowed under the Title 15,

9 Section 3084.2(h), which WVDC purports to follow and, in fact, there is a special

10 form for group grievances. SBCSD does not make this form available to GBT

11 inmates in the ALT.

12

217. There are numerous instances where GBT inmates who are not

13 Federal Injunctive Relief class representatives have been blocked from filing or

14 pursuing grievances. For example, Larry Meyer, a GBT inmate who is a member

15 of the class, filed a grievance on March 27, 2014, alleging discrimination against

16 GBT inmates, including himself, by denying them opportunities to participate in

17 educational and self-help classes available to other inmates. The findings on his

18 grievance instructed him that the inmates shall not use the grievances on behalf of

19 a group of inmates and that his complaint was unfounded. The grievance response

20 stated that Department policy provides that “inmates shall NOT use this process to

21 submit grievances or grievance appeals to represent another inmate, or group of

22 inmates.” Further, the findings on his grievance by SBCSD were that gay inmates

23 are housed pursuant to departmental policy.

24

218. As explained above, Defendants systematically thwarted and

25 obstructed efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, or refused to allow the filing

26 of grievances addressing discrimination against GBT inmates. The Federal

27 Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class were not required to exhaust

28 administrative remedies because SBCSD’s administrative remedies were

ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, and/or obviously futile,

45

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 47 of 61 Page ID #:47

1 thereby rendering the exhaustion mechanism for GBT inmates effectively

2 unavailable.

3

219. On May 2, 2014, 2014, attorneys for Plaintiffs sent a letter to SBCSD

4 and Captain Jeff Rose, who is in charge of the WVDC, regarding this policy of

5 refusing to hear grievances on behalf of a group of inmates. As of the filing of this

6 Complaint, SBCSD has not responded.

7

220. SBCSD has retaliated against a number of GBT inmates who have

8 filed grievances about conditions in the ALT. For example, very soon after filing

9 grievances about discriminatory conditions in the ALT, Named Plaintiffs (and

10 California State Damages Class Representatives Bagwell, Crockan and Hatfield, as

11 well as Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representative Walker and class member

12 Larry Meyer, were threatened with transfer to general population for filing

13 grievances, which would have risked their safety. They were then were reclassified

14 from top tier, the higher level of the ALT status with more privileges, to bottom

15 tier, the lower level of the ALT status, with less privileges. Further, Larry Meyer

16 was refused grievance forms on many occasions, and was punished and put into

17 administrative segregation for purportedly “abusing” the grievance process.

18

221. SBCSD has repeatedly denied grievances about conditions in the ALT

19 and treatment of GBT inmates by stating that GBT inmates are housed and treated

20 according to Department policy.

21

222. On May 2, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a letter to Janice

22 Rutherford, Chair of the Second District Board of Supervisors, Sheriff John

23 McMahon, and Captain Jeff Rose, identifying the systemic discrimination against

24 GBT inmates identified in this Complaint, identifying remedies they believed were

25 necessary, and inquiring whether the County was interested in attempting to

26 negotiate a resolution of the issues raised in the letter. The County, through

27 counsel, indicated that it disputed and denied Plaintiffs’ claims, and was not

28 interested in a meeting to discuss or negotiate the claims. Thus, Plaintiffs’ attempts

to resolve the issues through pre-litigation efforts were unsuccessful.

46

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 48 of 61 Page ID #:48

1 VII. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND RULE 23 PREREQUISITES

2

A. CLASS DEFINITIONS

3

223. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of

4 various classes of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the

5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are four classes alleged in this Complaint

6 – two Federal and two California classes. They are defined as follows:

7

a. The California Damages Class is composed of individuals who

8

currently are, were in the past (within six months prior to the filing of

9

Veronica Pratt’s Govt. Code §910 claim), or will be in future (until

10

such time as the unlawful policies and practices cease or judgment is

11

entered in this case), GBT inmates housed in the ALT. They bring

12

their claims against the various individual Defendants as explained

13

infra in the causes of action brought under California law. They seek

14

statutory damages of $4000 per violation for each class member

15

pursuant to California Civil Code §§52.1(b) and 52.

16

b. The Federal Damages Class is composed of individuals who currently

17

are, were in the past (within two years of the filing of this complaint)

18

or will be in future (until such time as the unlawful policies and

19

practices cease or judgment is entered in this case), GBT inmates

20

housed in the ALT. They bring their claims against all Defendants

21

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

22

c. The California Injunctive Relief Class is composed of individuals who

23

currently are, or in the future without the intervention of this Court

24

will be, GBT inmates housed in the ALT and subject to the unlawful

25

treatment set forth in this Complaint. They bring their claims against

26

Defendants County, SBCSD and the individual Defendants under

California law.
27

d. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class is composed of individuals who
28

currently are, or in the future without the intervention of this court

47

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 49 of 61 Page ID #:49

1

will be, GBT inmates housed in the ALT and subject to the unlawful

2

treatment set forth in this Complaint. They bring their claims against

3

all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

4

B. NUMEROSITY

5

224. In accordance with F.R.Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the members of each class

6 are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not

7 know the exact number of class members. There are 32 GBT inmates who live in

8 the ALT at any given time, and there is constant change and turnover in who is

9 housed there. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the

10 number of persons in each of the proposed damages classes is at least in the

11 hundreds, and that the number of persons in the proposed injunctive relief classes

12 is higher given that it covers future GBT inmates housed in the ALT.

13

225. On information and belief, San Bernardino County jails (excluding

14 Adelanto) has a daily inmate population of approximately 5000-6000, of which the

15 majority are housed at WVDC

16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_County_

17 Sheriff's_Department#Detentions_and_Corrections_Bureau). In 2006, over

18 100,000 inmates were processed through the SBCSD jail system. Thus, the inmate

19 population turns over many times each year.

20

C. C OMMON ISSUES OF FACT OR LAW

21

226. In §IV of this Complaint, Plaintiffs set forth common factual

22 allegations for the treatment of GBT inmates in the ALT who comprise the

23 members of each class, which allegations are incorporated into this section of the

24 Complaint. In §V of this Complaint, Plaintiffs set forth factual allegations for the

Named Plaintiffs regarding their treatment as GBT inmates in the ALT, which are
25
also incorporated into this section of the complaint.2
26

27 2 In ¶1, the term GBT inmates as used in this Complaint is limited to GBT inmates 28 housed in the ALT. Accordingly, we do not repeat each time the reference to being
in the ALT.
48

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 50 of 61 Page ID #:50

1

227. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of fact

2 common to the class. The common questions of fact include, but are not limited to

3 the following:

4

a. Whether the SBCSD provides GBT inmates time outside of

5

their cells equivalent to the time comparable non-GBT inmates

6

housed in the general population receive outside of their cells;

7

b. Whether SBCSD allows GBT inmates to attend and participate

8

in religious services while they are outside of their cell

9

comparable to non-GBT inmates, and to receive religious

10

materials and services inside their cells comparable to non-GBT

11

inmates;

12

c. Whether SBCSD provides GBT inmates with educational

13

programming, including regional occupational classes,

14

vocational education classes, and GED classes comparable to

15

non-GBT inmates;

16

d. Whether SBCSD allows pretrial GBT inmates the opportunity

17

to work as trustees comparable to the opportunity provided non

18

GBT inmates;

19

e. Whether SBCSD allows sentenced GBT inmates to participate

20

in the inmate work program and receive good time work credits

21

comparable to non-GBT inmates;

22

f. Whether SBCSD provides GBT inmates with access to the in

23

person “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program, which is held

24

at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, and allows them to receive

25

time off their sentences for completing the program comparable

26

to non-GBT inmates;

27

g. Whether SBCSD enforces hourly safety checks of GBT cells at

28

WVDC comparable to non-GBT inmates;

49

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 51 of 61 Page ID #:51

1

h. Whether SBCSD harasses, neglects, and humiliates GBT

2

inmates due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

3

228. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of law

4 common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, thereon allege, that

5 the common questions of law include but are not limited to the following:

6

a. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

7

GBT inmates by allowing them less time out of their cell,

8

regardless of their custody level, than non-GBT inmates.

9

b. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

10

GBT inmates in their exercise of religious freedom.

11

c. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

12

GBT inmates by failing to provide GBT inmates with

13

educational programming, including regional occupational

14

classes, vocational education classes, and GED classes

15

comparable to non-GBT inmates.

16

d. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

17

GBT inmates by failing to allow pre-trial GBT inmates to work

18

as trustees comparable to non-GBT inmates.

19

e. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

20

GBT inmates by failing to allow sentenced GBT inmates to

21

participate in the inmate work program and receive good time

22

work credits comparable to non-GBT inmates.

23

f. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

24

GBT inmates by failing to allow them access to the in person

25

“INROADS” drug rehabilitation program, which is held at Glen

26

Helen Rehabilitation Center, and to receive time off their

27

sentences for completing the program comparable to non-GBT

28

inmates.

50

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 52 of 61 Page ID #:52

1

g. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

2

GBT inmates by failing to enforce hourly safety checks of the

3

ALT comparable to those for non-GBT inmates.

4

h. Whether SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

5

GBT inmates by harassing, neglecting and humiliating GBT

6

inmates due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, unlike

7

non-GBT inmates.

8

i. Regardless of whether sub-paragraphs a-h, above, constitute

9

violations of the equal protection of the law taken individually,

10

whether the overall treatment of GBT inmates at WVDC

11

violates their right to equal protection of the law under the

12

totality of the circumstances.

13

j. Whether the conduct described above constitutes a policy or

14

custom of Defendants.

15

k. Whether any individual Defendant is entitled to qualified

16

immunity on the federal claims, or state law immunity on the

17

state law claims, for the practices complained of herein.

18

l. Whether the conduct described above violates the equal

19

protection rights of class members under the California

20

Constitution Article I, §1, 7 and/or the Fourteenth Amendment

21

to the United States Constitution.

22

m. Whether the conduct described above violates California Civil

23

Code §§52.1 or 815.6.

24

n. Whether the level of scrutiny under the applicable law is strict

25

scrutiny or heightened scrutiny or some other level of scrutiny;

26

o. Whether there is a lawful justification for any of the

27

discriminatory treatment sufficient under the applicable level(s)

28

of scrutiny.

51

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 53 of 61 Page ID #:53

1

p. Whether class wide statutory damages are available under

2

California Civil Code §§52.1 and 52(a).

3

q. Whether presumed or general class wide damages are available

4

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

5

D. T YPICALITY

6

229. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of the

7 representative Plaintiffs are typical of each class. All Named Plaintiffs were in

8 SBCSD custody when they were subjected to unequal treatment in the ALT, which

9 unequal treatment applied and applies to all inmates who are housed in the ALT.

10 Named Plaintiffs were denied access to educational programming, religious

11 services, work programs and good time release credits, and trustee programs; were

12 treated differently from non-GBT inmates with respect to time outside of their cell,

13 hourly safety checks; were subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

14 humiliation by SBCSD deputies based on their sexual orientation or gender

15 identity; and were otherwise subjected to the discriminatory treatment alleged in

16 the Complaint.

17

230. Thus, Named Plaintiffs have the same interests, and have suffered the

18 same type of damages as the class members. Named Plaintiffs’ claims are based

19 upon the same or similar legal theories as the claims of the class members. Each

20 class member suffered actual damages as a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory

21 policies. The actual damages suffered by Plaintiffs are similar in type and amount

22 to the actual damages suffered by each class member.

23

231. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the Named Plaintiffs will

24 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the Named

25 Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

26

E. M AINTENANCE AND SUPERIORITY

232. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of
27
separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that
28
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

52

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 54 of 61 Page ID #:54

1 class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing

2 the class.

3

233. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of

4 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of

5 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would, as a

6 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members

7 of the class to protect their interests.

8

234. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs are

9 informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants have acted on grounds

10 generally applicable to the class.

11

235. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law

12 or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions

13 affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other

14 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy between

15 the parties. The interests of class members in individually controlling the

16 prosecution of a separate action is low in that most class members would be unable

17 to individually prosecute any action at all. The amounts at stake for individuals are

18 such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most members of the class

19 will not be able to find counsel to represent them. It is desirable to concentrate all

20 litigation in one forum because all of the claims arise in the same location, i.e., the

21 County of San Bernardino. It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the

22 common questions of law and fact in one forum rather than in multiple courts.

23 Because the discrimination alleged herein is systemic, it is particularly well suited

24 to resolution on a class basis, as the critical questions in the case may be answered

25 on a class wide basis.

26

236. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of the class members. Plaintiffs

27 are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class

28 members are ascertainable from SBCSD records, in particular the SBCSD

computer systems used to track and identify SBCSD inmates. Plaintiffs are

53

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 55 of 61 Page ID #:55

1 informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the SBCSD computer records reflect

2 the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of the persons who have

3 been held in custody by SBCSD; when and on what charges inmates were arrested

4 and booked, taken to court, returned from court; when and why inmates were

5 released; what programs, work assignments and the like inmates participated in;

6 and where inmates were housed.

7

237. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

8 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

9 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues

10 raised on behalf of the classes. The class action will be manageable because so

11 many different records systems exist from which to ascertain the members of the

12 class and to ascertain some of the proof relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Liability can

13 be determined on a class-wide basis based on class wide evidence because the

14 Plaintiffs complain of systemic and widespread discriminatory policies and

15 practices. Named Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to statutory damages

16 under state law, and to presumed damages under federal law; and, in any event,

17 individualization or variability in damages is not a bar to a liability certification

18 based on common liability issues.

19

238. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), class members must

20 be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including

21 individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.

22 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD computer records contain a last

23 known address for class members. Plaintiffs contemplate that individual notice be

24 given to class members at such last known address by first class mail. Plaintiffs

25 contemplate that the notice inform class members of the following:

26

A. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the class;

27

28

B. The nature of the action;

54

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 56 of 61 Page ID #:56

1

C. Their right to ‘opt out’ of the action within a given time, in

2

which event they will not be bound by a decision rendered in

the class action;

3

4

D. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to be represented by their

own counsel and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise,

5

they will be represented by the named Plaintiffs and their

6

counsel; and

7

E. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to share in any recovery in

8

favor of the class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment

9

on the common issues, adverse to the class.

10

239. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing

11 and ensuing paragraphs in each of the following causes of action as if each

12 paragraph was fully set forth therein.

13 VIII. COUNT ONE – 42 U.S.C. §1983 [EQUAL PROTECTION] (ALL 14 DEFENDANTS)

15

240. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

16 allegations in, this Complaint.

17

241. The unequal treatment of GBT inmates, based on sexual orientation

18 and gender identity as alleged herein, deprives them of the protections afforded by 19 the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. Therefore, the Federal Damages

20 Class Representatives and Class are entitled to damages, and the Federal Injunctive

21 Relief Class Representatives and Class are entitled to injunctive relief, pursuant to

22 42 U.S.C. §1983.

23

242. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

24 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling the Federal

25 Damages Class Representatives and Class to damages in an amount to be proven at

26 trial, including punitive damages against the individual defendants.

27

243. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

28 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

55

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 57 of 61 Page ID #:57

1 this Court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein and, therefore, seek injunctive

2 relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals as

3 previously defined.

4 IX. COUNT TWO - CAL. CIV. CODE §52.1 (ALL INDIVIDUAL 5 DEFENDANTS)

6

244. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

7 allegations in, this Complaint.

8 245.

The Defendants interfered with the California Damages Class

9 Representatives’ and Class’, and the California Injunctive Relief Class

10 Representatives’ and Class’, rights to equal protection of the law under the

11 California Constitutions, as previously alleged, by threat, intimidation or coercion.

12

246. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

13 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling the California

14 Damages Class Representatives and Class to statutory damages as provided by

15 Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 52(a) and/or actual damages in an amount to be proven

16 at trial, and to punitive damages.

17

247. The California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

18 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

19 this court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein, and therefore, seek injunctive

20 relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals.

21 X. COUNT THREE – VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §815.6 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SBCSD)
22

23

248. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

24 allegations in, this Complaint.

25

249. The Federal and State Constitutional rights to equal protection of the

26 law are enactments as defined by, and within the meaning of, Cal. Govt. Code

27 §§810.6, 815.6.

28

250. All California constitutional provisions are mandatory.

56

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 58 of 61 Page ID #:58

1

251. All Federal constitutional provisions are mandatory.

2

252. These constitutional provisions protect all members of the general

3 public, including Plaintiffs, and were designed to prevent the kind of injuries

4 alleged herein.

5

253. Defendants did not exercise reasonable diligence in discharging their

6 duty to refrain from violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and class

7 members.

8

254. Governmental entities are directly liable under Civil Code §815.6 for

9 violations meeting the statute’s requirements, which the violations here alleged do.

10

255. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

11 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling the California

12 Damages Class Representatives and Class to compensatory damages in an amount

13 to be proven at trial, and to punitive damages.

14

256. The California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

15 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

16 this court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein, and therefore, seek injunctive

17 relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals.

18 XI. COUNT FOUR – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO ARTICLE

1, §7 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION [EQUAL

19

PROTECTION] AND CAL. GOVT. CODE § 11135(A) (AGAINST

20 DEFENDANTS

COUNTY, SBCSD AND MCMAHON)

21

257. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

22 allegations in, this Complaint.

23

258. The Defendants interfered with the California Federal Injunctive

24 Relief Class Representatives’ and Class’ rights to equal protection of the law under

25 Article 1 §7 of the California Constitution, as previously alleged.

26

259. California Government Code Section 11135(a) provides that no

27 person, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, shall be unlawfully

28 denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to

57

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 59 of 61 Page ID #:59

1 discrimination under any program or activity operated or funded directly by the

2 State.

3

260. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the County of San Bernardino

4 and the San Bernardino County Jail receives financial assistance from the State of

5 California.

6

261. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused the

7 California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class to be denied full and

8 equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under,

9 programs or activities receiving financial assistance from the State of California.

10

262. The California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

11 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

12 this court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein, and therefore, seek injunctive

13 relief under the foregoing Constitutional provisions and statutes on behalf of

14 themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals.

15 XII. APPROPRIATENESS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF

16

263. The Federal and California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives

17 and Classes are currently (or will in the future be) incarcerated at the WVDC and

18 will continue to be discriminated against into the foreseeable future, absent

19 intervention of this Court. Further, the SBCSD has informed Plaintiffs in response

20 to complaints about the discriminatory treatment that they treat GBT inmates

21 according to policy and deny any discriminatory treatment, thus they will not

22 change how they discriminate against GBT inmates.

23 264.

SBCDC’s continuing discrimination and unequal treatment of GBT

24 inmates violates the Federal and California Injunctive Relief Class

25 Representatives’ and Classes’ constitutional rights, and causes them continuing,

26 sweeping and irreparable harm.

27

265. Because no adequate remedy at law exists for the injuries alleged

28 herein, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under both federal and state law.

58

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 60 of 61 Page ID #:60

1 XIII. PRAYER

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class members

3 they represent, request damages against each defendant as follows:

4

1. General and special damages according to proof;

5

2. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting

6

Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices complained of herein;

7

8

3. As against the individual Defendants only, punitive damages according to

proof;

9

10

4. In addition to actual damages, statutory damages as allowed by law,

including statutory and treble damages under California Civil Code §§52

11

and 52.1;

12

5. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988; California Civil Code

13

§§52(b)(3), 52.1(h); California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, and

14

whatever other statute or law may be applicable;

15

6. The costs of this suit; and

16

7. Such other relief as is just and proper.

17 Dated: October 22, 2014

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI &

18

LITT, LLP

19
By: _/s/ Barrett S. Litt__________

20

David S. McLane

21

Ronald O. Kaye

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23 Dated: October 22, 2014
24

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

25

By: _/s/ Melissa Goodman________

26

Brendan M. Hamme Peter J. Eliasberg

27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

59

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 1 Filed 10/22/14 Page 61 of 61 Page ID #:61

1

2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3

Plaintiffs, on behalf of them selves i ndividually and on behalf of the class,

4 demand a jury trial.

5

6 Dated: October 22, 2014
7

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

8 9 10 11
12 Dated: October 22, 2014
13 14 15 16

By: _/s/ Barrett S. Litt_________ David S. McLane Ronald O. Kaye Attorneys for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California
By: _/s/ Melissa Goodman______ Brendan M. Hamme Peter J. Eliasberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

60

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:385

1 Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

E-Mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com

2 David S. McLane, SBN 124952

E-Mail: dmclane@kmbllaw.com 3 Ronald O. Kaye, SBN 145051

4

E-Mail: rok@kmbllaw.com Lindsay Battles, SBN 262862

5 E-mail: lbattles@kmbllaw.com

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP

6 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230

Pasadena, California 91101 7 Telephone: 626-844-7660

8 Facsimile: 626-844-7670

May 20, 2015

9 Melissa Goodman, SBN 289464

E-Mail: MGoodman@aclusocal.org

10 Brendan M. Hamme, SBN 285293

E-Mail: BHamme@aclusocal.org 11 Peter J. Eliasberg, SBN 189110

12

E-Mail: PEliasberg@aclusocal.org ACLU Foundation of Southern CA

13 1313 West 8th Street

Los Angeles, California 90017

14 Telephone: 213-977-9500

Facsimile: 213-977-5299

15

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 DAN MCKIBBEN, PEDRO GUZMAN,

) Case No.14-2171-JGB-SP

NICK OU, SEAN LINT, ANTHONY OLIVER, )

19 TIMOTHY WALKER, ILICH VARGAS,

) CLASS ACTION

20

WILLIAM KENNEDY, JONATHAN ROBERTSON, STEVE aka LYNN

) SECOND AMENDED ) COMPLAINT FOR

21 PRICE, BRYAN BAGWELL, CHRISTOPHER ) DAMAGESAND

CRAWFORD, FREDERICK CROCKAN,

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

22 TAHEASH WHITE, MICHAEL aka MADISON ) 1. 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Equal

23

HATFIELD, and KEVIN aka VERONICA PRATT, all individually and as class

) Protection) ) 2. Ca. Civ. Code §52.1

24 representatives,

)

) 3. Cal. Const. Art. I, §7 and

25

Plaintiffs,

) Cal. Govt. Code

) §11135(a) (Injunctive

26

) Relief Only)

27

vs.

) ) DEMAND FOR JURY

28

) TRIAL

(continued on next page)

)

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 65 Page ID #:386

1 SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually

)

and in his official capacity; GREG

)

2 GARLAND, individually and in his official

)

3 capacity; JEFF ROSE, individually and in his ) official capacity; SARGEANT JAMES MAHAN, )

4 individually and in his official capacity;

)

CORPORAL ARMANDO CASTILLO,

)

5 individually and in his official capacity;

)

6 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

)

a governmental entity; SAN

)

7 BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

)

DEPARTMENT, a California public entity;

)

8 and DOES 1 through 10,

)

9

)

Defendants.

)

10 ________________________________________ )

11

12 I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13

1. The San Bernardino County Jails (hereafter “Jail”) are run by the San

14 Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “SBCSD”). The Jail maintains

15 an “Alternative Lifestyle Tank” (hereafter “ALT”) at the West Valley Detention

16 Center (hereafter “WVDC”) to which all inmates who self-identify as gay,

17 bisexual, and/or transgender (hereinafter “GBT inmates”) are automatically

18 transferred and isolated from the general population. References in this Complaint 19 to “GBT” inmates refer to such inmates housed in the ALT. The WVDC is the

20 only SBCSD jail facility that houses self-identified GBT inmates.

21

2. Plaintiffs, and the classes they seek to represent, bring this action to

22 challenge the systematic discrimination and denial of equal treatment experienced

23 by GBT inmates at the WVDC. GBT inmates are not given equal access to

24 opportunities to work programs (and, if applicable, reduce their sentences as a

25 result of work assignments), services, programs and facilities, and are often treated

26 in an abusive and neglectful manner. In short, GBT inmates at WVDC endure

27 substantially worse conditions of confinement simply because they are gay,

28 bisexual or transgender. The conditions, restrictions, denials of access and

1

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 65 Page ID #:387

1 opportunities, and unequal treatment for GBT inmates are the same regardless of

2 whether one is gay, bisexual or transgender.

3

3. One of the major purposes of sentencing is rehabilitation. Yet, GBT

4 inmates have no access to drug treatment, education and work programs designed

5 to help inmates succeed in society when released. To the extent they may have

6 limited access on rare occasions, it is substantially less than that available to non-

7 GBT inmates and is wholly at the arbitrary whim of WVDC officials. Thus, not

8 only are GBT inmates denied equal opportunities for rehabilitation inside jail, they

9 suffer more on the outside since they are not provided the tools to increase their

10 odds of rehabilitation. Unlike the male, non-GBT general population, sentenced

11 GBT inmates at WVDC are generally not allowed to participate in the inmate work

12 program and, to the extent they may occasionally have limited access, it is

13 substantially less than that available to non-GBT inmates.

14

4. As a result, GBT inmates do not enjoy the rehabilitative benefits that

15 programming provides, and are deprived of the opportunities to learn skills and

16 trades that work and vocational programs provide. GBT inmates also do not get the

17 privileges that come with working, which include day-long access to the day room,

18 and a longer amount of time to spend with visitors. GBT inmates cannot be trustees

19 and, in the event they may be, are denied the full benefits afforded other trustees.

20 GBT also may not enjoy the additional sentence-reduction benefits that come with

21 participation in some programs.

22

5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that GBT inmates may serve

23 longer sentences than non-GBT inmates because they may not enjoy the sentence-

24 reduction benefits that come with work credits. Plaintiffs are uncertain on this issue

25 and include it so that, if it develops that is the case, it has been clearly alleged.

26 Regardless of whether they do get such credits, they suffer the deprivations and

27 consequences of unequal treatment regarding work opportunities outlined above. 28 Regardless of whether GBT inmates lose work credits, denial of work

2

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 65 Page ID #:388

1 opportunities provides less work experience and, to the extent available, also

2 denies them the ability to earn compensation, and therefore disadvantages them

3 both directly while incarcerated and in terms of future job opportunities.

4

6. GBT inmates are allowed substantially less time outside their cells on

5 a daily basis, and are given substantially less access to recreational and other

6 activities than both non-GBT general population inmates and non-GBT inmates

7 placed in other forms of special housing. They are living in a locked-down status

8 without any security justification. GBT inmates who are housed in the ALT are

9 generally locked inside their cells for approximately 22 and one-half hours or more

10 a day, regardless of their security classification. Time out of cells for ALT inmates

11 during the two years prior to this lawsuit was, for a long period, only 45 minutes to

12 an hour a day. Recently, in response to Plaintiffs’ notice of potential litigation,

13 Plaintiffs’ investigation of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs’

14 counsel’s letter to WVDC and Plaintiffs’ 910 claims, there has been some increase.

15 It is still far less than time afforded non-GBT inmates, who generally are housed in

16 dorms where they are allowed out of their cells all day, or in cells where they are

17 allowed out of their cells for longer periods of time. There is no legitimate security

18 justification to deny GBT inmates equal time out of their cells, particularly given

19 that they have access to their own segregated day room which could protect their

20 security and allow them greater time out of their cells. Moreover, when a GBT

21 inmate in the ALT causes a disturbance, all ALT inmates get locked down in their

22 cells all day whereas in general population only the inmates involved in the

23 disturbance are locked down.

24

7. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates are not

25 allowed to access religious services outside their unit, or religious services inside

26 the unit, including chaplains and bibles. To the extent they may occasionally have

27 limited access, it is substantially less than that available to non-GBT inmates and is 28 wholly at the arbitrary whim of WVDC officials.

3

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 5 of 65 Page ID #:389

1

8. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates are not

2 allowed access to educational programming such as occupational classes,

3 vocational classes, and GED classes. GBT inmates are not allowed to participate in

4 educational programs provided to general population inmates. They are also not

5 provided with separate educational programs.

6

9. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, GBT inmates do not

7 have access to drug rehabilitation programs. This is true even if GBT inmates are

8 sentenced to serve their time in a rehabilitation program. Plaintiffs are informed

9 and believe that inmates who participate in drug rehabilitation receive additional

10 time off of their sentences. If inmates do receive such credit, GBT inmates cannot

11 earn time off their sentences for participating in programs such as “Inroads” at

12 Glen Helen, as GBT inmates cannot be housed at Glen Helen. Thus, if inmates

13 receive such drug rehabilitation credits, GBT inmates serve longer sentences than

14 non-GBT inmates. Even if no such credits are earned, GBT inmates are deprived of

15 the benefits of drug rehabilitation such as time out of their cell, interacting with

16 drug counselors and other inmates, and being better prepared for society when

17 released.

18

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, unlike the non-GBT

19 population inmates, due to unwarranted dislike by SBCSD employees and an

20 unwarranted fear of AIDS, deputies generally do not conduct the required safety

21 checks for GBT cells mandated by Title 15, which are required to ensure inmate

22 safety.

23

11. GBT inmates are regularly subjected to abusive conduct and

24 derogatory name calling by SBCSD deputies based on their sexual orientation and

25 gender identity.

26

12. Some GBT inmates have been retaliated against by SBCSD deputies

27 when they complained about conditions in the ALT, and the discriminatory 28 treatment of GBT inmates.

4

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 65 Page ID #:390

1

13. The foregoing conditions of confinement violate Plaintiffs’ rights to

2 equal protection of the laws under both Article I §7 of the California Constitution

3 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and related

4 statutes incorporating, inter alia, equal protection standards. Although jails have an

5 obligation to protect the safety of inmates who may be subject to victimization and

6 thus can, when appropriate, place such inmates in some form of protective custody,

7 such placements are not a permissible basis upon which to subject GBT inmates to

8 significantly worse conditions, deprive them of access to programs and privileges,

9 or subject to them to abuse based on their sexual orientation, their gender identity,

10 or gender.

11

14. This action is brought independently under the California Constitution

12 and California statutes incorporating those provisions directly or indirectly, as well

13 as under the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs

14 emphasize the independent character of the California claims because the

15 California Supreme Court has expressly held that differential treatment of gay

16 people is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny, an issue not yet squarely

17 addressed by the United States Supreme Court. In addition, California claims are

18 not subject to the requirements, limitations and restrictions of the Prison Litigation

19 Reform Act (“PLRA”). Plaintiffs contend that the conduct alleged herein is

20 unconstitutional whatever level of scrutiny is employed – whether it is strict

21 scrutiny, heightened scrutiny or rational basis scrutiny, for there is no legitimate

22 penological reason to treat GBT inmates worse than non-GBT inmates just because

23 of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender.

24

15. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action and seek injunctive relief

25 and damages under both state and federal law.

26 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27

16. Plaintiffs present federal claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

28 Accordingly, federal jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331

5

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 7 of 65 Page ID #:391

1 and 1343. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are so related to their federal law claims that

2 they form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, supplemental

3 jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C.

4 §1367.

5

17. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of acts of the San Bernardino County

6 Sheriff’s Department in the County of San Bernardino, State of California.

7 Accordingly, venue is proper within the Eastern Division of the Central District of

8 California.

9 III. PARTIES

10

A. Plaintiffs

11

18. Class Representatives No Longer In Custody: Plaintiffs Dan

12 McKibben, Peter Guzman, Nick Ruttana Ou, Sean Lint and Anthony Oliver were,

13 but are not presently, incarcerated at WVDC, held in the ALT, and subjected to

14 unequal treatment and access to services and programs, and other violations of law

15 as is elaborated further on in this Complaint. The unequal treatment and access and

16 other violations of law were based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation, gender identity

17 or gender, and their classification as GBT inmates. The five are not prisoners

18 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) at the time of 19 the filing of this Complaint. They seek to act as class representatives for the federal

20 damages class – they are the only representatives of this class – and four of the

21 five, not including Oliver, are also state damages class representatives as they have

22 timely filed and been denied state administrative 910 claims. They are at times

23 referred to as the “Federal Damages Class Representatives.” Everyone but Oliver

24 are also among the California Damages Class Representatives.

25

19. Class Representatives In Custody At WVDC: Plaintiffs Timothy

26 Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve aka Lynn

27

28

6

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 8 of 65 Page ID #:392

1 Price1, and, Michael aka Madison Hatfield are currently incarcerated at WVDC.

2 They have been subjected, and will continue to be subjected, to unequal treatment

3 and access to services and programs, and other violations of law as is elaborated in

4 this Complaint. The unequal treatment, unequal access and other violations of law

5 elaborated in this Complaint were and are based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation,

6 gender identity or gender, and their classification as GBT inmates.

7

a. Plaintiffs Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

8

Hatfield are the only class representatives for the state

9

injunctive relief classes and are at times referred to as the

10

“California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives.”

11

b. Plaintiffs Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

12

Hatfield are also among the “California Class Damages

13

Representatives” because either they have filed an

14

administrative 910 claims on behalf of all GBT inmates at the

15

WVDC which have been rejected, or are covered by such

16

claims because all 910 claims were filed as class claims.

17

c. Walker and Vargas (but not Kennedy, Robertson, Price and

18

Hatfield) are also the only class representatives for the federal

19

injunctive relief class and are at times referred to as the

20

“Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representatives.”

21

20. Class Representatives In Custody At Facilities Other Than

22 WVDC: Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Fredrick Crockan,

23 Taheash White, and Kevin aka Veronica Pratt, are currently incarcerated in

24 different County or California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

25 facilities, and have filed and been denied state administrative 910 claims. They are

26
27 1Steve Price, aka Lynn Price, Michael Hatfield, aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin, aka Veronica Pratt, are transgender persons who, out of respect and preference, will be
28 referred to as Lynn Price, Madison Hatfield and Veronica Pratt, and with use of the pronoun “she” throughout this Complaint.
7

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 9 of 65 Page ID #:393

1 solely California damages class representatives. Every named class representative

2 filed an administrative 910 claim on behalf of all GBT inmates at the WVDC

3 which has been rejected, or are covered by such claims because all 910 claims

4 were filed as class claims. They are among the class representatives for the

5 California damages class. The “California Damages Class Representatives” are at

6 times collectively referred to by that name.

7

21. Different and overlapping Plaintiffs are acting as representatives for

8 different classes. The classes and class representatives identified in this Complaint

9 are: 1) Federal Damages Class (McKibben, Guzman, Ou, Lint, and Oliver); 2)

10 California Damages Class (McKibben, Guzman, Ou, Lint, Walker, Vargas,

11 Kennedy, Robertson, Price, Bagwell, Crawford, Crockan, White, Hatfield and

12 Pratt); 3) Federal Injunctive Relief Class (Walker, Vargas) and 4) California

13 Injunctive Relief Class (Walker, Vargas, Kennedy, Robertson, Price, and Hatfield).

14 While the various class representatives overlap in certain respects, they differ as

15 follows:

16

a. The Federal Damages Class representatives are individuals who

17

were, within the relevant time periods, GBT inmates housed in

18

the ALT, but are not currently in custody in any detention

19

facility, jail or prison and are not “prisoners” within the

20

meaning of the PLRA. The Federal Damages Class extends to

21

all former or present GBT inmates detained at WVDC within

22

two years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and extending into

23

the future until such time as the unlawful conduct alleged herein

24

ceases or resolution of this case.

25

b. The California Damages Class representatives are individuals

26

who are or were, within the relevant time periods, GBT inmates

27

housed in the ALT. Unlike the Federal Damages Class

28

representatives, the California Damages Class representatives

8

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 10 of 65 Page ID #:394

1

include individuals who are currently “prisoners” within the

2

meaning of the PLRA, which statute does not apply to their

3

claims under California law. All such class representatives were

4

in custody at WVDC on or after October 9, 2013 (six months

5

prior to the filing by Veronica Pratt of a Govt. Code § 910

6

claim on behalf of all similarly situated individuals on April 9,

7

2014, which makes the beginning of the California class

8

damages period October 9, 2013). The California Damages

9

Class extends to all former or present GBT inmates detained at

10

WVDC beginning October 9, 2013, and extending into the

11

future until such time as the unlawful conduct alleged herein

12

ceases or resolution of this case.

13

c. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class representatives are

14

individuals who are currently in custody at WVDC, confined in

15

the ALT, who have exhausted or attempted to exhaust, or could

16

not exhaust because they were prevented through the conduct of

17

the SBCSD from exhausting their remedies within the SBCSD.

18

d. The California Injunctive Relief Class representatives are

19

individuals who are currently in custody at WVDC, and

20

confined in the ALT.

21

22. The following chart identifies each Named Plaintiff, what class or

22 classes each seeks to represent, and their current inmate status.

23

24

NAME

CLASS

INMATE STATUS

25 Dan McKibben
26
27 Pedro Guzman
28

Federal and California Damages Classes
Federal and California Damages Class

Not Currently Incarcerated
Not Currently Incarcerated

9

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 11 of 65 Page ID #:395

1

NAME

2 Nick Ou
3
4 Sean Lint

5

6 Anthony Oliver
7
8 Tim Walker

9

10 Ilich Vargas

11

12 William Kennedy
13

14
Jonathan Robertson
15

16
17 Steve Price, aka Lynn Price

18

19 Christopher Crawford

20

21 Kevin Pratt, aka Veronica 22 Pratt

23 Bryan Bagwell

24

25 Fredrick Crockan
26

27 Taheash White
28

CLASS
Federal and California Damages Class Federal and California Damages Class

INMATE STATUS
Not Currently Incarcerated Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal Damages Class

Not Currently Incarcerated

Federal and California Inmate at WVDC Injunctive Relief Classes, California Damages Class

Federal and California Inmate at WVDC Injunctive Relief Classes, California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC Class,California Damages Class

California Damages Class Inmate at Valley State Prison

California Damages Class Inmate at Riverside County Jail

California Damages Class Inmate at C.I.M., Chino

California Damages Class Inmate in North Kern State Prison
California Damages Class Inmate at C.I.M., Chino

10

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 12 of 65 Page ID #:396

1

NAME

CLASS

INMATE STATUS

2 Michael Hatfield, aka MadisonCalifornia Injunctive Relief Inmate at WVDC

3 Hatfield

Class, California Damages

4

Class

5

6

23. All Plaintiffs identified in the foregoing paragraphs have filed 910

7 Administrative Claims with the State and County both on an individual basis and 8 as class representatives,2 or as set forth above, are included in the 910 claims

9 because all 910 claims were filed as class claims to include all GBT persons at the

10 WVDC. All 910 claims have been rejected by both the County of San Bernardino

11 and the State of California as of the date of filing of this Complaint.

12

B. Defendants

13

24. Defendant County of San Bernardino (hereafter “County”) is a public

14 entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendant

15 San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is a public entity within the meaning

16 of California law, and is a County agency. These Defendants are sued in their own

17 right for a County and/or SBCSD policy, practice or custom that caused Plaintiffs’

18 injuries in violation of one or more federal constitutional guarantees under 42

19 U.S.C. §1983, and on Plaintiffs’ state law claims for injunctive relief based on

20 violations of mandatory duties under California Government Code §815.6, the

21 state constitutional provisions identified above and Civil Code §52.1.

22

25. All individual defendants are named based on their personal

23 involvement and/or supervisorial liability for their role in the constitutional

24 deprivations alleged herein, including but not limited to their establishment, setting

25 in motion, failing to terminate, ratification, implementation, institution, and/or

26 execution of the discriminatory actions, policies, practices and customs against

27

28 2 Anthony Oliver is not included in the state damages claim even though he filed a 910 claim that was rejected by the County of San Bernardino because the County claimed it was untimely. 11

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 13 of 65 Page ID #:397

1 GBT inmates in the San Bernardino County jails, and/or failure to adequately train

2 or supervise SBCSD personnel who engaged in the conduct alleged herein.

3

26. Defendant John McMahon (hereafter “McMahon”) is the Sheriff of

4 San Bernardino County, and is the policy maker for the SBCSD. He is sued in his

5 official and individual capacities for both injunctive relief and damages under both

6 California and Federal law.

7

27. Defendant Greg Garland (hereafter “Garland”) is the Deputy Chief in

8 charge of the Corrections Bureau which oversees all San Bernardino County jail

9 facilities, including the WVDC, Central, Glen Helen and Adelanto facilities.

10 Garland is sued in his individual capacity for damages only under both California

11 and Federal law.

12

28. Defendant Jeff Rose (hereafter “Rose”) is a deputy sheriff holding the

13 rank of captain. He is the commanding officer of WVDC. Rose is sued in his

14 individual capacity for damages only under both California and Federal law.

15

29. Defendant Sergeant James Mahan is a deputy sheriff holding the rank

16 of sergeant. He is involved in handling grievances by GBT persons in the ALT at

17 WVDC, and is responsible for determining programs to which GBT inmates are

18 eligible. Mahan is sued in his individual capacity for damages only under both 19 California and Federal law.

20

30. Defendant Armando Castillo is a deputy sheriff holding the rank of

21 corporal. He is in charge of classification and placement of GBT inmates in the

22 ALT, and is involved in reviewing grievances by inmates in the ALT. Armando

23 Castillo is sued in his individual capacity for damages only under both California

24 and Federal law.

25

31. All Defendants’ discriminatory conduct was intentional, and/or was

26 done with reckless disregard for, and/or deliberate indifference toward, Plaintiffs’

27 rights.

28

12

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 14 of 65 Page ID #:398

1

32. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

2 sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants

3 by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will give notice of this Complaint, and of one or

4 more DOES’ true names and capacities, when ascertained.

5

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that

6 Defendants DOES 1 through 5 are responsible in some manner for the damages

7 and injuries hereinafter complained of.

8

34. DOES 6 through 10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “SBCSD

9 Supervisory Defendants”) were and/or are now responsible for the SBCSD jails.

10 Among other duties, they are responsible for the training, supervision, control,

11 assignment and discipline of both sworn and civilian personnel of the SBCSD and

12 County who work in, operate, administer and manage the jails, and for the

13 formulation, promulgation, adoption, application, administration and enforcement

14 of the policies, rules, regulations and practices of the SBCSD jails.

15

35. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs further allege that, at all times

16 relevant herein, Defendants participated in, approved, and/or ratified the

17 unconstitutional or illegal acts that occurred within SBCSD jails which are

18 complained of herein.

19

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that, at all

20 times relevant herein, the individual Defendants, and each of them, were the

21 agents, servants and employees of their respective employers (Defendants SBCSD 22 and the County) and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency and 23 employment with the knowledge and consent of their principals and employers. At 24 all times herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting under the color of state 25 law. 26 IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS3

27 3 The allegations regarding previously named plaintiffs are based on their situation at the time of
28 the filing of the original complaint, and for newly added plaintiff Anthony Oliver, based on his current status and his time in the ALT. 13

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 15 of 65 Page ID #:399

1

37. Inmates in SBCSD custody who self-identify as GBT during the

2 booking process are automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. The ALT is

3 currently located in Unit 1F and consists of 16 cells, each of which house two

4 inmates, that are isolated from the general population dorms and cells at WVDC.

5 There are two tiers or levels – the upper tier and the lower tier – each of which has

6 8 cells. The ALT has its own day room. The ALT is closed off from other inmates.

7 GBT inmates are denied the opportunity to participate in programs that are offered

8 to non-GBT inmates as described below, are not allowed to participate in the same

9 rehabilitation programs as offered non-GBT inmates, are not allowed the same

10 opportunities to earn time off their sentences as non-GBT inmates, and are not

11 allowed equal time out of their cells as non-GBT inmates.

12

38. Placement in general population would afford Plaintiffs and GBT

13 inmates the benefits of equal treatment but would subject them to an increased risk

14 of violence due to their sexual and gender identities. On the other hand, Plaintiffs

15 can be physically safe in the ALT, but endure unequal, inferior and discriminatory

16 conditions of confinement as described herein. Thus, they are faced with the

17 coercive choice, separate and apart from their discrimination while in the ALT, of

18 1) entering the general population where they have equal access to programs and

19 opportunities denied them in the ALT but have greater risk to personal safety, or 2)

20 entering the ALT, where they have discriminatory (or no) access to programs and

21 opportunities but have greater personal safety.

22

39. For most of the past two years, GBT inmates housed in the ALT were

23 locked inside their cells for approximately 23 hours or more a day, regardless of

24 their level of custody. Prior to approximately March 2014, SBCSD allowed GBT

25 inmates to exit their cell for only 45 minutes to 1 hour per day. Inmates in general

26 population during this entire period either lived in dormitory style units, where

27 they are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally 28 allowed out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in

14

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 16 of 65 Page ID #:400

1 special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were

2 generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily. Thus, GBT inmates’ cell

3 confinement was dramatically different and more limited than non-GBT inmates in

4 special housing during this period. After being notified on March 28, 2014 that

5 their housing of GBT inmates was being investigated, after the initial 910 class

6 claims were filed on April 9, 2014, and after being notified by Plaintiffs’ counsel

7 that its GBT practices were discriminatory on May 2, 2014, SBCSD began to allow

8 GBT inmates living on the top tier of the ALT out of their cells for about an hour

9 to an hour and a half a day, and to continue to allow GBT inmates living on the

10 bottom tier approximately forty five minutes out of their cells.

11

40. Defendants do not provide GBT inmates time out of their cells equal

12 to general population inmates, who are generally housed in dorm settings, and

13 allowed outside cell access all day.

14

41. Unlike inmates in general population, ALT inmates get locked down

15 in their cells all day when any GBT inmates cause disturbances, whereas in general

16 population only the inmates involved in the disturbance are locked down.

17

42. The increased lock down for GBT inmates does not further any

18 legitimate penological purpose, and there is no reasonable necessity for the

19 differential treatment. Up to 32 GBT inmates can be housed in the ALT cells, and

20 there are 5 tables that can seat 32 inmates in the ALT day room. Thus, the GBT

21 inmates could be let out of their cells all day without compromising their safety.

22 They also could be housed dormitory style in a unit that would protect their safety,

23 or other SBCSD facilities that could safely afford them equal time out of their

24 cells, including Adelanto, Glen Helen and Central facilities.

25

43. On information and belief, SBCSD generally prohibits GBT inmates

26 who have been sentenced and are housed in the ALT from participating in the

27 inmate work program. Sentenced inmates can receive 1 day of work time credit for 28 each 4 days they do not refuse to satisfactorily perform labor as assigned by the

15

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 17 of 65 Page ID #:401

1 sheriff. Cal. Penal Code §4019. By depriving them of jobs, GBT inmates are

2 denied access to the day room all day like non-GBT inmates; they do not get

3 increased visiting time of 30 to 45 minutes like non-GBT inmates (but rather

4 receive only the regular 20 minutes); and they do not have the opportunity or

5 ability to go beyond their immediate area like non-GBT inmates who work.

6 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that GBT inmates may serve longer sentences

7 than non-GBT inmates because they may not enjoy the sentence-reduction benefits

8 that come with work credits. If they do get such credits, they still do not obtain the

9 rehabilitation benefits that will help them once released, and do not obtain benefits

10 while incarcerated such as time out of the cell while working, and other worker

11 privileges. Regardless of whether GBT inmates lose work credits, denial of work

12 opportunities provides less work experience and, to the extent available, also

13 denies them the ability to earn compensation, and therefore disadvantages them

14 both directly while incarcerated and in terms of future job opportunities.

15 Consequently, sentenced GBT inmates may serve longer sentences than non-GBT

16 inmates because SBCSD denies them access to work assignments. In contrast,

17 SBCSD permits sentenced, non-GBT inmates in general population to receive such

18 credit. Sentenced non-GBT inmates receive work time credits, whereas GBT

19 inmates may not. Separate GBT crews could be created and work together as a

20 separate crew (e.g., in the law library, work crews outside the jail, work in the

21 kitchen or laundry all in one shift, or as trustees in the ALT). They could also work

22 with non-GBT inmates when it is safe to do so, as there is no legitimate

23 penological reason categorically to forbid them from working together. There are

24 numerous occasions when GBT inmates are together with non-GBT inmates such

25 as in the medical unit, in holding tanks prior to being transported to court, and

26 when being transported back and forth to court.

27

44. On information and belief, and only in response to Plaintiffs’

28 Counsel’s letters, Plaintiffs’ investigation into the conditions of the ALT at the

16

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 18 of 65 Page ID #:402

1 WVDC, Plaintiffs’ 910 claims and the threat of a separate lawsuit by Plaintiff

2 Guzman, SBCSD has just recently begun allowing a single GBT inmate at a time

3 to work. Plaintiff Guzman and, after his release, class member Robert Torres,

4 were permitted to work in the law library. They were and are, however, denied

5 additional privileges that other non-GBT workers receive, such as day-long access

6 to the day room, and getting a longer amount of time to spend with visitors. As a

7 result, even the single GBT inmate who is allowed to work is treated in a

8 discriminatory manner than his similarly situated non-GBT counterparts.

9 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Plaintiff Guzman may not have received

10 work credits even though he worked.

11

45. On information and belief, SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates from being

12 trustees while non-GBT inmates are allowed to serve as trustees. Both pretrial and

13 sentenced inmates may act as trustees, including in the past inmates facing serious

14 charges such as homicide. Trustees are let out of their cells all day, have longer

15 visits, and get more time outside. GBT inmates cannot even be trustees in the ALT.

16 There is no legitimate penological purpose served by not allowing GBT inmates to

17 serve as trustees since they interact with non-GBT inmates, as set forth in

18 paragraph above. Even non-GBT inmates who are charged with violent crimes, 19 including murder, are allowed to be trustees for the ALT, including one inmate

20 charged with triple murder, two with double murder, and one with manslaughter.

21 Yet GBT inmates may not be so assigned.

22

46. On information and belief, SBCSD refuses to provide educational

23 programs or training to GBT inmates at WVDC. SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates

24 from participating in regional occupational classes, vocational educational classes,

25 and GED classes along with the general population. Non-GBT inmates have access

26 to such educational and other programming. SBCSD also does not provide

27 educational or other programs separately for GBT inmates.

28

17

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 19 of 65 Page ID #:403

1

47. On information and belief, SBCSD denies GBT inmates access to

2 religious services. SBCSD prohibits GBT inmates from attending congregational

3 prayer with other inmates or having group services inside the ALT, denies them

4 access to bibles, and prevents chaplains from visiting their cells. In contrast, non-

5 GBT inmates have access to religious services and materials.

6

48. On information and belief, SBCSD provides GBT inmates with

7 unequal access to drug rehabilitation programs. GBT inmates who request to

8 participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at the Glen Helen

9 Rehabilitation Center are denied access because they cannot be housed there. In

10 contrast, SBCSD transfers non-GBT inmates to the “INROADS” drug treatment

11 program. GBT inmates who were sent to Glen Helen for drug treatment were sent

12 back to the WVDC once it was learned by sheriff’s officials at Glen Helen they

13 were GBT. On information and belief GBT inmates are sometimes given access

14 instead to a self-study, “journaling,” rehabilitation program. This program is

15 nothing like the full rehabilitation program at Glen Helen and, even if it were

16 comparable, GBT inmates in the self-study program do not earn time off their

17 sentences like inmates in the Glen Helen program.

18

49. On information and belief, SBCSD deputies regularly fail to perform

19 hourly safety checks or walk-throughs in the ALT as required by Title 15 Code of

20 Regulations. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD deputies intentionally

21 avoid going near the cells in the ALT. In contrast, deputies conduct regular walk-

22 throughs of non-GBT inmates’ cells and the general population dorms.

23

50. GBT inmates at the WVDC are subjected to a pattern of harassing

24 behavior by SBCSD deputies, which includes derogatory name calling, neglect,

25 and humiliation. Deputies call GBT inmates “faggots,” “sissies,” “bitches,” and

26 “freak shows,” in addition to other derogatory and demeaning names, on a regular

27 basis.

28

18

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 20 of 65 Page ID #:404

1

51. On information and belief, GBT inmates housed in the ALT also

2 receive harsher punishments than non-GBT inmates in general population. SBCSD

3 deputies discipline inmates housed in the ALT with group punishment, but

4 discipline non-GBT inmates in general population on an individual basis. SBCSD

5 deputies use scare tactics as disciplinary measures by placing GBT inmates who

6 are at risk of physical or sexual assault in cells with intimidating non-GBT

7 inmates.

8

52. On information and belief, SBCSD deputies have retaliated against

9 GBT inmates who complained about the discriminatory treatment and refused to

10 then move to general population out of concern for their safety. On April 30,

11 2014, Defendant A. Castillo told class representatives Christopher Crawford,

12 Bryan Bagwell, Fredrick Crockan, Madison Hatfield, Timothy Walker and class

13 member Larry Meyer that they now had the option to live in general population.

14 Crawford, Walker and Crockan had already filed 910 claims, while Bagwell and

15 Meyer had already received correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel and a

16 questionnaire concerning the treatment of GBT inmates at the WVDC. The above-

17 mentioned inmates refused to transfer to the general population out of concern for

18 their safety and well-being, and because they felt they would be forced to hide their

19 sexual orientation or gender identity. On information and belief, the jail’s rationale

20 for housing GBT inmates in the ALT is inmate safety, and the offer to place them

21 in the general population as identified GBT inmates was a cynical attempt to

22 defend against the Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination and to force GBT inmates to

23 the Hobson’s choice of exposure to extreme violence in the general population, or

24 acceptance of the discrimination against GBT inmates housed in the ALT. On

25 information and belief, SBCSD then retaliated against these six inmates by giving

26 them less time outside of their cells.

27

53. In addition to filing Govt. Code §910 claims, Plaintiffs have engaged

28 in pre-litigation settlement efforts. Specifically, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter

19

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 21 of 65 Page ID #:405

1 consisting of the aforementioned complaints, and asked that Defendants

2 immediately cease and desist their unlawful practices. Defendants declined to

3 attempt to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims without the need for litigation, and have

4 denied Plaintiffs’ administrative 910 claims that have been filed. To date, and to

5 Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Defendants continue to engage in the unlawful practices

6 detailed in this complaint.

7

54. Defendants will continue their aforementioned policies and practices

8 unless enjoined and restrained by the Court. Without injunctive relief applicable to

9 the class as a whole, the class members will suffer irreparable harm for which there

10 is no adequate remedy at law in that their constitutional and statutory rights will be

11 systematically violated. Without the intervention of this Court, Defendants will

12 continue these unconstitutional practices.

13

55. Defendants have the resources and money to properly house and

14 provide programmatic access to GBT inmates in a constitutional manner that does

15 not violate their equal protection rights. On or about February 6, 2014, the SBCSD

16 opened the Adelanto Jail facility, a state-of-the-art facility that cost the County

17 $145.4 million. Adelanto opened with over 200 available beds, yet Defendants

18 continue to house the GBT inmates in a dehumanizing and discriminatory manner.

19

56. The differential treatment outlined in this Complaint serves neither a

20 legitimate compelling interest, nor a substantial state interest, nor is it narrowly

21 tailored to serve any such interests.

22

57. In engaging in the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and

23 each of them, acted with a discriminatory intent toward GBT inmates, and/or with

24 deliberate indifference to, or a reckless disregard for the rights of GBT inmates.

25

58. As a result of the discriminatory conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs

26 have suffered damages, including emotional distress damages and pain and

27 suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial.

28

20

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 22 of 65 Page ID #:406

1

59. In engaging in the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and

2 each of them, acted maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, and otherwise in a

3 manner entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.

4 V. CLAIMS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

5

1.

TIMOTHY WALKER

6

58. Timothy Walker was arrested by SBCSD on or around April 8, 2013.

7 Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was transferred to the

8 ALT at the WVDC. He is currently housed there, and will be housed there for the

9 foreseeable future.

10

59. From approximately April 8, 2013 to the present, Mr. Walker has

11 been housed in the ALT, first located in Unit 12A and currently in Unit 1F. During

12 that time, Mr. Walker was let out of his cell, on average, approximately 45 minutes

13 to an hour and one-half a day. Although some inmates on the top tier, including

14 Walker, have very recently been given up to three hours of time out of cell in

15 response to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s letters and the threat of litigation, they are still

16 subject to discriminatory treatment compared to the time out of cell provided to

17 non-GBT inmates, as discussed above. He, along with the other ALT inmates, has

18 been required to eat meals in his cell, unlike non-GBT inmates.

19

60. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, as an inmate

20 in the ALT Walker was not permitted to work. Walker requested participation in

21 the work program by submitting official Inmate Request Slips on June 4, 2013,

22 July 1, 2013, and July 25, 2013. SBCSD denied each request by stamping his

23 requests slips “DENIED” or “NOTHING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME”. On

24 information and belief, positions were, in fact, available even when the denial

25 stated that nothing was available. Thus, Mr. Walker could not earn money and

26 perhaps work credit, and may have served a longer sentence than if he had been

27 able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019. 61. Recently, in response to grievances he filed in early September 2014
28
and notice of this pending lawsuit, Walker was told he was eligible to obtain a job.

21

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 23 of 65 Page ID #:407

1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, to date, Mr. Walker has not been given a

2 job. Out of the hundreds of inmates housed in the ALT since Mr. Walker has been

3 there, only two others have had jobs. Pedro Guzman, who threatened legal action,

4 was allowed to work in the library, and Robert Torres, who replaced Mr. Guzman

5 when he was released. No others have been permitted to work.

6

62. Nor has Mr. Walker been permitted to be a trustee in the ALT.

7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the trustees who work in the ALT--

8 bringing food to the cells of inmates housed in the ALT-- are non-GBT pre-trial

9 inmates, and in the past have been awaiting trial on serious charges such as murder

10 and manslaughter. Yet, they have been allowed to work as trustees while the GBT

11 inmates have not.

12

63. Mr. Walker properly filed grievances on June 28, 2013 and May 15,

13 2014 regarding SBCSD’s policy of not allowing GBT inmates to participate in the

14 inmate work program. SBCSD responded on June 26, 2013, concluding that
15 Walker’s allegations were unfounded because he was involved in a mutual combat
16 fight, and thus ineligible for work assignment on that basis. On June 27, 2013, Mr.
17 Walker filed a grievance appeal disagreeing with these findings, stating that he was
18 disciplined for the fight prior to receiving his sentence and before he could even be 19 considered for work assignment, and thus should have been eligible for a work 20 assignment. SBCSD responded on July 3, 2013 concluding that, “regardless of 21 when Mr. Walker received his discipline, that discipline automatically excludes 22 him from becoming an inmate worker at any time while in Sheriff’s custody per 23 Detention/Correction’s policy.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD’s 24 policy prohibiting Mr. Walker from work assignment is pretextual because straight 25 inmates have participated in the work program even though they were disciplined 26 for fighting. Moreover, in a vague manner, he was recently told by Defendant 27 Mahan that he was eligible for a job, though he has not been given one. Because
he has not been permitted to work, Mr. Walker may serve a longer sentence than
28
non-GBT inmates who can earn work credits.
22

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 24 of 65 Page ID #:408

1

64. Mr. Walker is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

2 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

3 inmates at WVDC. Mr. Walker requested educational programs by submitting an

4 official Inmate Request Slip on July 1, 2013. SBCSD denied his request, stamping

5 “NOTHING AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME” on to his request slip. On information

6 and belief, however, educational programs were available to non-GBT inmates.

7

65. Mr. Walker is unable to participate in religious services inside the

8 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

9

66. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Mr. Walker is unable to

10 participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at Glen Helen

11 Rehabilitation Center. Since he filed his 910 claim, the jail has given him “IN

12 ROADS” in the form of a self-study program, but not at Glen Helen. He is not

13 receiving credit off his sentence like non-GBT inmates who participate in the

14 program. The self-study program itself is not proper or effective drug

15 rehabilitation programming.

16

67. Mr. Walker’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on

17 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

18 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never check Mr.

19 Walker’s or other inmate’s cells.

20

68. Mr. Walker has been and remains subject to harassment, name calling,

21 neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being

22 referred to as a “bitch” and “high school girl.”

23

69. Mr. Walker has been retaliated against for complaining about his

24 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant A. Castillo asked Mr. Walker to sign a

25 paper agreeing to go to general population where he would be responsible for his

26 own safety. He declined as being housed in general population and identified as

27 GBT would subject him to violence. The SBCSD offered the same transfer to

Plaintiffs Crockan, Bagwell and Hatfield, and to class member Larry Meyer. They
28

all declined due to safety concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated by placing these

23

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 25 of 65 Page ID #:409

1 inmates on the bottom tier of the ALT, which meant less time out of their cells. All

2 of these inmates had previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.

3

70. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

4 Mr. Walker has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

5

71. During all times Mr. Walker has been in custody at WVDC, he has

6 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

7

2.

Dan MCKIBBEN

8

72. Dan McKibben was arrested for a probation violation and booked into

9 SBCSD on or around March 21, 2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the

10 booking process, he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He was

11 released in or around June 2014, and is currently out of custody.

12

73. During all times Mr. McKibben was in custody at WVDC, he was

13 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

14 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day, which time was used for the showers.

15 Meals were given inside the cell, not outside in the day room where there were

16 tables. Non-GBT inmates in general population either lived in dormitory style

17 units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they

18 were generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates

19 placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,

20 were and are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

21

74. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, as an inmate in

22 the ALT Mr. McKibben was not permitted to be a trustee or work at WVDC.

23 Because he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money, and might not

24 have been able to earn work credits. As a result, Mr. McKibben might have served

25 a longer sentence than he would have had he been able to work and receive early

release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.
26

75. Mr. McKibben was unable to participate in regional occupational
27
classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general
28
population of inmates at WVDC.

24

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 26 of 65 Page ID #:410

1

76. Mr. McKibben was unable to participate in religious services inside

2 the ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

3

77. Mr. McKibben’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by

4 deputies on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a

5 regular basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though

6 they never checked Mr. McKibben’s cell. Mr. McKibben was subject to

7 harassment, name calling, neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at

8 WVDC. The deputies called the ALT the “fag bin” or “queer quarters”.

9

78. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

10 Mr. McKibben has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

11

79. Mr. McKibben did not file grievances about the conditions due to his

12 fear of retaliation. To avoid trouble with the guards that he knew others

13 experienced, he “kept his mouth shut.”

14

80. During all times Mr. McKibben was in custody at WVDC, he was

15 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

16

81. Mr. McKibben is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate

17 within the meaning of the PLRA.

18

3.

PEDRO GUZMAN

19

82. Pedro Guzman was housed by SBCSD beginning on approximately

20 January 21, 2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was

21 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He was subsequently released in

22 or about late August, 2014, and is currently out of custody.

23

83. During all times Mr. Guzman was in custody at WVDC, he was

24 confined to his cell for approximately 22 and one-half hours a day. He was only

25 allowed out of his cell for one and one half hours a day, except when he got a job

(see the following paragraph) and was allowed out to work. Non-GBT inmates in
26

general population either lived, or continue to live in dormitory style units. They
27

were and are not confined to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were
28
generally out of their cells during most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates

25

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 27 of 65 Page ID #:411

1 placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,

2 were generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

3

84. On or about June 24, 2014, after threatening litigation, Mr. Guzman

4 was the first GBT person allowed to work. He was placed in the law library.

5 However, Mr. Guzman is informed and believes, based on statements made to him

6 by Sergeant Mahan, that he did not earn work credit, unlike non-GBT inmates. As

7 a result, Mr. Guzman might have served a longer sentence than he would have had

8 he been able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

9 Further, unlike non-GBT inmates, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Mr.

10 Guzman did not received the perks of being a worker. For example, he did not

11 receive access to the day room all day, his visits were limited to 15 minutes rather

12 than 30 to 45 minutes, and he did not have additional access to the outside, all in

13 contrast to non-GBT workers. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Mr. Guzman

14 and Robert Torres, after Mr. Guzman was released, have been the only GBT

15 persons allowed to work at WVDC, and only in response to the threat of litigation.

16 Mr. Guzman was not allowed the opportunity to work as a trustee.

17

85. Mr. Guzman was unable to participate in regional occupational

18 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

19 population of inmates at WVDC.

20

86. Mr. Guzman was unable to participate in religious services inside the

21 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

22

87. Mr. Guzman’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

23 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

24 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

25 never checked Mr. Guzman’s cell. Mr. Guzman was subjected to harassment, name

26 calling, neglect, and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including

27 being called a “damn faggot”, and having his face slammed against the bars by a

deputy for no reason other than being GBT.
28

26

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 28 of 65 Page ID #:412

1

88. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

2 Mr. Guzman has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

3

89. During all times that Mr. Guzman was in custody at WVDC, he was

4 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra. Mr.

5 Guzman is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate within the meaning

6 of the PLRA.

7

4.

NICK OU

8

90. Nick Ou was arrested by the Colton Police Department on or about

9 April 25, 2014, and was booked into the WVDC on that date. Upon self-

10 identifying as gay during the booking process, he was transferred to the ALT at

11 WVDC after a brief placement in the general population. He was subsequently

12 released in or about late August 2014, and is currently out of custody.

13

91. During all times Mr. Ou was in custody at WVDC, he was confined to

14 his cell for approximately 22 to 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of his

15 cell, on average, for 1 to one and a half hours a day . He was required to eat in his

16 cell, like all GBT inmates, even though there was seating for 32 in the day room

17 that could accommodate all 32 inmates in the ALT. Non-GBT inmates in general

18 population either lived in dormitory style units, where they were not confined to

19 cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally out of their cells at least 3

20 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

21 informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or

22 more daily.

23

92. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Ou was not

24 permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. He attempted

25 to work and put in a work request slip, but was told he was ineligible due to his

“medical condition,” which SBCSD claimed would not allow him to climb stairs,
26

even though he was housed on the upper tier and had to climb stairs several times a
27
day. He filed a subsequent request and was told he was not medically cleared. He
28
then sought medical clearance from his doctor, which he received. He submitted

27

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 29 of 65 Page ID #:413

1 another request, which was denied. Defendants’ rationale for denying him work

2 was discriminatory and pretextual. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory

3 conduct, Mr. Ou could not earn money, and might not have earned good time work

4 credits, and thereby might have served a longer sentence than he would have had

5 he been able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

6

93. Mr. Ou was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

7 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

8 inmates at WVDC.

9

94. Mr. Ou was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

10 in person, a chaplain did not visit, and did not have access to religious services

11 outside the ALT.

12

95. Mr. Ou’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on a

13 routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

14 deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they never

15 checked Mr. Ou’s cell. Mr. Ou was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect,

16 and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

17

96. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

18 Mr. Ou has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

19

97. During all times when Mr. Ou was in custody at WVDC, he was

20 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra. Mr.

21 Ou is not currently in custody and, thus, is not an inmate within the meaning of the

22 PLRA.

23

5. SEAN LINT

24

98. Sean Lint was arrested by the Barstow Police Department and booked

25 by the SBCSD into the WVDC in or around April or May, 2014. Upon self-

identifying as gay during the booking process, he was automatically transferred to
26

the ALT at WVDC. He was released in or around June or July 2014, and is
27

currently out of custody.
28

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 30 of 65 Page ID #:414

1

99. During all times Mr. Lint was in custody at WVDC, he was confined

2 to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of his cell

3 for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population either

4 lived and continue to live in dormitory style units. They were and are not confined

5 to cells at all, or lived in cells in which they were generally out of their cells most

6 non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

7 status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three

8 hours or more daily.

9

100. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Lint was not

10 permitted to be a trustee or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because he

11 was not permitted to work, he could not earn money, and might not have been able

12 to earn good time work credits. As a result, Mr. Lint might have served a longer

13 sentence than he would have had he been able to work and receive early release

14 credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

15

101. Mr. Lint was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

16 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

17 inmates at WVDC.

18

102. Mr. Lint was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

19 in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

20

103. Mr. Lint’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on

21 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

22 deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they never

23 checked Mr. Lint’s cell. He was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect,

24 and humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being called a

25 “faggot.”

26

104. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

27 Mr. Lint has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

28

29

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 31 of 65 Page ID #:415

1

105. During all times Mr. Lint was in custody at WVDC, he was subjected

2 to all the conditions of confinement explained Section IV, supra. Mr. Lint is not

3 currently in custody and, thus is, not an inmate within the meaning of the PLRA.

4

6. Anthony Oliver

5

106. Anthony Oliver was arrested by SBCSD on or around October 7, 2012

6 for a probation violation. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process,

7 he was transferred to the ALT at the WVDC. He was released on November 28,

8 2013. He was rearrested on or about February 9, 2013, on a probation violation,

9 and was housed at WVDC in the ALT until April 24, 2013, when he was released

10 from custody. He was subsequently in the custody of the Los Angeles County

11 Men’s Central Jail, on criminal charges, which were dismissed with prejudice on

12 or about April 6, 2015. He was released on or about that date, and is currently not

13 in custody.

14

107. During Mr. Oliver’s confinement in the ALT, he was housed in his

15 cell approximately 23 hours a day. He was let out of his cell for approximately one

16 hour a day, if even an hour per day. Mr. Oliver is informed and believes that

17 general population straight males were housed in general population in dorms and

18 were not confined in cells. He, along with the other ALT inmates, was required to

19 eat meals in his cell, unlike non-GBT inmates.

20

108. As an inmate in the ALT, Oliver was not permitted to work. Thus, Mr.

21 Oliver could not earn money and perhaps work credit, and may have served a

22 longer sentence than if he had been able to work and receive early release credits.

23 See Cal. Penal Code §4019. Mr. Oliver was specifically informed by jail

24 personnel that he could not work because gay inmates “carry diseases.” Inmates in

25 the general population do not normally experience such deprivations of access and

opportunity. Nor was Mr. Oliver permitted to be a trustee in the ALT.
26

109. Mr. Oliver filed a series of grievances against the jail alleging
27

discriminatory treatment against GBT inmates in the ALT, including himself, and
28
the jail denied his requests to remove the discriminatory conditions.

30

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 32 of 65 Page ID #:416

1

110. Mr. Oliver was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

2 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

3 inmates at WVDC.

4

111. Mr. Oliver was unable to participate in religious services inside the

5 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

6

112. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Mr. Oliver was unable

7 to participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at Glen Helen

8 Rehabilitation Center.

9

113. Mr. Oliver’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

10 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

11 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never

12 check Mr. Oliver’s or other inmate’s cells. Deputies and jail personnel refused to

13 come onto the floor in the AKT, and just let jail trustees deal with GBT inmates.

14 Only during meal times or when a supervisor was present would jail personnel

15 come into the ALT. Mr. Oliver is informed and believes that jail personnel were

16 afraid to enter the ALT for fear of “catching diseases” from GBT inmates. One

17 deputy, for example, took a grievance from Mr. Oliver, tore it up, and stated, “I

18 don’t come in the dorm often, that’s how I don’t catch fag germs.”

19

114. Mr. Oliver was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

20 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being referred to as

21 “Matt Gaymon,” “Mr. Lipstick,” “bitch”, “fag,” and “Mr. Vibrator;” one deputy

22 stated to him, “if I tased you, you might become straight.”

23

115. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

24 Mr. Oliver experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

25

116. During all times Mr. Oliver was in custody at WVDC, he has been

26 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

27

117. Since Mr. Oliver is not in custody, he is not subject to the conditions

of the PLRA.
28

31

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 33 of 65 Page ID #:417

1

118. Mr. Oliver was in custody in the Los Angeles County Jail fromMarch

2 27, 2014 toApril 6, 2015, facing criminal charges, after which he was released and

3 all charges were dismissed He is entitled to equitable tolling for that time period.

4

7.

Lynn Price

5

119. Lynn Price was arrested by SBCSD in late July of 2014. Upon self-

6 identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was transferred to the

7 ALT at the WVDC. She is currently housed there and will be housed there for the

8 foreseeable future. Ms. Price has also been housed in the ALT during past periods

9 of incarceration at WVDC as well, including in 2012 and February of 2014.

10

120. During all times Ms. Price has been in the ALT tank, she has been

11 confined to her cell anywhere from 22 to 23 hours a day, and only allowed out of

12 her cell for approximately one hour to two hours a day. That is only very recently

13 in response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter and the threat of litigation. She is

14 informed and believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in

15 dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in

16 which they are generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT

17 inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang

18 members, are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

19

121. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Price has not

20 been permitted to be a trustee, and could not work as an inmate in the ALT at

21 WVDC. Thus, she may not have been able to earn money or good time work

22 credits. As a result, Ms. Price may be serving a longer sentence than she would

23 have if she were allowed to work and receive early release credits. See Cal. Penal

24 Code §4019.

25

122. Ms. Price is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

26 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

27 inmates at WVDC. On or about September 13, 2014, Ms. Price requested a GED

program. On or about September 24, 2014, Ms. Price was verbally told that a GED
28

program had to be court ordered. Shortly thereafter, she filed a grievance on that

32

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 34 of 65 Page ID #:418

1 and other issues related to the discriminatory treatment of GBT inmates. The

2 grievance was returned to her by Deputy Allen, who informed her that she could

3 only file a grievance on a single issue, and if she wanted to work she would have to

4 go to general population.

5

123. Ms. Price is unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

6 in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

7

124. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Ms. Price is unable to

8 participate in the “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program at Glen Helen

9 Rehabilitation Center. In the 1980s, Ms. Price was housed at Glen Helen, at which

10 time they were aware of her gender identity. They did not then offer the

11 rehabilitation programs currently offered.

12

125. Ms. Price’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on a

13 routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

14 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never check Ms.

15 Price’s cell.

16

126. Ms. Price is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

17 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

18

127. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

19 Ms. Price has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

20

128. During all times Ms. Price has been in custody at WVDC, she has

21 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

22

8.

ILICH VARGAS

23

116. Ilich Vargas was housed by the SBCSD at the WVDC on or about

24 December 13, 2012 in the general population, as he did not disclose his bisexual

25 orientation. Upon self-identifying as bisexual in general population, he was

transferred to the WVDC ALT tank in October 2013. He is currently housed as a
26

pre-trial inmate in the ALT.
27

117. During all times Mr. Vargas has been in the ALT tank, he has been
28

confined to his cell anywhere from 22 to 23 hours a day, and only allowed out for

33

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 35 of 65 Page ID #:419

1 approximately one hour to two hours a day. That is only very recently in response

2 to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter and the threat of litigation. He is informed and

3 believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in dormitory style

4 units where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in which they were

5 generally out of their cells during most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates

6 placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members,

7 are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

8

118. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Vargas has

9 not been permitted to be a trustee in the ALT, and thereby be out of his cell all day.

10

119. Mr. Vargas is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

11 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

12 inmates at WVDC.

13

120. Mr. Vargas is unable to participate in religious services inside the

14 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

15

121. Mr. Vargas’ cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies on

16 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

17 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never checked

18 Mr. Vargas’ cell.

19

122. Mr. Vargas is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

20 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC, including being called a “faggot”

21 by nursing staff.

22

123. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

23 Mr. Vargas has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

24

124. During all times Mr. Vargas has been in custody at WVDC, he has

25 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

26

9.

WILLIAM KENNEDY

125. William Kennedy was arrested by the Redlands Police Department,
27

and was booked into WVDC by the SBCSD on or around June 13, 2014. Upon
28

self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was automatically

34

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 36 of 65 Page ID #:420

1 transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He has been at the WVDC since that time in the

2 ALT, and is currently still in custody.

3

126. During all times Mr. Kennedy has been in custody at WVDC, he has

4 been confined to his cell approximately 22 to 23 hours a day, during which time he

5 has to take a shower and make any necessary phone calls. Mr. Kennedy is

6 informed and believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either live in

7 dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or live in cells in

8 which they were generally out of their cells for many hours a day. Non-GBT

9 inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang

10 members, are generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

11

127. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Kennedy has

12 not been permitted to be a trustee, and thus be allowed out of his cell all day.

13

128. Mr. Kennedy is unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

14 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

15 inmates at WVDC.

16

129. Mr. Kennedy is unable to participate in religious services inside the

17 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT. He

18 has asked for religious services and a chaplain, but has never received a response.

19

130. Kennedy is unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

20 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

21

131. Mr. Kennedy’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies

22 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

23 basis, deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never

24 check Mr. Kennedy’s or other inmate’s cells.

25

132. Mr. Kennedy is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

26 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC. For example, the inmates are

27 called “girls” or are told “hot dogs are what you like” by deputies.

133. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,
28

Mr. Kennedy has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

35

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 37 of 65 Page ID #:421

1

134. During all times Mr. Kennedy has been in custody at WVDC, he has

2 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

3

10.

JONATHAN ROBERTSON

4

135. Jonathan Robertson has been at the WVDC from August 22, 2012,

5 and upon self-identifying as gay on or about January 5, 2014, he was automatically

6 transferred to the ALT at WVDC. Since that time he has primarily been housed in

7 the ALT in pre-trial confinement, although he has been transferred to general

8 population for brief periods, on information and belief, as retaliation.

9

136. During all times Mr. Robertson has been in custody at WVDC, he has

10 been confined to his cell approximately 23 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates in

11 general population either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined

12 to cells at all and are out all day, or live in cells in which they were generally out of

13 their cells at least 3 hours a day. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due

14 to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their

15 cells three hours or more daily.

16

137. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Robertson is

17 not permitted to be a trustee and be allowed out of his cell during the day like other

18 trustees.

19

138. Mr. Robertson is unable to participate in regional occupational

20 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

21 population of inmates at WVDC.

22

139. Mr. Robertson is unable to participate in religious services inside the

23 ALT in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

24

140. Mr. Robertson’s cell in the ALT at WVDC is not checked by deputies

25 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

basis, deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never
26

check Mr. Kennedy’s or other inmate’s cells.
27
141. Mr. Robertson is subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and
28
humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC. For example, Mr. Robertson and

36

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 38 of 65 Page ID #:422

1 other inmates in the WVDC are called “bitches”, “fags”, “girls”, “punks”,

2 “motherfucker”, and “disgusting” and told to “stop being a little bitch,” by the

3 deputies.

4

142. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

5 Mr. Robertson has experienced severe emotional distress and depression and has

6 made multiple suicide attempts without having been given a psychological

7 evaluation.

8

143. During all times Robertson has been in custody at WVDC, he has

9 been subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

10

11.

CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD

11

144. Christopher Crawford was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD on

12 multiple occasions including in February 2012, December 2013, and most recently,

13 on February 10, 2014. Each time, upon self-identifying as gay during the booking

14 process, he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC.

15

145. Christopher Crawford was transferred to state custody on or around

16 April 12, 2014 and is no longer in SBCSD custody. He is currently a prisoner

17 within the meaning of the PLRA.

18

146. During all times Mr. Crawford was in custody at WVDC, he was

19 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

20 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general

21 population either lived and continue to live in dormitory style units, where they are

22 not confined to cells at all, or lived and continue to live in cells in which they are

23 generally out of their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in

24 special housing due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were

25 generally let out of their cells three hours or more daily.

147. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr.
26

Crawford was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at
27
WVDC. Because he was not permitted to work, he could not have earned money,
28
and might not have earned good time work credits. As a result, Crawford might be

37

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 39 of 65 Page ID #:423

1 serving a longer sentence than he would have had he been able to work and receive

2 early release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

3

148. Crawford was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

4 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

5 inmates at WVDC. He and other inmates in the ALT were not allowed access to

6 educational programming provided to general population inmates and were also

7 not given access to any separate educational programming.

8

149. Mr. Crawford was unable to participate in religious services inside the

9 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

10

150. Mr. Crawford’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by

11 deputies on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a

12 regular basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though

13 they never checked Mr. Crawford’s or other inmate’s cells.

14

151. Mr. Crawford was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

15 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

16

152. Mr. Crawford was subjected to disproportionate punishment

17 compared to non-GBT inmates in general population. On one occasion, SBCSD

18 deputies punished Mr. Crawford for participating in mutual combat with another

19 inmate by placing him in a cell with a high-power, straight inmate.

20

153. Unlike non-GBT general population inmates, Mr. Crawford and other

21 inmates in the “ALT” were subjected to group, rather than individual, punishment.

22 For example, after the incident where Mr. Crawford engaged in mutual combat, all

23 inmates in the ALT were punished as a group, and were permitted even less time

24 out of their cells than the scant amount of time they were normally allowed. When

25 two non-GBT inmates in general population get into mutual combat typically only

26 those two individuals are punished, not the entire dorm.

27

154. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

Mr. Crawford has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.
28

38

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 40 of 65 Page ID #:424

1

155. Mr. Crawford was unable to file any grievances at WVDC because,

2 when he attempted to do so, deputies told him his grievances were “ungrievable.”

3

156. During all times Mr. Crawford was in custody at WVDC, he was

4 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

5

12.

VERONICA PRATT

6

157. Veronica Pratt was arrested by SBCSD on or around August 4, 2013.

7 Upon self-identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was

8 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. Pratt was subsequently released.

9

158. Ms. Pratt was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD and once again,

10 Ms. Pratt was placed in the ALT. She was released a second time on or about

11 June 6, 2014 to the custody of the Riverside County Jail, and is currently in that

12 facility.

13

159. During all times Ms. Pratt was in custody at WVDC, she was confined

14 to her cell approximately 23 hours a day. She was only allowed out of her cell for

15 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population either

16 lived and continue to live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to

17 cells at all, or lived and continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of

18 their cells most non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing

19 due to their status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of

20 their cells three hours or more daily.

21

160. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Pratt was not

22 permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because she

23 was not permitted to work, she could not earn money or might not have earned

24 good time work credits. As a result, Ms. Pratt might have served a longer sentence

25 than she would have had she had been able to work and receive early release

credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.
26

161. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,
27
vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of
28
inmates at WVDC. On November 27, 2013, Ms. Pratt filed a grievance requesting

39

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 41 of 65 Page ID #:425

1 access to vocational education classes. SBCSD responded on December 3, 2013,

2 stating that her grievance was unfounded because vocational programs and

3 INROADS are court ordered programs, and she was not sentenced to these

4 programs.

5

162. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in religious services inside the

6 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

7

163. Ms. Pratt was unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

8 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

9

164. Ms. Pratt’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies on

10 a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular basis,

11 deputies skip cell checks and sign the log sheet, even though they never checked

12 Ms. Pratt’s or other inmate’s cells.

13

165. Ms. Pratt was subject to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

14 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

15

166. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

16 Ms. Pratt has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

17

167. During all times Pratt was in custody at WVDC, she was subjected to

18 all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

19

13.

BRYAN BAGWELL

20

168. Bryan Bagwell was booked by SBCSD into the WVDC on or about

21 December 13, 2013. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he

22 was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. As of June 4, 2014, he was

23 transferred to California Institute for Men of the California Department of

24 Corrections and Rehabilitation.

25

169. During all times Mr. Bagwell was in custody at WVDC, he was

confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed to be
26

out for approximately one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general population
27

either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or
28
live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most non-

40

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 42 of 65 Page ID #:426

1 sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

2 informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or

3 more daily.

4

170. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Bagwell was

5 not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because

6 he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or might not have earned

7 good time work credits. As a result, Mr. Bagwell might be serving a longer

8 sentence than he would have had he was able to work and receive early release

9 credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

10

171. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. Bagwell was

11 not permitted to work as a trustee.

12

172. Mr. Bagwell was unable to participate in regional occupational

13 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

14 population of inmates at WVDC.

15

173. Mr. Bagwell was unable to participate in religious services inside the

16 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

17

174. Mr. Bagwell’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

18 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

19 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

20 never checked Mr. Bagwell’s cell.

21

175. Mr. Bagwell was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

22 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

23

176. Mr. Bagwell has been retaliated against for complaining about his

24 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant A. Castillo asked him to sign a paper to

25 go to general population where he would be responsible for his own safety. Mr.

26 Bagwell declined the offer as being housed in general population and identified as

27 GBT would subject him to violence. SBCSD offered the same transfer to Plaintiffs

Crockan, Hatfield and Walker, and to class member Larry Meyer. All said “no”
28

due to safety concerns. Jail personnel retaliated by placing these inmates on the

41

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 43 of 65 Page ID #:427

1 bottom tier of the ALT and giving them less time out of their cells. All of these

2 inmates had previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.

3

177. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

4 Mr. Bagwell has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

5

178. When trying to file a grievance, Mr. Bagwell was told that he would

6 not get one, and that he could “shut the f___ up!” When he tried to file a grievance

7 about guards routinely turning off the TV in the day room during the very short

8 period of time ALT inmates were allowed out of their cells, the guards would not

9 give him a form. Mr. Bagwell was able to file a grievance only after great effort.

10

179. During all times Mr. Bagwell was in custody at WVDC, he was

11 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

12

14.

FREDRICK CROCKAN

13

180. Fredrick Crockan was booked into the WVDC by the SBCSD on or

14 around October 13, 2013. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process,

15 he was automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He is currently housed in

16 State prison.

17

181. During all times Mr. Crockan was in custody at WVDC, he was

18 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

19 his cell for 45 minutes to one hour per day. Non-GBT inmates in general

20 population either live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells

21 at all, or live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most

22 non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

23 status, e.g. informants and gang members, are generally let out of their cells three

24 hours or more daily.

25

182. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr.

Crockan was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at
26

WVDC. Because he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or might
27

not have earned good time work credits. As a result, Mr. Crockan might be serving
28

42

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 44 of 65 Page ID #:428

1 a longer sentence than he would have if he was able to work and receive early

2 release credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

3

183. Crockan was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,

4 vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of

5 inmates at WVDC.

6

184. Crockan was unable to participate in religious services inside the ALT

7 in person, and does not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

8

185. Crockan was unable to participate in the “INROADS” mental health

9 program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center.

10

186. Mr. Crockan’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

11 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

12 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

13 never checked Mr. Crockan’s cell.

14

187. Mr. Crockan was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

15 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

16

188. Mr. Crockan was retaliated against for complaining about his

17 treatment. On April 30, 2014, Defendant A. Castillo asked Crockan to sign a paper

18 to go to general population where he would be responsible for his own safety. Mr.

19 Crockan declined because being housed in general population would identify him

20 as being GBT and would subject him to violence. SBCSD offered the same

21 transfer to Plaintiffs Hatfield, Bagwell and Walker, and to class member Larry

22 Meyer. All declined the offer due to safety concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated

23 by placing Hatfield, Bagwell, Walker and Meyer on the bottom tier of the ALT and

24 gave them less time out of their cells. All of these inmates had previously filed 910

25 administrative claims against the county.

26

189. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

27 Mr. Crockan has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

190. Mr. Crockan filed several grievances regarding the conditions of
28

confinement for GBT inmates at WVDC, but all of his requests have been denied.

43

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 45 of 65 Page ID #:429

1

191. During all times Mr. Crockan was in custody at WVDC, he was

2 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

3

15.

TAHEASH WHITE

4

192. Taheash White was arrested by SBCSD on or about February 24,

5 2014. Upon self-identifying as gay during the booking process, he was

6 automatically transferred to the ALT at WVDC. He subsequently was released and

7 is now in state custody.

8

193. During all times Mr. White was in custody at WVDC, he was

9 confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours a day. He was only allowed out of

10 his cell for approximately 45 minutes to one hour per day. He is informed and

11 believes that straight inmates in general population either lived and continue to live

12 in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived and

13 continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells during most

14 non-sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their

15 status, e.g. informants and gang members, were generally let out of their cells three

16 hours or more daily.

17

194. Unlike non-GBT inmates in the general population, Mr. White was

18 not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC. Because

19 he was not permitted to work, he could not earn money or might not earn good

20 time work credits. As a result, Mr. White might be serving a longer sentence than

21 he would have if he was able to work and receive early release credits. See Cal.

22 Penal Code §4019.

23

195. Mr. White was unable to participate in the Glen Helen “INROADS”

24 program that would have reduced his sentence and given him drug rehabilitation

25 treatment.

196. Mr. White was unable to participate in regional occupational classes,
26

vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general population of
27
inmates at WVDC.
28

44

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 46 of 65 Page ID #:430

1

197. Mr. White was unable to participate in religious services inside the

2 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

3

198. Mr. White’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

4 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

5 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

6 never checked Mr. White’s cell.

7

199. Mr. White was subject to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

8 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

9

200. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

10 Mr. White has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

11

201. Mr. White tried to file grievances about the conditions in the ALT but

12 the guards would not give him grievance forms since they say ALT inmates’

13 complaints about the conditions in the dorm are “not grievable.”

14

202. During all times Mr. White was in custody at WVDC, he was

15 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

16

16.

MADISON HATFIELD

17

203. Madison Hatfield was arrested by the Fontana Police Department and

18 booked into custody by the SBCSD at the WVDC on or about April 1, 2014. Upon

19 self-identifying as transgender during the booking process, she was transferred to

20 the ALT at WVDC. She was subsequently released to a sober living facility, and in

21 October, 2014, was transferred back from the sober living facility to the ALT of

22 the WVDC.

23

204. During all times Ms. Hatfield was in custody at WVDC, she was

24 confined to her cell for approximately 23 hours a day. She was only allowed out of

25 her cell for approximately 45 minutes to one hour per day. She is informed and

believes that non-GBT inmates in general population either lived and continue to
26

live in dormitory style units, where they are not confined to cells at all, or lived and
27

continue to live in cells in which they were generally out of their cells most non-
28
sleeping hours. Non-GBT inmates placed in special housing due to their status, e.g.

45

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 47 of 65 Page ID #:431

1 informants, gang members, were generally let out of their cells three hours or more

2 daily.

3

205. Unlike other non-GBT inmates in the general population, Ms. Hatfield

4 was not permitted to be a trustee, or work as an inmate in the ALT at WVDC.

5 Because she was not permitted to work, she could not earn money or might not

6 earn good time work credits. As a result, Ms. Hatfield might be serving a longer

7 sentence than she would have if she was able to work and receive early release

8 credits. See Cal. Penal Code §4019.

9

206. Ms. Hatfield was unable to participate in regional occupational

10 classes, vocational education classes, or GED classes along with the general

11 population of inmates at WVDC.

12

207. Ms. Hatfield was unable to participate in religious services inside the

13 ALT in person, and did not have access to religious services outside the ALT.

14

208. Ms. Hatfield’s cell in the ALT at WVDC was not checked by deputies

15 on a routine basis as required by Title 15 for safety walk-throughs. On a regular

16 basis, deputies skipped cell checks and signed the log sheet, even though they

17 never checked Ms. Hatfield’s cell.

18

209. Ms. Hatfield was subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and

19 humiliation by employees of SBCSD at WVDC.

20

210. She was retaliated against for complaining about her treatment. On

21 April 30, 2014, Defendant Armando Castillo asked her to sign a paper to go to

22 general population where she would be responsible for her own safety, and she 23 said no as being housed in general population and identified as GBT would subject 24 her to violence. SBCSD offered the same transfer to Plaintiffs Crockan, Bagwell 25 and Walker, and to class member Larry Meyer. All declined the offer due to safety 26 concerns. Jail personnel then retaliated by placing these inmates on the bottom tier 27 of the ALT and gave them less time out of their cells. All of these inmates had
previously filed 910 administrative claims against the county.
28

46

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 48 of 65 Page ID #:432

1

211. As a result of the treatment and isolation of GBT inmates at WVDC,

2 Ms. Hatfield has experienced severe emotional distress and depression.

3

212. Ms. Hatfield filed grievances regarding the conditions of confinement

4 for GBT inmates at WVDC, but all of her requests were denied.

5

213. During all times Ms. Hatfield was in custody at WVDC, she was

6 subjected to all the conditions of confinement explained in Section IV, supra.

7 VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

8

214. GBT inmates in the ALT, including Plaintiff class representatives,

9 repeatedly have faced serious obstacles when they tried to utilize the grievance

10 procedure to complain about their lack of access to work opportunities, programs,

11 drug rehabilitation and other issues related to conditions and treatment. Many

12 GBT inmates have either attempted to file grievances and exhaust but have been

13 prevented by the SBCSD from fully exhausting; been intimidated into not filing

14 grievances and thereby have been prevented from exhausting since the SBCSD has

15 made it clear through its actions that the inmates are not eligible for programs and

16 filing grievances will be futile; or, nonetheless, have overcome intimidation by the

17 SBCSD and have fully exhausted. Because there are only two federal injunctive

18 relief class representatives currently in custody in WVDC, Timothy Walker and

19 Ilich Vargas, we focus on them. There are no Federal Damages Class

20 Representatives, and thus the only Named Plaintiffs required to exhaust

21 administrative remedies before filing suit are Walker and Vargas.

22

215. In August 2014 Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representative

23 Timothy Walker attempted to file a grievance with T.W., a deputy, about how little

24 time GBT inmates got out of their cells, and their lack of access to work

25 opportunities, educational opportunities, drug rehabilitation programming, and

religious services; the lack of safety checks in the unit; and the harsher punishment
26

imposed on GBT inmates. He had filed grievances in the past that were rejected
27

without a legitimate basis, but wanted to file a grievance covering all GBT
28
members in the ALT and to list all of his complaints concerning lack of time out of

47

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 49 of 65 Page ID #:433

1 the cell, programing and rehabilitation, and work opportunities. One or two days

2 later, Sergeant Mahan approached Mr. Walker and told him that, if he processed

3 the grievance, Mr. Walker would get an additional twenty days added to his

4 sentence for allegedly “abusing” the grievance process. Because he did not want to

5 risk serving extra time, Mr. Walker told Sgt. Mahan not to process the grievance.

6

216. On the other hand, Ilich Vargas was able to exhaust, overcoming great

7 odds, and after multiple attempts to do so. On April 16, 2014, Vargas received a

8 response to a grievance concerning discriminatory treatment of GBT inmates in the

9 ALT. Among other things, the response stated that “portions of the complaint that

10 are a mass grievance will not be investigated since mass grievance complaints are

11 not investigated.” Vargas was also informed that “[f]urther grievances on this

12 matter may lead to disciplinary action.” Despite being told that further grievances

13 would lead to disciplinary action, Mr. Vargas filed a grievance over the denial of

14 equal opportunities for GBT inmates in the WVDC, including a grievance over

15 lack of time out of his cell, denial of programs, religious programs, and trustee

16 opportunities. On September 3, 2014, the SBCSD responded to his grievance by

17 telling him that he was abusing the grievance process, that he had fully exhausted

18 his complaints over the lack of opportunities and programming in the ALT of the

19 WVDC, and that his grievance constituted an abuse of the grievance process and

20 would subject him to discipline if he pursued it. Because he would be disciplined

21 for pursing his grievance, he decided not to pursue it. Thus, even when a GBT

22 inmate exhausts, a clear message is sent to all the GBT inmates not to pursue

23 grievances over their discriminatory treatment in the WVDC.

24

217. SBCSD has repeatedly intimidated GBT inmates away from filing

25 grievances, mishandled grievances, provided misinformation about the grievance

26 process and particularly group grievances, and rejected grievances about

27 discriminatory conditions in the ALT. As a result, most GBT inmates in the ALT

stopped filing grievances because they felt threatened or intimidated, or were
28

unable to pursue their core claims of discrimination against those held in the ALT.

48

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 50 of 65 Page ID #:434

1

218. Through intimidation, creating obstacles in attempting to file

2 grievances, mishandling grievances, and by misinforming GBT inmates when or

3 over what topics they could file grievances; the SBCSD has created

4 insurmountable barriers in the grievance process. When GBT inmates have filed

5 grievances, or grievance denial appeals concerning conditions in the ALT, SBCSD

6 repeatedly has mishandled them or has given GBT inmates misinformation about

7 their access to the grievance procedure. Many GBT inmates have filed grievances

8 about matters that affect not only themselves, but all people in the ALT. SBCSD

9 repeatedly told GBT inmates that such grievances are “ungrievable,” and have

10 explicitly stated in grievance responses and grievance appeal responses that

11 inmates cannot submit group grievances, that “mass” grievance complaints are not

12 investigated, and that “mass” grievances cannot be appealed. This has occurred

13 despite the fact that “group” grievances are specifically allowed under the Title 15,

14 Section 3084.2(h), which WVDC purports to follow and, in fact, there is a special

15 form for group grievances. SBCSD does not make this form available to GBT

16 inmates in the ALT.

17

219. There are numerous instances where GBT inmates who are not

18 Federal Injunctive Relief class representatives have been blocked from filing or

19 pursuing grievances. For example, Larry Meyer, a GBT inmate who is a member

20 of the class, filed a grievance on March 27, 2014, alleging discrimination against

21 GBT inmates, including himself, by denying them opportunities to participate in

22 educational and self-help classes available to other inmates. The findings on his 23 grievance instructed him that the inmates shall not use the grievances on behalf of 24 a group of inmates and that his complaint was unfounded. The grievance response 25 stated that Department policy provides that “inmates shall NOT use this process to 26 submit grievances or grievance appeals to represent another inmate, or group of 27 inmates.” Further, the findings on his grievance by SBCSD were that gay inmates
are housed pursuant to departmental policy.
28

49

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 51 of 65 Page ID #:435

1

220. As explained above, Defendants systematically thwarted and

2 obstructed efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, or refused to allow the filing

3 of grievances addressing discrimination against GBT inmates. The Federal

4 Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class were not required to exhaust

5 administrative remedies because SBCSD’s administrative remedies were

6 ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, and/or obviously futile,

7 thereby rendering the exhaustion mechanism for GBT inmates effectively

8 unavailable.

9

221. On May 2, 2014, 2014, attorneys for Plaintiffs sent a letter to SBCSD

10 and Captain Jeff Rose, who is in charge of the WVDC, regarding this policy of

11 refusing to hear grievances on behalf of a group of inmates. As of the filing of this

12 Complaint, SBCSD has not responded.

13

222. SBCSD has retaliated against a number of GBT inmates who have

14 filed grievances about conditions in the ALT. For example, very soon after filing

15 grievances about discriminatory conditions in the ALT, Named Plaintiffs, and

16 California State Damages Class Representatives Bagwell, Crockan and Hatfield, as

17 well as Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representative Walker and class member

18 Larry Meyer, were threatened with transfer to general population for filing

19 grievances, which would have risked their safety. They were then were reclassified

20 from top tier, the higher level of the ALT status with more privileges, to bottom

21 tier, the lower level of the ALT status, with less privileges. Further, Larry Meyer

22 was refused grievance forms on many occasions, and was punished and put into

23 administrative segregation for purportedly “abusing” the grievance process.

24

223. SBCSD has repeatedly denied grievances about conditions in the ALT

25 and treatment of GBT inmates by stating that GBT inmates are housed and treated

26 according to Department policy.

27

224. On May 2, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a letter to Janice

Rutherford, Chair of the Second District Board of Supervisors, Sheriff John
28

McMahon, and Captain Jeff Rose, identifying the systemic discrimination against

50

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 52 of 65 Page ID #:436

1 GBT inmates identified in this Complaint, identifying remedies they believed were

2 necessary, and inquiring whether the County was interested in attempting to

3 negotiate a resolution of the issues raised in the letter. The County, through

4 counsel, indicated that it disputed and denied Plaintiffs’ claims, and was not

5 interested in a meeting to discuss or negotiate the claims. Thus, Plaintiffs’ attempts

6 to resolve the issues through pre-litigation efforts were unsuccessful.

7 VII. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND RULE 23 PREREQUISITES

8

A. CLASS DEFINITIONS

9

225. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of

10 various classes of all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the

11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are four classes alleged in this Complaint

12 – two Federal and two California classes. They are defined as follows:

13

a. The California Damages Class is composed of individuals who

14

currently are, were in the past (within six months prior to the filing of

15

Veronica Pratt’s Govt. Code §910 claim), or will be in future (until

16

such time as the unlawful policies and practices cease or judgment is

17

entered in this case), GBT inmates housed in the ALT. They bring

18

their claims against the various individual Defendants as explained

19

infra in the causes of action brought under California law. They seek

20

statutory damages of $4000 per violation for each class member

21

pursuant to California Civil Code §§52.1(b) and 52.

22

b. The Federal Damages Class is composed of individuals who currently

23

are, were in the past (within two years of the filing of this complaint)

24

or will be in future (until such time as the unlawful policies and

25

practices cease or judgment is entered in this case), GBT inmates

housed in the ALT. They bring their claims against all Defendants
26

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
27
c. The California Injunctive Relief Class is composed of individuals who
28
currently are, or in the future without the intervention of this Court

51

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 53 of 65 Page ID #:437

1

will be, GBT inmates housed in the ALT and subject to the unlawful

2

treatment set forth in this Complaint. They bring their claims against

3

Defendants County, SBCSD and the individual Defendants under

4

California law.

5

d. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class is composed of individuals who

6

currently are, or in the future without the intervention of this court

7

will be, GBT inmates housed in the ALT and subject to the unlawful

8

treatment set forth in this Complaint. They bring their claims against

9

all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

10

B. NUMEROSITY

11

226. In accordance with F.R.Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the members of each class

12 are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs do not

13 know the exact number of class members. There are 32 GBT inmates who live in

14 the ALT at any given time, and there is constant change and turnover in who is

15 housed there. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the

16 number of persons in each of the proposed damages classes is at least in the

17 hundreds, and that the number of persons in the proposed injunctive relief classes

18 is higher given that it covers future GBT inmates housed in the ALT.

19

227. On information and belief, San Bernardino County jails (excluding

20 Adelanto) has a daily inmate population of approximately 5000-6000, of which the

21 majority are housed at WVDC

22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_County_

23 Sheriff's_Department#Detentions_and_Corrections_Bureau). In 2006, over

24 100,000 inmates were processed through the SBCSD jail system. Thus, the inmate

25 population turns over many times each year.

26

C. COMMON ISSUES OF FACT OR LAW

228. In §IV of this Complaint, Plaintiffs set forth common factual
27

allegations for the treatment of GBT inmates in the ALT who comprise the
28
members of each class, which allegations are incorporated into this section of the

52

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 54 of 65 Page ID #:438

1 Complaint. In §V of this Complaint, Plaintiffs set forth factual allegations for the

2 Named Plaintiffs regarding their treatment as GBT inmates in the ALT, which are 3 also incorporated into this section of the complaint.4

4

229. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of fact

5 common to the class. The common questions of fact include, but are not limited to

6 the following:

7

a. Whether the SBCSD provides GBT inmates time outside of

8

their cells equivalent to the time comparable non-GBT inmates

9

housed in the general population receive outside of their cells;

10

b. Whether SBCSD allows GBT inmates to attend and participate

11

in religious services while they are outside of their cell

12

comparable to non-GBT inmates, and to receive religious

13

materials and services inside their cells comparable to non-GBT

14

inmates;

15

c. Whether SBCSD provides GBT inmates with educational

16

programming, including regional occupational classes,

17

vocational education classes, and GED classes comparable to

18

non-GBT inmates;

19

d. Whether SBCSD allows pretrial GBT inmates the opportunity

20

to work as trustees comparable to the opportunity provided non

21

GBT inmates;

22

e. Whether SBCSD allows sentenced GBT inmates to participate

23

in the inmate work program and receive good time work credits

24

comparable to non-GBT inmates;

25

f. Whether SBCSD provides GBT inmates with access to the in

26

person “INROADS” drug rehabilitation program, which is held

27 4 In ¶1, the term GBT inmates as used in this Complaint is limited to GBT inmates 28 housed in the ALT. Accordingly, we do not repeat each time the reference to being
in the ALT.
53

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 55 of 65 Page ID #:439

1

at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, and allows them to receive

2

time off their sentences for completing the program comparable

3

to non-GBT inmates;

4

g. Whether SBCSD enforces hourly safety checks of GBT cells at

5

WVDC comparable to non-GBT inmates;

6

h. Whether SBCSD harasses, neglects, and humiliates GBT

7

inmates due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or

8

gender;

9

i. Whether GBT inmates face the coercive choice of entering the

10

general population and face less discrimination but greater

11

threat to personal safety, or entering the ALT and face

12

discrimination (i.e., denial of equal access to programs, work,

13

out of cell time, and other opportunities or privileges normally

14

available) but greater personal safety.

15

230. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), there are questions of law

16 common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, thereon allege, that

17 the common questions of law include but are not limited to the following:

18

a. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

19

GBT inmates by allowing them less time out of their cell,

20

regardless of their custody level, than non-GBT inmates.

21

b. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

22

GBT inmates in their exercise of religious freedom.

23

c. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

24

GBT inmates by failing to provide GBT inmates with

25

educational programming, including regional occupational

26

classes, vocational education classes, and GED classes

27

comparable to non-GBT inmates.

28

54

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 56 of 65 Page ID #:440

1

d. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

2

GBT inmates by failing to allow pre-trial GBT inmates to work

3

as trustees comparable to non-GBT inmates.

4

e. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

5

GBT inmates by failing to allow sentenced GBT inmates to

6

participate in the inmate work program and receive good time

7

work credits comparable to non-GBT inmates.

8

f. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

9

GBT inmates by failing to allow them access to the in person

10

“INROADS” drug rehabilitation program, which is held at Glen

11

Helen Rehabilitation Center, and to receive time off their

12

sentences for completing the program comparable to non-GBT

13

inmates.

14

g. Whether the SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

15

GBT inmates by failing to enforce hourly safety checks of the

16

ALT comparable to those for non-GBT inmates.

17

h. Whether SBCSD has violated the equal protection rights of

18

GBT inmates by harassing, neglecting and humiliating GBT

19

inmates due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or

20

gender unlike non-GBT inmates.

21

i. Regardless of whether sub-paragraphs a-h, above, constitute

22

violations of the equal protection of the law taken individually,

23

whether the overall treatment of GBT inmates at WVDC

24

violates their right to equal protection of the law under the

25

totality of the circumstances.

26

j. Whether the conduct described above constitutes a policy or

27

custom of Defendants.

28

55

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 57 of 65 Page ID #:441

1

k. Whether any individual Defendant is entitled to qualified

2

immunity on the federal claims, or state law immunity on the

3

state law claims, for the practices complained of herein.

4

l. Whether the conduct described above violates the equal

5

protection rights of class members under the California

6

Constitution Article I, §1, 7 and/or the Fourteenth Amendment

7

to the United States Constitution.

8

m. Whether the conduct described above violates California Civil

9

Code §§52.1 or 815.6.

10

n. Whether the level of scrutiny under the applicable law is strict

11

scrutiny or heightened scrutiny or some other level of scrutiny;

12

o. Whether there is a lawful justification for any of the

13

discriminatory treatment sufficient under the applicable level(s)

14

of scrutiny.

15

p. Whether class wide statutory damages are available under

16

California Civil Code §§52.1 and 52(a).

17

q. Whether presumed or general class wide damages are available

18

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

19

D. TYPICALITY

20

231. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of the

21 representative Plaintiffs are typical of each class. All Named Plaintiffs were in

22 SBCSD custody when they were subjected to unequal treatment in the ALT, which

23 unequal treatment applied and applies to all inmates who are housed in the ALT.

24 Named Plaintiffs were denied access to educational programming, religious

25 services, work programs and good time release credits, and trustee programs; were

treated differently from non-GBT inmates with respect to time outside of their cell,
26

hourly safety checks; were subjected to harassment, name calling, neglect, and
27

humiliation by SBCSD deputies based on their sexual orientation, gender identity
28

56

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 58 of 65 Page ID #:442

1 or gender; and were otherwise subjected to the discriminatory treatment alleged in

2 the Complaint.

3

232. Thus, Named Plaintiffs have the same interests, and have suffered the

4 same type of damages as the class members. Named Plaintiffs’ claims are based

5 upon the same or similar legal theories as the claims of the class members. Each

6 class member suffered actual damages as a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory

7 policies. The actual damages suffered by Plaintiffs are similar in type and amount

8 to the actual damages suffered by each class member.

9

233. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the Named Plaintiffs will

10 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the Named

11 Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of the class.

12

E. MAINTENANCE AND SUPERIORITY

13

234. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of

14 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk that

15 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

16 class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing

17 the class.

18

235. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of

19 separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of

20 adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would, as a

21 practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members

22 of the class to protect their interests.

23

236. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs are

24 informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants have acted on grounds

25 generally applicable to the class.

237. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law
26

or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
27

affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other
28
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy between

57

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 59 of 65 Page ID #:443

1 the parties. The interests of class members in individually controlling the

2 prosecution of a separate action is low in that most class members would be unable

3 to individually prosecute any action at all. The amounts at stake for individuals are

4 such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most members of the class

5 will not be able to find counsel to represent them. It is desirable to concentrate all

6 litigation in one forum because all of the claims arise in the same location, i.e., the

7 County of San Bernardino. It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the

8 common questions of law and fact in one forum rather than in multiple courts.

9 Because the discrimination alleged herein is systemic, it is particularly well suited

10 to resolution on a class basis, as the critical questions in the case may be answered

11 on a class wide basis.

12

238. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of the class members. Plaintiffs

13 are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class

14 members are ascertainable from SBCSD records, in particular the SBCSD

15 computer systems used to track and identify SBCSD inmates. Plaintiffs are

16 informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the SBCSD computer records reflect

17 the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of the persons who have

18 been held in custody by SBCSD; when and on what charges inmates were arrested

19 and booked, taken to court, returned from court; when and why inmates were

20 released; what programs, work assignments and the like inmates participated in;

21 and where inmates were housed.

22

239. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

23 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

24 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues

25 raised on behalf of the classes. The class action will be manageable because so

26 many different records systems exist from which to ascertain the members of the

27 class and to ascertain some of the proof relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Liability can

be determined on a class-wide basis based on class wide evidence because the
28

Plaintiffs complain of systemic and widespread discriminatory policies and

58

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 60 of 65 Page ID #:444

1 practices. Named Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to statutory damages

2 under state law, and to presumed damages under federal law; and, in any event,

3 individualization or variability in damages is not a bar to a liability certification

4 based on common liability issues.

5

240. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), class members must

6 be furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including

7 individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.

8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that SBCSD computer records contain a last

9 known address for class members. Plaintiffs contemplate that individual notice be

10 given to class members at such last known address by first class mail. Plaintiffs

11 contemplate that the notice inform class members of the following:

12

A. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the

13

class;

14

B. The nature of the action;

15

C. Their right to ‘opt out’ of the action within a given time, in

16

which event they will not be bound by a decision rendered in

17

the class action;

18

D. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to be represented by their

19

own counsel and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise,

20

they will be represented by the named Plaintiffs and their

21

counsel; and

22

E. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to share in any recovery in

23

favor of the class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment

24

on the common issues, adverse to the class.

25

241. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing

26 and ensuing paragraphs in each of the following causes of action as if each

27 paragraph was fully set forth therein.

28

59

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 61 of 65 Page ID #:445

1 VIII. COUNT ONE – 42 U.S.C. §1983 [EQUAL PROTECTION] (ALL

2

DEFENDANTS)5

3

242. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

4 allegations in, this Complaint.

5

243. The unequal treatment of GBT inmates, based on sexual orientation,

6 gender identity and gender, as alleged herein, deprives them of the protections 7 afforded by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. Therefore, the

8 Federal Damages Class Representatives and Class are entitled to damages, and the

9 Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are entitled to injunctive

10 relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

11

244. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

12 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling the Federal

Damages Class Representatives and Class to damages in an amount to be proven at
13

trial, including punitive damages against the individual defendants.
14

245. The Federal Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are
15

currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of
16

this Court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein and, therefore, seek injunctive
17

relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals as

18

previously defined.

19

IX. COUNT TWO - CAL. CIV. CODE §52.1 (ALL INDIVIDUAL

20

DEFENDANTS)

21

246. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

22 allegations in, this Complaint.

23

247. The Defendants interfered with the California Damages Class

24 Representatives’ and Class’, and the California Injunctive Relief Class

25

26 5 In the original and first amended complaints, plaintiffs alleged a cause of action based on 27 California Civil Code § 815.6. This claim is not included in the second amended complaint
because the Court dismissed the claim with prejudice. The failure to include it should not be 28 construed as a waiver and abandonment of the claim, The claims is preserved although not pled
in the instant complaint. 60

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 62 of 65 Page ID #:446

1 Representatives’ and Class’, rights to equal protection of the law under the

2 California Constitutions, as previously alleged, by threat, intimidation or coercion.

3

248. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs

4 to be deprived of their rights as stated above, thereby entitling the California

5 Damages Class Representatives and Class to statutory damages as provided by

6 Civil Code §§52.1(b) and 52(a) and/or actual damages in an amount to be proven

7 at trial, and to punitive damages.

8

249. The California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

9 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

10 this court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein, and therefore, seek injunctive

11 relief on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals.

12 X.
13 14

COUNT FOUR – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1, §7 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION [EQUAL PROTECTION] AND CAL. GOVT. CODE § 11135(A) (AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY, SBCSD AND MCMAHON)

15

250. Plaintiffs re-allege all the preceding and following paragraphs of, and

16 allegations in, this Complaint.

17

251. The Defendants interfered with the California Federal Injunctive

18 Relief Class Representatives’ and Class’ rights to equal protection of the law under

19 Article 1 §7 of the California Constitution, as previously alleged.

20

252. California Government Code Section 11135(a) provides that no

21 person, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender, shall be

22 unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully

23 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity operated or funded

24 directly by the State.

25

253. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the County of San Bernardino

26 and the San Bernardino County Jail receives financial assistance from the State of

27 California.

28

61

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 63 of 65 Page ID #:447

1

254. The aforementioned acts of Defendants proximately caused the

2 California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class to be denied full and

3 equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under,

4 programs or activities receiving financial assistance from the State of California.

5

255. The California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives and Class are

6 currently subject to, and will continue to be subject to, absent the intervention of

7 this court, the unlawful treatment alleged herein, and therefore, seek injunctive

8 relief under the foregoing Constitutional provisions and statutes on behalf of

9 themselves and the class of similarly situated individuals. 10 XI. APPROPRIATENESS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF

11

256. The Federal and California Injunctive Relief Class Representatives

12 and Classes are currently (or will in the future be) incarcerated at the WVDC and

13 will continue to be discriminated against into the foreseeable future, absent

14 intervention of this Court. Further, the SBCSD has informed Plaintiffs in response

15 to complaints about the discriminatory treatment that they treat GBT inmates

16 according to policy and deny any discriminatory treatment, thus they will not

17 change how they discriminate against GBT inmates.

18

257. SBCDC’s continuing discrimination and unequal treatment of GBT

19 inmates violates the Federal and California Injunctive Relief Class

20 Representatives’ and Classes’ constitutional rights, and causes them continuing,

21 sweeping and irreparable harm.

22

258. Because no adequate remedy at law exists for the injuries alleged

23 herein, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under both federal and state law.

24 XII. PRAYER

25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class members

26 they represent, request damages against each defendant as follows:

27

1. General and special damages according to proof;

28

62

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 64 of 65 Page ID #:448

1

2. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting

2 Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices complained of

3 herein;

4

3. As against the individual Defendants only, punitive damages

5 according to proof;

6

4. In addition to actual damages, statutory damages as allowed by law,

7 including statutory and treble damages under California Civil Code §§52 and 52.1;

8

5. Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988; California Civil

9 Code §§52(b)(3), 52.1(h); California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, and

10 whatever other statute or law may be applicable;

11

6. The costs of this suit; and

12

7. Such other relief as is just and proper.

13 Dated: May 18, 2015
14

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

15

By: _/s/ Barrett S. Litt__________

16

David S. McLane

Ronald O. Kaye

17

Lindsay Battles

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19
20 Dated: May 18, 2015
21

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

22

By: _/s/ Melissa Goodman________

Brendan M. Hamme

23

Peter J. Eliasberg

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

63

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 37 Filed 05/20/15 Page 65 of 65 Page ID #:449

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of the class,
3
demand a jury trial.
4

5
Dated: May 18, 2015
6

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

7 8 9 10 11
12 Dated: May 18, 2015
13 14 15 16

By: _/s/ Barrett S. Litt_________ David S. McLane Ronald O. Kaye Lindsay Battles Attorneys for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California
By: _/s/ Melissa Goodman______ Brendan M. Hamme Peter J. Eliasberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

64

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:268

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 14-02171 JGB (SPx) Title Dan McKibben, et al. v. John McMahon, et al.

Date April 17, 2015

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): None Present

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) and (2) VACATING the April 20, 2015 Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 24.) The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15. After considering all papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion and VACATES the April 20, 2015 hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiffs Dan McKibben, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed their putative class action complaint against Defendants John McMahon, Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, James Mahan, Armando Castillo, the County of San Bernardino, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 22, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on January 14, 2015. (“FAC,” Doc. No. 19.)

Page 1 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:269

B. Factual Allegations
Within the San Bernardino County Jail,1 inmates who self-identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender (“GBT”) during the booking process are automatically transferred to an “Alternative Lifestyle Tank” (“ALT”) at the West Valley Detention Center (“West Valley”). (FAC ¶¶ 1, 36.) The ALT is entirely separated from the general population unit at West Valley; the GBT inmates have no contact with the general population inmates. (Id. ¶ 36.) The ALT consists of 16 cells, each of which houses two inmates. (Id.)
Plaintiffs are 15 GBT inmates who are, or were, housed in the ALT. The crux of Plaintiffs’ FAC is that inmates housed in the ALT experience worse conditions of confinement than non-GBT inmates housed in general population. This inferior treatment presents itself in various forms.
In the ALT, GBT inmates are allegedly locked inside their cells for approximately twenty-two and a half hours a day, regardless of their security classification. (Id. ¶ 6.) This stands in contrast with the procedures in general population, where inmates are usually allowed out of their cells all day. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege there is no justification for this difference, as the ALT has its own day room where prisoners could spend time outside of their cells. (Id.) Plaintiffs also allege the lockdown procedures are different in the ALT: when a GBT inmate causes a disturbance all inmates are locked down in their cells for the entire day, whereas in general population only the inmates involved in the disturbance are locked down. (Id.)
Plaintiffs further allege they are denied access to numerous programs made available to non-GBT inmates. GBT inmates are allegedly not allowed to access educational programming, including occupational, vocational, and GED classes. (Id. ¶ 8.) GBT inmates are also denied access to drug rehabilitation programs. (Id. ¶ 9.) For example, one program, called “Inroads,” is only available at the Glen Helen rehabilitation facility, where GBT inmates cannot be housed. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that since GBT inmates cannot participate in drug rehabilitation programs and thereby earn time off their sentences, they end up being incarcerated longer than non-GBT inmates. (Id.)
The FAC also alleges GBT inmates are not allowed access to religious services outside their unit, and the services inside the ALT – for example, access to chaplains and Bibles – are more limited than those in general population. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs further allege that GBT inmates are regularly subjected to abusive conduct and derogatory name-calling by Sheriff’s deputies. (Id. ¶ 48.)
Finally, some GBT inmates have allegedly been retaliated against for complaining about disparate treatment. (Id. ¶ 50.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant Castillo offered, presumably as a threat, to place certain Plaintiffs in general population. (Id.) These inmates, who had previously filed claims concerning their disparate treatment, refused to transfer to general population out of concern for their safety. (Id.)
1 The Jail is run by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

Page 2 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:270

Based on these assertions, the FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) violation of equal protection rights under the California Constitution (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (“Bane Act”)); (3) violation of equal protection rights (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 810.6, 815.6); (4) injunctive relief (Cal. Const. art. I, § 7, Cal. Govt. Code § 11135). (FAC ¶¶ 240-262.)
On February 17, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (“Motion,” Doc. No. 9.) Defendants opposed on March 2, 2015. (“Opp’n,” Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiffs filed a reply on March 9, 2015. (“Reply,” Doc. No. 29.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to bring a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (holding that the Federal Rules require that a plaintiff provide "'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all material allegations in the complaint — as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them — as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005); ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005); Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994).
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Rather, the allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that (1) a complaint must "contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively," and (2) "the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be

2 Unless otherwise noted, all mentions of "Rule" refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Page 3 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:271

subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss two of the four claims asserted in the FAC. Specifically, Defendants challenge (1) Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim for California constitutional violations and (2) Plaintiffs’ claim under California Government Code § 815.6.
A. Plaintiffs’ Bane Act Claim
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleges a Bane Act claim against John McMahon, Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, James Mahan, or Armando Castillo (the “Individual Defendants”). California Civil Code § 52.1 – known as the Bane Civil Rights Act – provides a cause of action for interference with an individual’s civil rights. The statute allows an aggrieved individual to bring a civil action for damages when that person’s Constitutional or statutory rights have been “interfered with . . . by threats, intimidation, or coercion” or by attempts to threaten, intimidate, or coerce. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(a)-(b).
Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim should be dismissed for two reasons. First, Defendants argue the FAC does not sufficiently allege “threats, intimidation, or coercion” beyond that inherent in the act of incarceration itself. (Motion at 4-6.) Second, Defendants assert the FAC does not contain allegations that the five individual Defendants threatened, intimidated, or coerced each and every one of the fifteen named Plaintiffs.
1. Threats, Intimidation, or Coercion
The Bane Act’s requirement that interference with rights must be accomplished by threats intimidation or coercion “has been the source of much debate and confusion.” Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 2013 WL 2100560, at *11 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2013). Courts have struggled with how to apply these broad terms in a coherent fashion. However, for the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the FAC sufficiently alleges coercive interference with Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights.
Defendants argue that the “mere act of incarceration does not satisfy the ‘coercion’ element of Section 52.1.” (Motion at 4-6.) But that argument misses the key distinction: Plaintiffs are not alleging that their incarceration itself was coercive. Rather, Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to a coercive choice while incarcerated: remain in the ALT or be placed in general population. Placement in general population would afford Plaintiffs the benefits of equal treatment but would subject them to an increased risk of violence due to their sexual and gender identities. On the other hand, Plaintiffs can enjoy the safety of the ALT, but endure inferior conditions of confinement. It is this coercive choice, based on a policy voluntarily instituted by jail officials, that distinguishes this case from those cited by Defendants.
Defendants rely on two cases in support of their argument. First, Defendants cite Shoyoye v. Cnty of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947 (2012). In that case, a clerical error

Page 4 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:272
resulted in the plaintiff being held in jail for 16 days past his release date. 203 Cal. App. 4th at 950. A jail employee mistakenly attached another inmate’s paper work to the plaintiff’s, which caused the error. Id. at 951. The court noted that none of the county employees wrongfully detained the plaintiff with actual or presumed knowledge that he should have been released; thus, the court held that plaintiff could not establish “coercion independent of that inherent in the wrongful detention itself,” and therefore could not succeed on his claim under the Bane Act. Id. at 962.
A number of district courts have read Shoyoye as imposing a distinction between intentional conduct – which is actionable – and unintentional conduct – which is not. See, e.g., Bass v. City of Fremont, 2013 WL 891090 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013). In Bass, the court declined to dismiss a Bane Act claim where the plaintiff's allegedly unconstitutional “detention and arrest resulted from the officers' action, rather than their inaction.” The court concluded that “Shoyoye is best viewed as a carve-out from the general rule stated in Venegas. In Shoyoye, the plaintiff's overdetention resulted from the negligent inaction of administrators, whereas in Venegas, the defendant officer engaged in a series of actions involving ‘threats, intimidation, or coercion’ that resulted in the plaintiff's unreasonable seizure and wrongful arrest.” Id. at *6–7. See also Holland v. City of San Francisco, 2013 WL 968295 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (rejecting defendants' Shoyoye argument because plaintiff alleged intentional, not unintentional, interference with constitutional rights); Skeels v. Pilegaard, 2013 WL 970974, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013) (distinguishing Shoyoye because plaintiff's alleged harms “were not brought about by human error, but rather by intentional conduct, conduct which could be reasonably perceived as threatening, intimidating, or coercive”). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged the Individual Defendants – through the implementation of their housing policy – made a conscious, voluntary choice to subject GBT inmates to worse conditions than non-GBT inmates. This, by itself, is arguably sufficient to distinguish Shoyoye.
However, there is more. Shoyoye itself contains language supporting the existence of a Bane Act claim in this case. The Shoyoye court specifically noted that, in that case, there was “no evidence that [plaintiff] was treated differently than other inmates who were lawfully incarcerated, or that any conduct directed at him was for the purpose of interfering with his constitutional rights.” 203 Cal. App. 4th at 961. Here, Plaintiffs are alleging that they were treated differently, and that conduct was purposefully directed at them for the purpose of interfering with their constitutional rights.
Additionally, as explained above, the act of coercion here – forcing Plaintiffs into an untenable choice – is conceptually distinguishable from the underlying alleged constitutional violation: the disparate treatment. This distinguishes this case from the second case cited by Defendants, Allen v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal. App. 4th 41 (2015.) There, homeless residents brought an action challenging the city’s enforcement of an ordinance that prohibited extended camping without a city permit. 234 Cal. App. 4th at 46. The plaintiffs asserted a violation of the Bane Act based on allegations that the police arrested them for violating the ordinance. Id. at 66-67. However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claim failed, as there was no “alleged coercion beyond the coercion inherent in any arrest.” Id. at 69. The court concluded

Page 5 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:273

that “a wrongful arrest or detention, without more, does not satisfy both elements of section 52.1.” Id. Here, the coercive choice is the “more” that separates this case from Allen. 3
The Court finds that the expansive reading of Shoyoye and Allen urged by Defendants to preclude the claims here would undermine the California Supreme Court’s explanation of the Bane Act’s breadth in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th 820 (2004.) There, the concurring opinion noted, albeit in expressing his disapproval, that because of the court’s holding, “it should not prove difficult to frame many, if not most, asserted violations of any state or federal statutory or constitutional right . . . as incorporating a threatening, coercive, intimidating verbal or written component.” 32 Cal. 4th at 851 (Baxter, J., concurring). As a sister court has stated, relying upon Venegas, “[w]hen a Section 52.1 claim is alleged against a government actor, the burden of showing ‘threats, intimidation or coercion’ is minimal.” MateosSandoval v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 2013 WL 3878181, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2013)
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the coercion necessary to state a claim under the Bane Act.
2. Coercion by the Individual Defendants
The Court next turns to whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged coercion by the Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants are command staff who hold positions of authority within the San Bernardino Jail system. McMahon is the Sheriff of San Bernardino County, and Garland is the Deputy Chief in charge of the Corrections Bureau. (SAC ¶¶ 25-26.) Rose, a captain, is the commanding officer of the West Valley. (Id. ¶ 27.) Mahan is a deputy sheriff holding the rank of sergeant. (Id. ¶ 28.) Finally, Castillo is a deputy sheriff who holds the rank of corporal. (Id. ¶ 29.)
Defendants contend that because Plaintiffs cannot show specific acts of coercion, threats, or intimidation by each Individual Defendant against each Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants should be dismissed. (Motion at 6-8.) However, as the Court has explained, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged coercion through the implementation of a policy that forced Plaintiffs to choose between safety and equal treatment. The FAC alleges that each of the Individual Defendants had a high degree of control over the policies that governed the ALT. McMahon is alleged to be the policy maker for the entire San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. (SAC ¶ 25.) The FAC alleges Garland is in charge of the Corrections Bureau, which oversees all jail facilities, including West Valley. (Id. ¶ 26.) Rose is the commanding officer at West Valley. (Id. ¶ 27.) Mahan allegedly handles grievances by GBT inmates, and is also responsible for determining the eligibility of GBT inmates for programs. (Id. ¶ 28.) Lastly, the FAC alleges Castillo is in charge of classification and placement of GBT inmates in the ALT, and is also
3 Defendants contend in their reply that since Plaintiffs have alleged that those who selfidentify as GBT during the booking process are “automatically transferred” to the ALT, there is no coercive choice presented to Plaintiffs. (Reply at 7.) However, this ignores the decision Plaintiffs face when choosing whether to self-identify as GBT, and that because of this choice Plaintiffs face being sent either to the ALT or to general population.

Page 6 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:274
involved in reviewing grievances by GBT inmates. (Id. ¶ 29.) In sum, the FAC alleges that the Individual Defendants, as supervisors or persons responsible for the jail’s governance, have instituted a coercive policy that infringes Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged coercion on the part of the Individual Defendants. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011)4 (supervisorial liability exists based on defendant’s “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation” or a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation”.”)
B. Plaintiffs’ California Government Code § 815.6 Claim
Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute. (Gov.Code, § 815, subd. (a) (“Except as otherwise provided by statute . . . A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity....”]; see Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838 (“intent of the act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs in suits against governmental entities, but to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances”). Government Code section 815.6 – upon which Plaintiffs’ base their third cause of action – is a statute that provides for public entity liability. It states:
Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.
Cal. Govt. Code. § 815.6. California courts use a three part test to determine if liability for a mandatory duty may be imposed upon a public entity: (1) an enactment must impose a mandatory duty; (2) the enactment must intend to protect against the kind of risk of injury suffered by the plaintiff; and (3) breach of the mandatory duty must be a proximate cause of the injury suffered. Dept. of Corp. v. Superior Court, 153 Cal. App. 4th 916, 922 (2007).
Defendants seek the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for two reasons. First, Defendants argue the constitutional provisions cited by Plaintiffs do not create “mandatory duties” within the meaning of Section 815.6. In other words, Defendants contend Plaintiffs do not satisfy the first prong of Section 815.6’s three-part test. Second, Defendants contend California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) provides a public entity with immunity for claims asserting injury to a prisoner. The Court finds Defendants’ first argument dispositive, and therefore does not address the second.

4 While Starr concerned a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, it is instructive here, especially as there is limited California constitutional law regarding supervisory liability.

Page 7 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:275

Whether an enactment is intended to impose a mandatory duty is a question of law. Cnty. Of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 4th 627, 638-639 (2002). Here, the enactments at issue are equal protection provisions of the Federal and California Constitutions.5 The Court finds these provisions do not impose a mandatory duty on Defendants within the meaning of Section 815.6.
As the California Supreme Court has stated, “First and foremost, application of section 815.6 requires that the enactment at issue be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in its directions to the public entity; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular action be taken or not taken.” Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.4th 490, 498 (2000) (emphasis in original). Courts have construed this first prong strictly, finding a mandatory duty only if the enactment “affirmatively imposes the duty and provides implementing guidelines.” O'Toole v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. App. 4th 488, 510 (2006); see also Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 221 Cal.App.3d 1224, 1240 (1990) (“If rules and guidelines for the implementation of an alleged mandatory duty are not set forth in an otherwise prohibitory statute, it cannot create a mandatory duty.”) Here, the constitutional provisions at issue do not affirmatively impose a duty and certainly do not provide implementing guidelines.
To elucidate the above point, it is helpful to look to cases where courts have found a mandatory duty. In Braman v. California, 28 Cal. App. 4th 344, the court found the California Department of Justice had a mandatory duty to conduct a particularized investigation into the background of a prospective handgun purchaser. 28 Cal. App. 4th at 353. The statute that provided the duty, California Penal Code § 12076, stated “the department shall examine its records . . . in order to determine if the purchaser [is receiving inpatient treatment for a mental disorder or has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of mental disorder]. If the department determines that the purchaser [is within the categories] it shall immediately notify the dealer of that fact.” Id. at 350. In Trewin v. California, 150 Cal. App. 3rd 975 (1984), the court found the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the Department of Motor Vehicles had a mandatory duty to deny a license to a person unable to operate a vehicle safely because of disability. Vehicle Code 12805(d), the source of the duty, provides that “the department shall not issue a driver’s license to . . . any person . . . when it is determined [] that the person is unable to safely operate a motor vehicle.” 150 Cal. App. 3rd at 978. Finally, in Sullivan v. Los Angeles, 12 Cal.3d 710 (1974), the court acknowledged the county jail had a mandatory duty to release the plaintiff, after dismissal of his case, under California Penal Code § 1384, which states “if the court directs the action to be dismissed, the defendant must, if in custody, be discharged therefrom.” 12 Cal.3d at 715-17. These cases illustrate the type of enactments that can impart a mandatory duty. See also Bradford v. California, 36 Cal. App. 3d 16 (1973) (after plaintiff’s criminal case dismissed, state had mandatory duty to ensure the records reflected as much); Scott v. Los Angeles, 27 Cal. App. 4th 125 1994 (county liable for failing to fulfill the mandatory duty imposed by state regulation requiring social workers to make monthly visits to foster children and foster parents).
5 In the California Government Code, an “enactment” is defined as “a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.” Cal. Gov. Code. § 810.6

Page 8 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 32 Filed 04/17/15 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:276
The Court’s reading of Section 815.6 is also finds support from another source. Plaintiffs have not provided any cases, and the Court has not been able to locate any, where a plaintiff successfully alleged a constitutional provision provided the mandatory duty in a claim under Section 815.6. If constitutional provisions were found to create mandatory duties, it would turn Section 815.6 into a general civil rights statute, allowing plaintiffs to sue public entities for civil rights violations without having to satisfy the heightened requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or California Civil Code § 52.1. There is nothing in the statutory language or case law to suggest such a broad expansion.
Plaintiffs argue that a separate provision of the California Constitution shows that Defendants do have a mandatory duty. (Opp’n at 18.) Article 1, Section 26 of the California Constitution provides that “the provisions of the Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory.” However, while the equal rights provision is inarguably mandatory, it falls short of creating a “mandatory duty.” As explained by the California Supreme Court, “mandatory” as used in Section 26 means that “all branches of government are required to comply with constitutional directives.” Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 300, 206 (2002). In other words, the equal protection clause provides a “mandatory” prohibition on public entities engaging in certain activities, like discriminating against certain classes of citizens, but it does not require any affirmative act of a public entity sufficient to qualify as a mandatory duty under Section 815.6.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that when it is clear the complaint cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion. The Court:
1) DENIES Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Bane Act; and
2) DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiffs’ cause of action for violation of California Government Code § 815.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 9 of 9

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 70 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:626

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com Nathan A. Oyster (SBN 225307) E-mail: noyster@bwslaw.com BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700
Attorneys for Defendants SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, GREG GARLAND, JEFF ROSE, SERGEANT JAMES MAHAN, A. CASTILLO, and COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (Also sued herein as SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAN MCKIBBEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHN MCMAHON, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP
STIPULATION TO VACATE TRIAL AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES BASED ON CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE ACTION
[Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order to Vacate Trial and Pretrial Deadlines]
Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiffs DAN MCKIBBEN, PEDRO GUZMAN, NICK OU, SEAN LINT,
ANTHONY OLIVER, TIMOTHY WALKER, ILICH VARGAS, WILLIAM KENNEDY, JONATHAN ROBERTSON, STEVE aka LYNN PRICE, BRYAN BAGWELL, CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD, FREDERICK CROCKAN, TAHEASH WHITE, MICHAEL aka MADISON HATFIELD, and KEVIN aka VERONICA PRATT (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants SHERIFF JOHN

LA #4813-8161-0847 v3

-1-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP STIPULATION RE: SETTLEMENT

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 70 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:627

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

MCMAHON, GREG GARLAND, JEFF ROSE, SERGEANT JAMES MAHAN, A. CASTILLO, and COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (hereinafter “Defendants”), hereby stipulate, through their respective counsel of record, to the following:
1. After extensive ongoing negotiations, counsel for the parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter in its entirety. The settlement consists of three prongs – (1) a damages pool, which will provide monetary compensation to the individual Plaintiffs and the members of a damages class (including costs of class administration and certain expert, consulting, and mediation costs), (2) an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and (3) substantive changes to San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department policies and practices. The completion of the settlement process is subject to the completion of the additional processes outlined in paragraphs 2 through 8 of this Stipulation.
2. The settlement must be approved by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors. Counsel for Defendants expects this matter to be scheduled for approval in closed session no later than May 1, 2018.
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel must obtain the final approval of the 16 named Plaintiffs. Counsel for Plaintiffs expects to obtain this approval by May 1, 2018.
4. Counsel for the parties will negotiate the terms of a formal Settlement Agreement, which will incorporate all three aspects of the parties’ agreement. The parties hope to finalize the Settlement Agreement by May 15, 2018.
5. Once the steps in paragraphs 2 through 4 have been completed, Plaintiffs will file an unopposed motion with the Court seeking certification of a class and seeking preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Plaintiffs anticipate filing the motion for class certification and preliminary settlement approval by June 15, 2018.
6. Once the portion of the Settlement Agreement related to substantive changes to San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department policies and practices has been

LA #4813-8161-0847 v3

-2-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 70 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:628

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

finalized, counsel for the parties will work together to finalize changes to any San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department policies that are implicated by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties will also work together to create new forms required by the terms of the injunctive relief settlement. Defendants will propose new or amended policies and forms within one month of completion of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs will provide feedback and request changes within one month thereafter and the parties will endeavor to complete this portion of the settlement within three months of completion of the Settlement Agreement, but no later than the Court’s final approval of the settlement.
7. Once the Court has provided preliminary approval, notice will be provided to all class members. That notice will include an explanation of the settlement terms, class member rights to object or opt-out and the date a motion for attorney’s fees will be filed and class members’ right to object to such fees.
8. Once the class notice period has expired, Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the class action settlement. Plaintiffs anticipate filing the motion for final approval of the class action settlement approximately six months after preliminary approval of the settlement (to allow for preparing and mailing the class notice, the claims period, and the preparation of a motion for final approval). At that hearing, the Court will also rule on the motion for attorney’s fees.
9. As a result of the foregoing, the parties request that the Court enter an Order vacating the trial date and all pretrial deadlines in this matter.
10. If Plaintiffs have not filed their unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary settlement approval by June 15, 2018, the parties will file a joint report on the status of the settlement. /// /// /// ///

LA #4813-8161-0847 v3

-3-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 70 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:629

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Dated: March 29, 2018

KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT LLP
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dated: March 29, 2018

By: /s/ Da v id McLa n e Barrett S. Litt David McLane Lindsay Battles
Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAN MCKIBBEN, PEDRO GUZMAN, NICK OU, SEAN LINT, ANTHONY OLIVER, TIMOTHY WALKER, ILICH VARGAS, WILLIAM KENNEDY, JONATHAN ROBERTSON, STEVE aka LYNN PRICE, BRYAN BAGWELL, CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD, FREDERICK CROCKAN, TAHEASH WHITE, MICHAEL aka MADISON HATFIELD, and KEVIN aka VERONICA PRATT
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
By: /s/ Na th a n A. Oy ster 1 Nathan A. Oyster
Attorneys for Defendants SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, GREG GARLAND, JEFF ROSE, SERGEANT JAMES MAHAN, A. CASTILLO, AND COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (Also sued herein as SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)

1 As the filer of this Stipulation, I attest that David McLane concurs in the content of the Stipulation and has authorized its filing.

LA #4813-8161-0847 v3

-4-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:714

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAN MCKIBBEN, et al.,

Case No.14-2171-JGB-SP

Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHN MCMAHON, et al.,

[Hon. Jesus G. Bernal] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendants.

Plaintiffs1 Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt, (individually and on behalf of the classes to be certified in connection with this Settlement (collectively “Plaintiffs”)) and Defendants County of San Bernardino, its Sheriff John McMahon, and San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department personnel Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, James Mahan and Armando Castillo (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby submit the following Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”).

1 Plaintiff Dan McKibben unfortunately passed away while this lawsuit was pending, and

so is not listed as Class Representative Plaintiff, although we continue to use his name as

the Case Name.

1

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:715
I. RECITALS Plaintiffs are former or current (at the time of the filing of the complaint) inmates at the San Bernardino County Jail (hereafter “Jail”), operated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “SBCSD”). The Jail maintained and maintains an “Alternative Lifestyle Tank” (hereafter “ALT”) at the West Valley Detention Center (hereafter “WVDC”), which houses inmates who selfidentify as gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (hereinafter “GBT inmates”). The WVDC is the only SBCSD jail facility that houses a separate unit for self-identified GBT inmates who were assigned male at birth. Plaintiffs, and the classes they represent, contend that Defendants engage in systematic discrimination and denial of equal treatment against GBT inmates at the WVDC. Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that GBT inmates 1) were automatically placed in the ALT if they self-identified as GBT; 2) would have been at risk for their safety if admitted to the general population as openly GBT inmates because SBCSD did not have any plans or programs to ensure their safety; 3) had no or inadequate PREA programs in place to protect GBT inmates or address particular vulnerabilities of GBT inmates placed in the general population; 4) were limited in their time-out-of-cell generally to an hour and a half per day, and often less, in contrast to similarly situated (by classification or sentencing status) general population inmates; 5) were denied the same work opportunities that were provided to similarly situated (by classification or sentencing status) general population inmates; 6) were denied the same programming opportunities2 that were provided to similarly situated (by classification or sentencing status) general population inmates; and 7) a comparable range of religious services to those available to the
2 Programming opportunities include classes in anger management, thinking for change, living skills, parenting skills, substance abuse, GED, high school diploma, literacy, automobile mechanics, bakery occupations, culinary/reading enrichment classes, computer skills, HVAC training, fire camp vocational training, employment readiness, substance abuse, “In-Roads”, and re-entry services.
2

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:716
general population. Plaintiffs also contend that certain aspects of this disparate treatment continue to this day.
In the interest of avoiding expense, delay and inconvenience of further litigation of issues raised in this action, and without any admission of liability by Defendants, and in reliance upon the representations contained herein, and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations in this Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, enter into this Settlement Agreement, subject to the approval of the Court.
In summary, this settlement provides for dismissal of this case with prejudice in exchange for 1) a variety of policy changes, 2) a damages settlement of $950,000, and, 3) an award of attorney’s fees and costs of $1,100,000.
II. DEFINITIONS The listed terms used throughout this Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal are intended to have the following meanings: 1. “Administrator” means the Class Administrator, as agreed upon (or to be
agreed upon) by the Parties and appointed by the Court to review and determine the validity and amount of claims submitted by a Settlement Class Member (“SCM”) (as defined herein), according to the procedures set forth herein. Plaintiffs’ Counsel sent out for bids to qualified administrators and chose JND Legal Administration as the Class Administrator because they were most reasonably priced. 2. The “Alternative Lifestyle Tank” (aka the “ALT”) consists of two 16-cell housing sections in one of the jail units in the West Valley Detention Center jail facility operated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department that is used to house gay, bisexual and transgender (“GBT”) inmates. 3. The “Bar Date” is the date by which any Damages Class Member who wishes to receive payment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and therefore is a Settlement Class Member (“SCM”) as defined below) must
3

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:717
file his/her Proof of Claim and Release Form, file objections to this Settlement Agreement, or request to be excluded from the class (opt-out). The Bar Date shall be calculated as the close of business on the 90th day after the last day of mailing of the Class Notice which is up to two consecutive business days from beginning to end, as is addressed in ¶ 33, i.e., the Class Administrator must mail all notices within a two day period). 4. “Class Counsel” herein refers to Barrett S. Litt, David S. McLane and Lindsay Battles of KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, and Melissa Goodman, Amanda Goad, Brendan Hamme and Aditi Fruitwala of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. 5. “Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees” refers to the amount awarded by the Court as their attorneys’ fees in this case, which amount has been agreed to by the parties as a separate award, to be approved by the Court. 6. “Class Counsel Litigation Costs” include, but are not limited to all litigation costs, including the following: messenger and other delivery fees; postage; photocopying; printing; scanning; document binding; parking; regular or special postage expenses; travel expenses (including mileage, airfare, lodging, meals, and ground transportation); consultants’ fees; mediation charges and fees; expert witness fees; regular witness fees; deposition fees; transcript fees; investigation fees; on-line research costs; long-distance telephone charges; facsimile transmissions and other costs or expenses ordinarily charged by attorneys when representing clients, whether or not the costs qualify to be reimbursed in a motion for attorneys’ fees and/or costs under either 42 U.S.C § 1988 or 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Certain costs are to be paid from the agreed upon attorney’s fee award and certain costs are to come from the Damages Class Fund. 7. The “Class Damages Fund” refers to the amount of up to $950,000 as damages compensation to the Class, to be paid by Defendants to the Class Administrator, and out of which the costs of Class Administration,
4

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:718
Plaintiffs’ counsel expert/consulting and mediation fees, incentive awards and compensation to Damages Class members will be paid. 8. A “Class Member” means any member of the Injunctive Relief Class as defined above (which is broader than the Damages Class). 9. The “Class Notice” means the notice to the Class regarding settlement, to be sent to Class Members in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit B, or as otherwise approved by the Court, and such other summary notice to be published in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 10. The “Damages Class” is composed of individuals who, between October 22, 2012 (two years prior to the filing of the original complaint, which is the statute of limitations period under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and March 31, 2018 (the end of the month in which the settlement was reached in principle) were GBT inmates housed in the ALT of the San Bernardino County Jail facility known as West Valley Detention Center (“WVDC”). 11. The “Damages Class Member List” shall consist of those persons identified as having been housed in the ALT during the Damages Class Period. 12. The “Damages Class Period” refers to October 22, 2012, through March 31, 2018. 13. The “Database” is the information provided in electronic form to the Administrator no later than five (5) days from the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the terms of this Settlement Agreement (if the data has not already been provided), which information has been compiled from the electronic records of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. 14. The “Defendants” are the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon, and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department employees Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, James Mahan, and Armando Castillo.
5

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:719
15. The “Effective Date” means thirty days after the date upon which a judgment entered by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Judgment will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time for a Damages Class member who files an objection to file a notice of appeal (30 days after entry of judgment) or, if a Notice of Appeal is filed by an objector, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writs of certiorari. If no Damages Class member files an objection, then the Judgment shall become final as of the entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment.
16. The “Fairness Hearing” is the hearing on the fairness of this Settlement, which date will be set by the court.
17. The “Final Order of Approval and Settlement” is the Order finally approving the settlement, entered by the court (which may also be referred to herein as “Final Order”).
18. The “Injunctive Relief Class” is composed of individuals who currently are, or in the future will be, GBT inmates housed in the San Bernardino County jails, including but not limited to those housed in the ALT.
19. The “Lawsuit” refers to the action styled McKibben et al. v. County of San Bernardino et al., Case No. 14-2171-JGB-SP.
20. The “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” is Class Counsel's application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
21. The “Named Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives” refers to the plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Complaint to this suit, who are: Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt. (Although Dan McKibben was a Named Plaintiff, he is now deceased, and is therefore being treated purely as a class member and is not included as a Named
6

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:720
Plaintiff or Class Representative.) 22. “Preliminary Approval” is the Court's determination that the Settlement is
within the range of possible approval and therefore that a notice should be sent to the Class and a hearing should be held with respect to fairness. 23. The “Preliminary Approval Order” is an order entered by the court preliminarily approving the settlement, after which Class Notice, the opportunity to object and opt out, and in a Final Approval hearing are to occur. 24. An “Opt-Out” is any Damages Class Member who files a timely request for exclusion, pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement, to be excluded from the Settlement Class. (If used as a verb, it refers to the process of filing such exclusion.) 25. The “Proof of Claim Form” means the Proof of Claim and Release Form required to be used in order to make a claim for payment under this settlement. A copy of the proposed Proof of Claim Form is attached as Exhibit C. The pre-prepared Claim forms shall be bar coded to link with the Class member’s database information and shall contain the damages to which the class member is entitled if s/he were to receive the full damages provided for in this agreement. 26. “Released Person” means the Defendants and their affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents of San Bernardino County, including John McMahon, or any of them. “Released Persons” also includes any and all insurance carriers, and/or their representatives and attorneys, for the Released Persons. 27. The “Settlement” refers to this agreement. 28. A “Settlement Class Member” (“SCM”) means any member of the Damages Class as defined above (whether or not s/he files a Timely Claim form), including representatives, successors and assigns, who does not file a
7

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:721
valid and timely Request for Exclusion as provided for in this Settlement Agreement. 29. The “Settlement Fund” is the fund established by the Class Administrator with funds transferred from Defendants from which the damages to the Class Representatives and Damages Class members will be paid. The Defendants will pay all moneys they are obligated to pay under the Preliminary Approval Order, and the settlement approved by the Court, if any, into the Settlement Fund. 30. A “Timely Claim” is one filed a) within the 90-day window provided by the notice to be sent to the class, and b) to the extent the Court approves, late claims (i.e., claims filed after the Class Notice period) that are filed prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
III. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY 1. The Parties acknowledge and agree that all undertakings and agreements contained in this Settlement Agreement have been agreed to solely for the purpose of finally compromising all questions, disputes and issues between them relating to the litigation. This Settlement Agreement and any proceedings taken pursuant hereto shall not in any event be construed as, interpreted as, or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession by either party for any purpose, or deemed to constitute a waiver of any legal position or any defenses or other rights which either of the Parties might otherwise assert in any context. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any provision contained therein, nor any documents related hereto, nor any negotiations, statements or testimony taken in connection herewith may be offered or received as evidence, or used for any other purpose, or in any suit, action or legal proceeding which either of them have or in the future may have with any other person, as an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing on the part of either party, except in connection with any action or legal proceeding to enforce this settlement agreement. The Parties have reached this settlement through arms-length negotiations and to avoid the costs and
8

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:722

delays of further disputes, litigation and negotiations among them and after

extensive negotiations with an independent mediator, subject to approval by the

Court. This Settlement Agreement has been entered into without any concession of

liability or nonliability whatsoever and has no precedential or evidentiary value

whatsoever.

IV. FINANCIAL TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2. The “Class Fund” (defined previously) is the amount of $950,000. The

Class Administration Costs (estimated at a maximum approximately $40,000 and

likely less depending on certain factors) shall be paid out of that fund, as will the

consultant/expert and mediation fees advanced by Plaintiffs’ counsel and any

incentive awards to the class representatives as approved by the Court. (Other

litigation costs will be absorbed by counsel and included in the Attorney’s Fees and

Costs Award.) The remainder of the Class Fund shall be distributed to the class

members (including Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives) under the formula

terms provided in this Agreement (hereafter referred to as the “Remainder”).

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will propose the following Incentive Awards to

Named Plaintiffs, which vary according to counsel’s assessment of the contribution

made by each to the case:

NAME Bryan Bagwell

INCENTIVE AWARD $5,000

Christopher Crawford

$5,000

Frederick Crockan Pedro Guzman Michael Aka Madison Hatfield William Kennedy

$5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000

Sean Lint Anthony Oliver Nick Ou Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt

$2,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500

9

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:723

NAME Steven Aka Lynn Price Jonathan Robertson Illich Vargas Tim Walker Taheash White
TOTAL

INCENTIVE AWARD $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $5,000 $2,000
$60,500.00

4. Plaintiffs estimate that the size of the Remainder is approximately

$812,500, or slightly more. This is based on the foregoing cost for Inventive

Awards, expert/consulting and mediation costs of approximately $37,000 and a

Class Administration fee of a maximum approximately $40,000 and likely less,

depending on a variety of factors. (The bid from the agreed to Class Administrator,

JND Legal Administrator, along with its bid and related material, which are

attached as Exhibit E.)

5. The formula for distribution of the Remainder has been developed by

Plaintiffs’ Counsel and, if approved by the court, will be that summarized in the

Class Notice to be sent to class members. The formula is designed to account for

the fact that the alleged severity of challenged conditions varied: (1) over time (with

the most allegedly discriminatory and restrictive conditions occurring before

October 2014); and, (2) depending, in part, on inmates’ sentencing status, security

classification, and work eligibility (with sentenced, work-eligible inmates allegedly

experiencing the most discriminatory conditions).

6. To briefly summarize Plaintiffs’ counsel’s assessment of these

variations in conditions, which are factored into the class damages allocation

formula, are as follows:

a.

Inmates incarcerated before 10/14/2014 endured substantially

less out-of-cell time than similarly situated inmates housed

outside of the ALT. (Whereas non-ALT inmates received

out-of-cell time based on their security classification level,

10

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:724

ALT-housed inmates were generally segregated even from

each other, resulting in 23-hour lockdown on many days).

b.

Inmates designated as low security risk were most adversely

affected by SBCSD’s policies because they would have

received the most out-of-cell time had they been housed

outside of the ALT; inmates designated as higher security

risk would have received less out-of-cell time and were

therefore less adversely impacted. Accordingly, for the pre-

10/14/14 time period, security classification is relevant to

determining conditions of confinement and damages.

c.

Throughout the class period, program access varied

depending on sentencing status and work eligibility. All ALT

inmates, regardless of sentencing status, security

classification or incarceration dates, were denied access to

certain substance abuse rehab programs (AA/NA), “In-

Roads” programs, religious services, and volunteer work

programs available to similarly-situated, general population

inmates housed outside of the ALT.

d.

In addition, sentenced inmates (a minority of the class) were

deprived of access to GED, high school diploma courses, and

other educational programs available to similarly-situated,

sentenced inmates housed outside of the ALT.

e.

Depending on their security classification, disciplinary

history, and other factors, some sentenced inmates would

also have been eligible for both vocational training courses

and job assignments, had they not been housed in the ALT.

A small minority of ALT-housed, work-eligible inmates

received inferior job assignments but were denied access to

vocational training.
11

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:725

7. Defendants have a different interpretation of the factual assessment

made by Plaintiffs’ counsel in paragraph 6, but Defendants agree that Plaintiffs’

counsel’s division of points based on temporal changes in the conditions of

confinement is a reasonable means of distributing settlement proceeds to the class

members.

8. Based on these considerations, Plaintiffs’ counsel divide conditions of

confinement into nine categories. Each of the nine categories is assigned a point-

value, which will translate to a per-diem dollar value at the time of distribution.

The chart below shows the daily categories, conditions associated with each

category, and points assigned to each condition. Class members receive the

designated number of points for each day they were incarcerated in a given

category (some inmates may have incarceration days in multiple categories

depending on whether their security classification, sentencing status or work-

eligibility changed; inmates may also have been incarcerated before and after

10/14/14). Each day of incarceration can qualify for only one category.

#

Per Diem

Disparate Conditions of Confinement

Category

PRE-OCTOBER 1, 2014 (DISPARATE REDUCTION IN TIER TIME)

1. Sentenced, work-eligible inmates

 Excluded from jobs and vocational training available to similarly-situated, non-ALT inmates (30)
 Excluded from GED, high-school diploma and other educational programs available to similarly situated, sentenced inmates (15)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT, general population inmates (20)
 Drastic reduction in tier time due to mixing of classification levels, often resulting in 23-hour lockdown.3 (35)

Total Per Diem Points
100

3Plaintiffs’ counsel have presumed that all work-eligible inmates were deemed a low security risk because only those inmates with security classification scores and minimal disciplinary history were entitled to work assignments. Accordingly, we group workeligible inmates among those most affected b1y2 the reduction in tier time.

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:726

#

Per Diem

Category

2. Sentenced

inmates (not

work-eligible)

3. Pre-sentenced inmates, lower security risk (GP 6, 7)
4. Pre-sentenced inmates; higher security risk (GP 3,4,5)
5. Pre-sentenced inmates; unknown security risk

Disparate Conditions of Confinement
 Excluded from GED, high-school diploma and other educational programs available to similarlysituated, sentenced inmates. (15)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT, general population inmates. (20)
 Substantial reduction in tier time due to mixing of classification levels, often resulting in 23-hour lockdown.4 (25)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT, general population inmates. (20)
 Drastic reduction in tier time due to mixing of classification levels, often resulting in 23-hour lockdown. (35)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT, general population inmates. (20)
 Substantial reduction in tier time due to mixing of classification levels, often resulting in 23-hour lockdown. (25)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT, general population inmates. (20)
 Substantial reduction in tier time due to mixing of classification levels, often resulting in 23-hour lockdown.5 (25)
POST-OCTOBER 1, 2014

Total Per Diem Points
60
55
45
45

4 SBCSD data does not indicate the security classification for all sentenced inmates during

this time period. Some inmates were deemed ineligible to work for reasons having nothing

to do with security classification or disciplinary history (e.g. some were deemed ineligible

to work due to medical conditions). However, because security classification was a

common reason for inmates to be deemed ineligible to work, we assume many non-work-

eligible sentenced inmates were higher security risk inmates and therefore assign fewer

points for time-out-of-cell (inmates with a higher security risk were less adversely

impacted because they would have received less time-out-of-cell than low risk inmates

had they been housed outside of the ALT).

5 Because there is no way to distinguish from the available data, Plaintiffs’ counsel have

conservatively treated these inmates the same as those with 3-5 classification levels

although presumably there are 6 and 7 classifications among them who would be entitled

to a greater value.

13

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:727

#

Per Diem

Category

6. Sentenced,

work-eligible

inmates, with

no job

assignment

7. Sentenced, work-eligible inmates, with (inferior) job assignment

Disparate Conditions of Confinement
 Excluded from jobs and vocational training available to similarly situated non-ALT inmates. (30)
 Excluded from GED, high-school diploma and other educational programs available to similarly situated, sentenced inmates. (15)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT inmates. (20)
 Excluded from vocational training available to similarly situated non-ALT inmates.6 (15)
 Excluded from GED, high-school diploma and other educational programs available to similarly situated, sentenced inmates. (15)
 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious services, and volunteer worker positions available to non-ALT inmates. (20)

Total Per Diem Points
65
50

8. Sentenced

 Excluded from GED, high-school diploma and

35

inmates (not

other educational programs available to similarly

work-eligible)

situated, sentenced inmates. (15)

 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious

services, and volunteer worker positions available

to non-ALT inmates. (20)

9. Pre-sentenced

 Excluded from alcohol/drug rehab, religious

20

inmates

services, and volunteer worker positions available

to non-ALT inmates. (20)

9. Each class member will receive a certain number of points for each

incarceration day. That class member’s point total is the sum of all their daily

points. The total points for each class member will then be added together, from

which the class member’s percentage share of the recovery can be determined.

Because it is anticipated that not all class members will make Timely Claims, and

this is a non-reversionary fund, a claiming class member’s percentage of the

Remainder will be determined based on that class member’s percentage of the total

points for class members who made Timely Claims. (If, for example, there was a

6 Work eligible inmates were limited to the law library position, which did not include a

vocational training component similar to the job assignments provided to similarly

situated non-ALT inmates.

14

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:728
total of 1,000,000 points for the aggregated timely claims, and Class member X had a total of 2000 points, and the Remainder was $810,000, Class member X would receive .2% (or .002) of $810,000 (which is $1,620)).
10. Despite the foregoing, no class member who filed a Timely Claim will receive less than $40 or more than a total of $10,000. The purpose of the Maximum provision is to ensure that outliers who have outsized claims do not distort the meaningfulness of the recovery to the remaining class members. (Such outliers would be entitled to opt out and pursue their own claims if they so chose.)
11. None of the $950,000 Damages Class Fund shall revert to the County. Accordingly, as explained above, the money per class member making a Timely Claim will increase proportionately to the extent that fewer class members make a claim.
12. The “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” is the amount of $1,100,000 as compensation for statutory fees and certain costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (The costs included in this award shall include all costs incurred except for mediation costs, consultant/expert costs and Class Administration costs.) This fee shall be the subject of a separate Motion for Attorneys’ Fees to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing, to be analyzed under the standards for an award of fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Civil Code § 52.1(h). The Class Notice will advise class members of this motion and their right to object to it.
13. The parties agree that these fees were independently negotiated with the assistance of a professional mediator and that, in order to effectuate this settlement, the fees were substantially discounted below the amounts that Plaintiffs would have sought in an attorney’s fee motion filed by Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties.
14. The County represents that it has provided all the electronic data in its possession regarding class members necessary to both identify and contact class members. Within ten (10) days of the Court’s grant of the Preliminary Approval of this settlement, the County shall provide, to the extent that such information has not
15

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:729
already been provided, any such additional information in its possession. Such information shall be confidential, and may not be disclosed to anyone except counsel of record, the Class Administrator, and designated representatives of the Parties.
V. INJUNCTION 15. The Final Approval Order shall include an order granting Plaintiffs an injunction for a three-year period, after final approval by the Court of the settlement and the settlement is implemented by the County, the terms of which are set forth in Exhibit D. The injunctive relief provisions include the development of policies not yet drafted. To the extent the parties cannot agree on a policy or policies to implement the provisions of Exhibit D, the matter shall be resolved by the court. 16. Defendants estimate that the various added resources associated with the injunctive relief changes amount to an annual expenditure of approximately $500,000 in current dollars. 17. In the event of a change in relevant law during the three-year period that this injunction remains in effect, the County will be required to comply with any and all provisions that are more protective of class members’ rights than the terms of Exhibit D. A change in relevant law shall be defined as an amendment to the U.S. or California Constitutions, a change in federal or California statutory law, a change in applicable regulations (e.g., PREA regulations) or a binding decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, California Supreme Court, or California Court of Appeal. 18. To the extent that Plaintiffs contend that a change in relevant law implicates the protections of paragraph 17, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify Defendants’ counsel in writing of the change in relevant law. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on whether there has been a change in relevant law within 30 days of the initial notification by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the dispute shall be submitted for judicial review by the Court.
16

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:730
VI. OTHER SETTLEMENT TERMS 19. The Parties enter into this agreement solely for the purposes of this settlement and implementation of the settlement. If the settlement fails to be approved or otherwise fails consummation, then this Settlement Agreement is hereby withdrawn and Defendants reserve the right to seek decertification of the class. Any such motion for decertification would be evaluated under a de novo standard with Plaintiffs bearing the burden of establishing the requisite elements for class certification. Since Plaintiffs would bear the burden in such a motion, the parties agree that, upon notice to the Court and Plaintiffs that Defendants seek decertification of the class, the Plaintiffs would timely file a regularly noticed new motion for class certification. 20. An SCM who complies with the requirements set forth in this Settlement Agreement and files a Timely Claim form will be paid specified sums determined by the settlement distribution process set forth above, which payment shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of that SCM. 21. The Settlement Agreement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full all claims against the Released Persons by all of the SCMs, including the Named Plaintiffs, involving violations of law or constitutional rights, including, without limitation, their equal protection rights under federal and California law, their rights under California Civil Code § 52.1, any other rights under any other federal, state or local law, regulation, duty, or obligation, or any other legal theory, action or cause of action, which arise from the class-wide factual allegations alleged in the complaint , as well as any claim regarding the bus transportation of transgender inmates (hereafter “Covered Claims”). 22. When the Settlement Agreement is final, as of the Effective Date, all SCMs, including the Named Plaintiffs, waive all rights to any and all claims relating to damages or reimbursement of any kind for the Covered Claims. This waiver and release shall include a full release and waiver of unknown rights regarding the Covered Claims that may exist as of the Effective Date.
17

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:731
23. As of the Effective Date, the SCMs, including the Named Plaintiffs, hereby waive any and all rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence any action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to file any complaint regarding acts or omissions by the Released Persons with respect to the Covered Claims during the Class Period that fit within the definition of the Damages Class; and further, as it relates to this waiver or Release, expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542, which provides that “a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”
24. This Settlement Agreement, together with its exhibits, contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties regarding the subject matter of the instant proceeding, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the Parties, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein, except as expressly provided herein.
25. Each SCM shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.
26. This Settlement Agreement is subject to and conditioned on a Final Approval Hearing conducted by the Court and the final approval of this Settlement Agreement and the issuance of the final order and judgment of dismissal by the Court, providing the specified relief as set forth below, which relief shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement and the Parties’ performance of their continuing rights and obligations hereunder. The Order and Judgment shall be deemed final on the Effective Date as defined previously. Such Final Order and Judgment shall:
a. Dismiss with prejudice all claims in the action as to the Released Persons including all claims for monetary damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, except as to the terms of the injunction to be entered,
18

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:732
which terms are set forth infra, each side to bear its own costs and fees except as otherwise provided for in this Settlement Agreement; b. Order that all SCMs are enjoined from asserting against any Released Person any and all claims that any SCM had, has or may have in the future arising out of the facts alleged in the Complaint; c. Release each Released Person from the claims that any SCM has, had or may have in the future against such Released Person arising out of the facts alleged in the Complaint; d. Determine that this Settlement Agreement is entered into in good faith, is reasonable, fair and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class; and e. Reserve the Court’s continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties to this Settlement Agreement, including Defendants and SCMs, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms for the mutual benefit of all Parties, and to enforce the terms of the injunction described infra. The Parties will take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain preliminary and final approvals of the Settlement Agreement, and dismissal of the action with prejudice, all parties bearing their own fees and costs unless otherwise set forth in this Settlement Agreement. If the Court gives final approval of this Settlement Agreement, and if there is an appeal from such decision, the Parties will defend the Settlement Agreement.
VII. RESOLUTION AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 27. Released Parties shall not prefund the Settlement Fund. Instead, funds will be deposited by the Released Parties to the Class Administrator as necessary to pay the class administration costs, and the SCMs (including the Named Plaintiff) claims. (Attorney’s fees and costs are addressed separately.) 28. Defendants agree to the division of funds between Incentive Awards and the Remainder as proposed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel subject to the approval of the Court.
19

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:733
29. The County of San Bernardino will make a single wire transfer to the Class Administrator of the Damages Class Fund, less the amount of that Fund previously advanced under the terms of this Agreement. This transfer shall be made within ten (10) days of the Effective Date of the Settlement.
VIII. PAYMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL FEES 30. In addition to and separate from any other payments called for in this Agreement, the County of San Bernardino shall pay a one-time-only lump sum payment of the Class Counsel attorneys’ fees plus litigation costs (exclusive of expert/consultant and mediation fees, which are paid from the $950,000 Damages Class Fund) in the amount of $1,100,000, payable by wire transfer to the KMBL Client Trust Account within ten (10) days after the Effective Date of the Settlement. This payment represents a full and final settlement of all past, present and future attorneys’ fees and all past, present and future ordinary and extraordinary costs. Class counsel will file a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and the payment of said fees and costs is subject to court approval. Defendants agree that Plaintiffs satisfy the prevailing party element for such a motion.
IX. CLASS ADMINISTRATION COSTS 31. Requests for bids were sent to established Class Administrators (KCC, CPT Group, and JND Legal Administration), and were to be chosen by Class Counsel based upon assessing the most reasonable bid, taking into account the combination of the price and scope of the services provided, and the capabilities and reputation of the Administrator. (That has now occurred, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has chosen JND based on the conclusion that it was the most reasonably priced.) 32. The Administrator shall be responsible for providing Class Notice. This duty shall comprise mailing Class Notice and a Claim Form by regular mail to all Class Members’ last known address. The Administrator shall also use normal and customary means to search for a Damages Class Member’s last known address, including the use of a postal database, when mail is returned, or do whatever else is
20

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:734
reasonably appropriate in order to reasonably notify Class Members (including making reasonable efforts to determine class members who are now incarcerated in California state prisons). Class Counsel may also take whatever steps they deem appropriate to notify the Class Members of their rights to file claims and to assist them in doing so. The Summary Notice will also be posted by the Defendants in the ALT throughout the Class Notice period, including a statement that the full notice will be provided to the inmate upon request.
33. The Class Administrator will include in its bid a line item for the cost of obtaining from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation the identities of class members in CDCR custody to whom notices should be sent at their CDCR housing location.
34. The Class Notice shall describe the particulars of the case, provide the class definition, provide information for claimants to contact the Administrator for a claim form, notify Damages Class Members of establishment of a case website, and contain other usual and customary information. The proposed Class Notice is attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B.
35. The Administrator shall complete the mailing of Class Notice within two consecutive business days. The second day of such mailing is the first day of the period for calculating the “Bar Date” (defined previously). That mailing shall occur as soon as practicable after the settlement has been preliminarily approved no later than the date set by the Court.
36. In lieu of publishing a summary Class Notice in local newspapers as a form of reaching class members who do not receive the mailing, which experience has shown does not effectively reach class members, the Administrator shall gather email addresses to the extent reasonably possible and cost effective. Given the relatively small size of the class (655 people), the Class Administrator shall propose other cost-effective means of outreach.
X. CLASS ADMINISTRATION FOR PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS 37. The Administrator shall be responsible for providing and receiving
21

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:735
Proof of Claim Forms. The Administrator shall determine class membership and the amount of Damages due each timely claiming class member based on the formula contained in Section IV.
38. A Proof of Claim Form shall be deemed timely submitted under subsection (a) of Definition # 30 (Timely Claim) when received by the Administrator, or postmarked, on or before the Bar Date. Facsimile or electronic mail filings are acceptable and timely so long as they clearly indicate the case on which the claim is filed and are received on or before the Bar Date.
39. If a Damages Class Member submits a Claim form that is deficient in some respect, the Administrator shall provide written notice by First Class Mail and a 30-day time limit to provide a proper claim form, which notice shall inform the Class Member of what s/he must do in order to submit a proper claim. Failure to cure the deficiency within the 30-day time limit will bar any further rights for consideration of eligibility. So long as the original claim is received on or before the Bar Date, it shall be considered timely under sub-section (a) of Definition # 30 (Timely Claim) if any deficiency is cured within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of deficiency.
40. Claim Forms received after the Bar Date shall be processed by the Administrator and paid as ultimately ordered by the Court. The Administrator will notify claimants of the rejection of untimely Claims.
41. The Administrator shall make payments to SCMs who have filed Timely Claims as ultimately determined by the Court in accordance with this Settlement Agreement within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days after the Effective Date.
42. If a check to an SCM is not cashed within three months of its mailing, the Administrator shall hold the funds for nine additional months, during which time it shall make reasonable efforts to contact the person to whom the uncashed check was written to make arrangements for its cashing or reissuance. The Administrator shall not make payment to any SCM until all claims have been
22

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:736

submitted to the Administrator pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

Any such funds not cashed within one year of the check’s initial mailing shall be

distributed pro rata to SCMs whose checks were cashed. If there are remaining

funds after that second round of distribution, they shall be given as a cy pres

donation to Inland Region Equality Network.

XI.

EXCLUSION FROM SETTLEMENT CLASS—OPT OUTS

43. Any Damages Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the

Settlement Class must submit a request to be excluded from the class, a process

defined herein as “Opt-Out.” The request for exclusion must be delivered to the

Administrator, or postmarked, on or before the Bar Date or as the Court may

otherwise direct.

44. Each member of the Settlement Class who chooses to Opt-Out from or

object to this settlement shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the

Court with respect to his/her claim and to any dispute resolution process conducted

by a Special Master as set forth in this Settlement Agreement.

45. Any Class Member who does not Opt-Out as set forth in this

Settlement Agreement, shall be deemed conclusively to have become an SCM and

to be bound by the Settlement Agreement and all subsequent proceedings, orders

and judgments herein, regardless of whether s/he files a claim form.

46. Any Class Member who exercises an Opt-Out shall not share in any

monetary benefits provided by this Settlement Agreement.

47. The Administrator will periodically report to Defendants’ counsel and

Class Counsel all Opt-Outs received, and will determine and report to counsel the

total number of Opt-Outs no later than 10 days after the Bar Date.

48. In the event that the number of Opt Outs exceeds ten (10) but is less

than twenty-five (25), i.e., where the number of Opt Outs is between 11-24, the

parties agree that, Defendants will receive a credit against the Class Damages Fund

based on the amount that each Opt Out was due under the initial class distribution

formula (explained in ¶ 8) when applied to the Damages Class and as calculated by
23

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:737
Plaintiffs’ counsel, i.e., the amount due that class member if all class members filed claims. (To the extent that the final distribution formula results in different allocations because not all class members filed claims, the credit would be based on the initial distribution formula, not the formula adjusted to the claims made.) This credit is only available if the number of Opt Outs exceeds ten.
49. If the number of Opt Outs amounts to 25 or more or if any Named Plaintiff opts out, Defendants shall have the option of using the same credit formula as set out in the previous paragraph where the number of Opt Outs is between 1124, or of rescinding the Agreement.
50. If Defendants decide to exercise their this right of rescission as provided in the previous paragraph, Defendants shall provide the Administrator and Class Counsel with written notice of rescission within 20 days after receipt of the Administrator’s report providing the total number of Opt-Outs. In the event Defendants exercise the right of rescission, any funds paid or deposited pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be returned to Defendants within 10 days of the rescission, less any expenses, fees and costs incurred by the Administrator. Rescission shall return the Case to active litigation status.
XII. APPROVALS REQUIRED 51. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and the surviving Named Plaintiffs have all approved this settlement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 52. In the event of any disputes regarding implementation of the Settlement Agreement as set forth herein, they shall be resolved by the Court.
XIV. INTEGRATION 53. This Settlement Agreement supersedes all prior communications regarding the matters contained herein between the Parties or their representatives. This Settlement Agreement is an integrated agreement and contains the entire agreement regarding the matters herein between the Parties, and no representations, warranties or promises have been made or relied on by any party hereto other than
24

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:738

as set forth herein. This Settlement Agreement was drafted by counsel for the parties hereto, and there shall be no presumption or construction against any party.
XV. FAIRNESS HEARING AND FINAL ORDER OF APPROVAL 54. Before this settlement agreement becomes final and binding on the Parties, the Court shall hold a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to enter the Final Order of Approval. A proposed Final Order of Approval shall be submitted to the Court incorporating the terms of this Settlement Agreement and addressing related information such as Objections and Opt-Outs.
XVI. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES INTENDED 55. This Settlement Agreement does not and is not intended to create any rights with respect to any third parties, except as otherwise provided herein.
XVII. COUNTERPARTS 56. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in counterparts.

DATED: August 13, 2018 DATED: August 13, 2018

KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
By: _/s/ Barrett S. Litt_______ Barrett S. Litt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
By: _/s/ Nathan A. Oyster______ Nathan A. Oyster Attorneys for Defendants

25

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 78 Filed 08/15/18 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:739

LIST OF EXHIBITS TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E

Class Notice Proof of Claim and Release Form Injunctive Relief Agreement JND Class Administration Bid

26

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:959

1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527

2

blitt@kmbllaw.com DAVID S. McLANE, SBN 124952

3 dmclane@kmbllaw.com

LINDSAY BATTLES, SBN 262282 4 lbattles@kmbllaw.com

5 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

975 East Green Street 6 Pasadena, California 91106

7 Telephone: (626) 844-7600 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670

8

9 MELISSA GOODMAN, SBN 289464 MGoodman@aclusocal.org
10 BRENDAN M. HAMME, SBN 285293 11 BHamme@aclusocal.org
PETER J. ELIASBERG, SBN 189110 12 PEliasberg@aclusocal.org
AMANDA C. GOAD, SBN 297131 13 AGoad@aclusocal.org 14 ADITI FRUITWALA, SBN 300362
AFruitwala@aclusocal.org
15 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CA 16 1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, California 90017 17 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 18 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
Case No. EDCV 14-2171-JGB-SP

23
DAN MCKIBBEN, et al.,
24

[Hon. Jesus G. Bernal]

25 vs.

Plaintiffs,

26
JOHN MCMAHON, et al.,

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

27
Defendants
28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:960

1

The parties have submitted this joint Preliminary Approval Order of the

2 Class Settlement for the Court’s review. Upon review and consideration of the

3 Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A hereto) (the “Settlement Agreement”) and the

4 exhibits attached thereto made and entered into by counsel for the parties, who

5 represent that their respective clients have approved the settlement.

6

The Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives1 are Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou,

7 Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy,

8 Jonathan, Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher

9 Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and

10 Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt.

11

Plaintiffs are former or current (at the time of the filing of the complaint)

12 inmates of jails operated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

13 (“SBCSD”). SBCSD maintained and maintains an “Alternative Lifestyle Tank”

14 (hereafter “ALT”) at the West Valley Detention Center (“WVDC”), which houses

15 inmates who self-identify as gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (“GBT inmates”).

16 The WVDC is the only SBCSD jail facility that houses self-identified GBT

17 inmates who were assigned male at birth.

18

The Defendants are the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino

19 County Sheriff’s Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon,

20 Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, James Mahan and Armando Castillo.

21

Plaintiffs, and the classes they represent, contend that Defendants engage in

22 systematic discrimination and denial of equal treatment against Gay, Bisexual, and 23 Transgender (“GBT”) inmates at the WVDC. Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that 24 GBT inmates 1) were automatically placed in the ALT if they self-identified as 25 GBT; 2) would have been at risk for their safety if admitted to the general
26

27
1 Plaintiff Dan McKibben passed away while this lawsuit was pending, and so is not listed as a 28 Class Representative Plaintiff, although his name is still used as the Case Name.

1

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:961

1 population as openly GBT inmates because SBCSD did not have any plans or

2 programs to ensure their safety; 3) had no or inadequate PREA programs in place

3 to protect GBT inmates or address particular vulnerabilities of GBT inmates placed

4 in the general population; 4) were limited in their time out of cell generally to an

5 hour and a half per day, and often less, in contrast to similarly situated (by

6 classification or sentencing status) general population inmates; 5) were denied the

7 same work opportunities that were provided to similarly situated (by classification

8 or sentencing status) general population inmates; 6) were denied the same

9 programming opportunities2 that were provided to similarly situated (by

10 classification or sentencing status) general population inmates; and 7) a

11 comparable range of religious services to those available to the general population.

12 Plaintiffs also contend that certain aspects of this disparate treatment continue to

13 this day. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations, but the parties have agreed to

14 enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the mutual risks of litigation.

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

16 I.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

17

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement

18 Agreement, a copy of which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A, and also

19 incorporates Exhibits B through E, thereto. All terms defined therein shall have the

20 same meaning in this Order.

21

2. The Settlement Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved, subject

22 to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below. The 23 Court finds that the non-reversionary class settlement fund of $950,000 and its 24 proposed allocation, plus substantial injunctive relief and attorney’s fees of
25

26 2 Programming opportunities include classes in anger management, thinking for change, living
27 skills, parenting skills, substance abuse, GED, high school diploma, literacy, automobile mechanics, bakery occupations, culinary/reading enrichment classes, computer skills, HVAC
28 training, fire camp vocational training, employment readiness, and re-entry services.

2

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:962

1 $1,100,000 are within the range of what would constitute a fair, reasonable, and

2 adequate settlement in the best interests of the Class as a whole, and that the terms

3 of the Settlement Agreement otherwise satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil

4 Procedure 23(e) and due process requirements.

5 II.
6

DEADLINES FOR NOTICE, FILING OBJECTIONS AND OPTOUTS, AND DATE OF FAIRNESS HEARING

7

3. The Court has set the following dates for purposes of this class action:

8

(a) Final class identifying information will be provided to the Class

9

Administrator no later than September 10, 2018;

10

(b) Mailing Class and Settlement Notice to Class: Must be postmarked by

11

October 15, 2018 [four weeks from latest date of approval order of

12

September 17, 2018, for this scheduled to apply];

13

(c) Publication of summary notice by other methods: Must be effected by

14

no later than October 22, 2018 [one week later];

15

(d) Filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs:

16

Must be filed by November 12, 2018 [eight (8) weeks after mailing of

17

class notice];

18

(e) Filing of Class Members’ Objections to any aspect of the Settlement

19

(including Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

20

Costs): Must be filed by January 7, 2019 [sixteen (16) weeks after

21

mailing of class notice];

22

(f) Deadline to opt-out: Must be postmarked or received by January 7,

23

2019 [sixteen (16) weeks after mailing of class notice];

24

(g) Deadline for filing class claims: Must be postmarked or received by

25

January 7, 2019 [sixteen (16) weeks after mailing of class notice];

26

(h) Opposition or Reply to Objections (including to objections to award

27

of attorneys’ fees and costs): Must be filed by January 28, 2019 [three

28

(3) weeks after last day to object, opt out, file claims];

3

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:963

1

(i) Proposed Final Approval Order: Must be filed by January 28, 2019

2

(j) [three (3) weeks after last day to object, opt out, file claims]; and

3

(k) Final Approval Hearing: February 11, 2019 [two (2) weeks after filing

4

of responses to objections and proposed Final Approval Order] at 9

5

a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central

6

District of California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street,

7

Riverside, California 92501.

8

4. The Court requires a separate motion for final approval of the

9 settlement and for attorneys’ fees. Parties must file these motions by January 14,

10 2019.

11

5. In the event that the class notice is not mailed and initially published

12 within the time specified herein, the subsequent dates contained herein will be

13 deferred for the number of additional days before such notice occurs without the

14 need for additional Court approval. However, the Court must approve any change

15 of the date of the Final Approval Hearing.

16

6. In the event that the number of Opt Outs exceeds ten (10) but is less

17 than twenty-five (25), i.e., where the number of Opt Outs is between 11-24, the

18 parties agree that, Defendants will receive a credit against the Class Damages

19 Fund based on the amount that each Opt Out was due under the initial class

20 distribution formula (explained in ¶ 8 of the Settlement Agreement) when applied

21 to the Damages Class and as calculated by Plaintiffs’ counsel, i.e., the amount due

22 that class member if all class members filed claims. (To the extent that the final

23 distribution formula results in different allocations because not all class members

24 filed claims, the credit would be based on the initial distribution formula, not the

25 formula adjusted to the claims made.) This credit is only available if the number of

26 Opt Outs exceeds ten.

27

7. If the number of Opt Outs amounts to 25 or more or if any Named

28 Plaintiff opts out, Defendants shall have the option of using the same credit

4

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:964

1 formula as set out in the previous paragraph where the number of Opt Outs is

2 between 11-24, or of rescinding the Agreement.

3 III. INJUNCTIVE AND DAMAGES CLASSES

4

8. The Court has simultaneously with the entry of this order

5 conditionally granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes under F.R.Civ.P. Rule

6 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) as follows.

7

(a) Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief Class: individuals who currently are,

8

or in the future will be, GBT inmates housed in the San Bernardino

9

County jails, including but not limited to those housed in the ALT.

10

(b) Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Class: individuals who, between October

11

22, 2012, and March 31, 2018, were GBT inmates housed in the

12

Alternative Lifestyles Tank (hereafter “ALT”) of the San Bernardino

13

County jail facility known as West Valley Detention Center

14

(“WVDC”).

15

9. Damages Class Members have a right to opt out of the settlement.

16 Injunctive Class Members cannot opt out of the injunctive relief portion of the

17 settlement.

18

10. The Parties have identified exclusively from San Bernardino County

19 Jail records Damages Class Members based on who was housed in the ALT during

20 the damages period. Only persons so identified are Damages Class members.

21

11. The basic term of the settlement as it relates to Damages Class

22 Members is that the County of San Bernardino will provide payment of a total of

23 $950,000. From that amount, the following awards will be made by the Class

24 Administrator, subject to court approval:

25

(a) Incentive awards to the 15 Named Plaintiffs, if and to the extent

26

approved by the Court, in the amount of $60,500.3

27

28 3 Although Dan McKibben was a Named Plaintiff, he is now deceased, and is therefore being treated purely as a class member and is not included as a Class Representative. 5

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:965

1

(b) Payments of the third-party class settlement administration costs,

2

which are estimated at $40,000 or less.

3

(c) Certain litigation costs, specifically the consultant/expert and

4

mediation fees advanced by Plaintiffs’ counsel, estimated at

5

approximately $37,000. (Other litigation costs will be absorbed by

6

counsel and included in the Attorney’s Fees and Costs Award.)

7

12. The remainder of the Class Fund shall be distributed to the class

8 members (including Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives) under a formula

9 contained in Paragraphs 5-10 of the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A hereto).

10 The formula is based on awarding a certain number of points for each day a

11 Damages Class Member spent in the ALT. Because conditions varied over time,

12 and the alleged severity of what Damages Class Members experienced varied by

13 both time and virtue of what opportunities they would have received when

14 compared to comparably classified general population inmates, points vary by

15 which category an inmate fit into in any given day. Only one set of points apply to

16 a given day. (See the Settlement Agreement for an itemization of the categories.)

17

13. Once daily points are assigned to all Damages Class Members, the

18 points will be totaled, and a total point value will be calculated for the class as a

19 whole and for each individual class member. Each class member’s recovery will

20 then be determinable based on that class member’s percentage of the total points.

21 It is likely that not all class members will make Timely Claims. Accordingly, a

22 claiming class member’s percentage of the available funds will be determined

23 based on that class member’s total points in relation to the total points for those

24 who made timely claims. (The Settlement Agreement provides how to determine

25 what claims are timely.)

26

14. Despite the foregoing, no class member who qualifies for payment

27 will receive less than a total of $40 or more than a total of $10,000. The purpose of

28 this Minimum/Maximum provision is to ensure that every qualifying Damages

6

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:966

1 Class member receives some meaningful compensation, and to ensure that outliers

2 who have outsized claims do not distort the meaningfulness of the recovery to the

3 remaining class members. None of the $950,000 Damages Class Fund shall revert

4 to the County. Any funds claimed but not cashed by a Class Member within one

5 year of payment shall be paid to an agreed-upon cy pres organization.

6

15. In addition, the parties have agreed to the entry of an injunction,

7 whose terms are set forth in Exhibit D to the Proposed Preliminary Approval

8 Order.

9

16. Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides that the County of San

10 Bernardino shall pay Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the amount of $1,100,000 as

11 compensation for statutory fees and certain costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

12 (The costs included in this award shall include all costs incurred except for

13 mediation costs, consultant/expert costs and Class Administration costs.) This fee

14 shall be the subject of a separate Motion for Attorney’s Fees to be heard at the

15 Final Approval Hearing, to be analyzed under the standards for an award of fees

16 and costs to a prevailing plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Civil Code §

17 52.1(h). The Class Notice will advise class members of this motion and their right

18 to object to it (as well as to other terms of the settlement).

19 IV.

CLASS ADMINISTRATOR

20

17. The Court approves the retention of JND Legal Administration

21 (“JND”) as Class Administrator, to administer the distribution of the Class and

22 Settlement Notice and publication of the Class and Settlement Notice, and to

23 distribute the proceeds of the settlement to all eligible Class Members pursuant to

24 the Plan set out in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A) should the Court grant

25 final approval. Exhibit E (the Class Administrator bid) includes the qualifications

26 of JND, which establishes to the Court’s satisfaction the qualifications of JND to

27 act as the Class Administrator.

28

18. The Class Administrator shall preserve all written communications

7

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:967

1 from Class Members in response to the Class and Settlement Notice at least until

2 December 31, 2021, or pursuant to further order of the Court. All written

3 communications received by the Class Administrator from Class Members relating

4 to the Settlement Agreement shall be available at all reasonable times for

5 inspection and copying by Counsel for the Parties, and copies shall be regularly

6 provided to Counsel for the Parties.

7

19. The Class Administrator shall be compensated from the $950,000

8 Class Damages Fund for its services in connection with notice and administration

9 and for the costs of giving mailed and published notice, and the other services it

10 performs, pursuant to such orders as the Court may enter from time to time.

11

20. Within two weeks after this Preliminary Approval Order is signed by

12 the Court, the County of San Bernardino shall deposit or cause to be deposited into

13 an account designated by the Class Administrator by check sent by overnight mail

14 an amount of same day available funds equal to the amount requested by the Class

15 Administrator to cover the costs of notice as provided herein, and will provide

16 additional funds for its administrative work pursuant to the terms of its accepted

17 bid, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E. Prior to entry of the Final Order of

18 Approval of Settlement, the Class Administrator will not accrue any costs not

19 itemized in Exhibit E unless agreed to by the Plaintiffs’ counsel and approved by

20 the Court. If the Court does not enter the Final Order of Approval and Settlement,

21 then all such funds paid to the Class Administrator, to the extent they are available

22 after payment of all accrued class administration expenses, shall be returned to

23 Defendants.

24

21. If this settlement does not go through for any reason, a new settlement

25 is not reached, the case goes to trial, and Plaintiffs are not successful in their

26 prosecution of the case, Defendants shall not seek reimbursement from Plaintiffs

27 of class administration funds paid under this settlement.

28

8

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:968

1 V.

CLASS COUNSEL

2

22. Barrett S. Litt, David McLane and Lindsay Battles of Kaye, McLane,

3 Bednarski & Litt, and Melissa Goodman, Amanda Goad, Brendan Hamme and

4 Aditi Fruitwala of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California are hereby

5 confirmed as counsel for the Class Representatives and the Class (“Class

6 Counsel”).

7

23. Class Counsel are authorized to act on behalf of the Class with respect

8 to all acts or consents required by or which may be given pursuant to the

9 Settlement, and such other acts reasonably necessary to consummate the

10 Settlement.

11

24. At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall make an application for

12 Attorney’s Fees and certain litigation costs to be paid by Defendants separate from

13 the Class Damages Fund (the “Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs”). Plaintiffs’

14 counsel’s costs of expert/consultant and mediation fees, and the costs of class

15 notice and administration will be paid from the Class Damages Fund.

16 VI.

CLASS AND SETTLEMENT NOTICE

17

25. Class Counsel shall provide the Class and Settlement Notice to the

18 Class Administrator for distribution according to the schedule set forth above.

19 Such notice shall be in substantially the form as proposed in Exhibit B to the

20 Settlement Agreement and shall be sent by United States mail to the class

21 members at their last known address; returned mail shall be subject to follow up

22 mailings after appropriate searches of the available databases. In addition, email

23 notice shall be sent to those Damages Class Members can be obtained by standard

24 searches. No notice by publication shall be required because such notice has not

25 proven effective at reaching class members, and the resources are better spent on

26 attempting to reach class members through electronic email. See revisions to

27 F.R.Civ.P 23 (c)(2)(B) effective December 2018 (acknowledging that notice “may

28 be by … electronic means, or other appropriate means” in addition to or in lieu of

9

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:969

1 United States mail).

2

26. Defendants represent that they have already provided the name,

3 address, social security number, date of birth, driver's license information, and any

4 other identifying information of Damages Class Members, to Plaintiffs’ counsel,

5 who will transmit it to the Class Administrator. Such information shall be

6 confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone except counsel of record, the

7 Class Administrator, and designated representatives of Defendants. Should the

8 Defendants discover at any time any additional information containing relevant

9 class information, they shall promptly provide it to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the

10 Class Administrator.

11

27. At least seven days before the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel and/or

12 the Class Administrator shall serve and file a sworn statement by the Class

13 Administrator attesting to compliance with the provisions of this Order governing

14 Class and Settlement Notice. This shall include a list of all people who have opted

15 out of the class.

16

28. The Court approves the Class and Settlement Notice attached as

17 Exhibit B.

18

29. The Court approves the Claim Form attached as Exhibit C.

19

30. The Court approves the Class Administrator Bid attached as Exhibit

20 E.

21

31. The Court finds that the notice required by the foregoing provisions of

22 this Order is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall

23 constitute due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Fairness Hearing to

24 all Class Members and other persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in

25 the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 Federal

26 Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

27 VII. THE FAIRNESS HEARING

28

32. A Fairness Hearing shall be held on February 11, 2019 to consider: (a)

10

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:970

1 the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement; (b) whether a Final

2 Order of Approval and Settlement should be entered in its current or some

3 modified form; and (c) the application by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and

4 expenses (the “Fee Motion”).

5

33. At least four weeks prior to the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs shall move

6 for final approval and submit a proposed Final Approval Order, which shall be

7 approved by Defendants. That proposed order will contain the final provisions the

8 Parties seek the Court to finally approve and the Parties’ proposed court orders

9 related to any objections that have been filed.

10

34. The date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be set forth in the

11 Class and Settlement Notice but shall be subject to adjournment by the Court

12 without further notice to the Class Members other than that which may be posted

13 at the Court and on the Court’s web site.

14

35. Any Class Member who objects to the approval of the Settlement

15 Agreement, the Fee Motion, the Named Plaintiffs’ incentive awards or the

16 proposed allocation of damages among class members may appear at the Fairness

17 Hearing and show cause why any one of the foregoing should not be approved as

18 fair, reasonable, and adequate, and why the Final Order of Approval and

19 Settlement should not be entered, except that no such Class Member may appear at 20 the Fairness Hearing unless the Class Member, no later than January 7, 2019 [the 21 date to file objections to the Settlement] (a) files with the Clerk of the Court a 22 notice of such person’s intention to appear, a statement that indicates the basis and 23 grounds for such person’s objection to the Settlement Agreement, the Fee Petition, 24 the Named Plaintiffs’ incentive awards or the proposed allocation of damages 25 among class members, and all documentation, papers, or briefs in support of such 26 objection; and by the same date (b) serves upon all Counsel to the Parties (as listed 27 in the Class Notice), either in person or by mail, copies of such notice of intention 28 to appear, statement of objections and all documentation, papers, or briefs that

11

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:971

1 such person files with the Court. The required documentation shall include the

2 information requested on the Claim Form. Final determination of whether any

3 such objector is a Class Member who has standing to object shall be determined

4 solely from the Defendants’ records, from which the list of Class Members has

5 been compiled. In the absence of the timely filing and timely service of the notice

6 of intention to appear and all other materials required by this paragraph, any

7 objection shall be deemed untimely and denied.

8

36. Pending final approval of the Settlement Agreement, no Class

9 Member shall, either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity,

10 commence, prosecute against any Defendant or participate in any action or

11 proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the matters, claims, or causes

12 of action that are to be released by the Settlement Agreement upon final approval.

13

37. In the event of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, all

14 Damages Class Members (except those who have opted out) shall be forever

15 enjoined and barred from asserting any of the matters, claims or causes of action

16 released by the Settlement Agreement, and all such Class Members shall be

17 deemed to have forever released any and all such matters, claims and causes of

18 action as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

19 VIII. OTHER PROVISIONS

20

38. In the event the Settlement is not finally approved or is otherwise

21 terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the

22 Settlement and all proceedings had in connection therewith shall be null and void,

23 except insofar as expressly provided to the contrary in the Settlement Agreement,

24 and without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and

25 Class Members.

26

27 DATED: September 21, 2018
28

____________________________________ JESUS G. BERNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 85 Filed 09/21/18 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:972

1 SUBMITTED BY:

2 KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 3 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

4

5 By: __ /s/ Barrett S. Litt

6

Barrett S. Litt

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7

8 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
9

10 By: /s/ Nathan A. Oyster

11

Nathan A. Oyster

Attorneys for Defendants
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1527

1 2

JS-6

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – EASTERN DIVISION

8

9 Dan McKibben, et al., 10
11 v.
12 13 John McMahon, et al.,
14

Case No. EDCV 14-2171 JGB (SPx)

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT

Defendants.

15

16 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 17

18

19

Pursuant to the Order filed concurrently herewith, the Motion for Final

20 Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Thus, the Court:

21

22

(1) GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Injunctive

23

Terms;

24

(2) APPROVES payment of the ten late claims and any claims

25

postmarked on or before February 11, 2019;

26

(3) APPROVES Plaintiffs’ request to deem Frederick Crockan, Joe

27

Raymond Fierro, and Andrew Afoa to have filed a timely claim;

28

(4) AWARDS Class Counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,100,000

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:1528

1

2

3

(5) AWARDS Class Counsel costs in the amount of $36,304.49;

4

(6) AWARDS the following amounts to the Named Plaintiffs:

5

NAME

INCENTIVE AWARD

6 Bryan Bagwell

$5,000

7 Frederick Crockan

$5,000

8 Pedro Guzman

9

Michael Aka Madison Hatfield William Kennedy

10 Sean Lint

$3,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000

11 Anthony Oliver

$5,500

12

Nick Ou Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt

13 Steven Aka Lynn Price

$3,000 $5,500 $3,000

14 Jonathan Robertson

$3,000

15 Illich Vargas

16

Tim Walker Taheash White

$5,500 $5,000 $2,000

17

TOTAL

$55,500.00

18

19

20

(7) ORDERS the payment of $37,500.00 to the claims administrator;

21

(8) ENJOINS the Defendants as follows:

22
1. PREA-GBTI COMMITTEE
23

24

1.1. Purpose. The SBSD will operate a PREA-GBTI Committee (“the Committee”) whose purpose is to discuss the housing assignment,

25

programming options, educational options, and employment options

2

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:1529

1

2

3

for inmates who self-identify as a GBTI inmate.

4

1.2. Frequency. The Committee shall meet two times per month, subject

5

to modification as needed. The default Committee schedule shall

6

call for two regularly-scheduled meetings per month. At each meeting, the Committee shall conduct a review of the available

7

housing, programming, education, and employment for all eligible

8

inmates as defined in Section 1.4.

9

1.3. Committee Members. The Committee shall consist of seven

10

representatives at each meeting, subject to excused absences.

11

1.3.1. Facility commander or designee; 1.3.2. Representative from Centralized Classification Unit /

12

Population Management Unit;

13

1.3.3. Medical supervisor or designee;

1.3.4. Mental health supervisor or designee;

14

1.3.5. Representative from Inmate Services Unit (Programs/Education);

15

1.3.6. PREA/GBTI compliance manager; and

1.3.7. County-employed social worker with knowledge of issues

16

impacting the GBTI community, who shall act as a GBTI

17

advocate.

18

1.4. Inmates Subject To Review. At each meeting, the Committee shall

19

review the housing, programming, education, and employment for the following eligible inmates:

20

1.4.1. All inmates who have been booked into the SBSD jails

21

since the preceding Committee meeting and who have

22

self-identified as GBTI.

1.4.2. All self-identified GBTI inmates who have been sentenced

23

since the preceding Committee meeting.

24

1.4.3. If an inmate who would otherwise qualify as eligible under

Section 1.4.1 opted to be housed outside of the designated GBTI

25

3

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:1530

1

2

3

housing location upon initial booking, the inmate has the option

4

of requesting a review from the Committee and shall be so

5

informed. Absent such a request, the Committee shall not conduct a review of a

6

self-identified GBTI inmate who chose to be housed outside of

7

the designated GBTI housing upon booking.

8

1.5. Committee Functions. At each meeting, the Committee shall

9

perform the following functions:

10

1.5.1. The Committee will meet with all eligible-inmates as

11

defined by Section 1.4. The Committee will review the initial classification and

12

intake forms for accuracy.

13

1.5.2. The Committee will ensure that GBTI inmates understand that housing in the GBTI unit is one of many housing options and

14

that SBSD is committed to ensuring their safety throughout the

15

facility, regardless of whether they opt to be housed in the GBTI unit or general population. SBSD shall take steps discussed with

16

Plaintiffs’ counsel to improve safety throughout the facility,

17

including in general population and during transport, so GBTI inmates are safe in general population and any other housing or

18

location. Potential changes could include housing GBTI

19

individuals in general population cells closest to front the front of units where most accessible and visible to deputies and

20

custodial assistants, managing blind spots, increased cameras

21

and other steps that effectively counter risk of assault. 1.5.3. The Committee will ensure that GBTI inmates are fully

22

informed of their housing options, available programming, and

23

work assignments. 1.5.4. The Committee will formally discuss, evaluate, and make

24

decisions on inmate housing assignments. The Committee

25

will take into consideration any specific request from the

4

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:1531

1

2

3

GBTI inmate to ensure they feel safe and fully understand the

4

consequences of a specific housing location. The inmate

5

request will not be dispositive but will be given serious weight.

6

1.5.5. The Committee will identify the most appropriate housing

7

location for transgender and intersex inmates. The housing assessment will be individualized and gender identity will be

8

taken into consideration. Housing based upon and consistent

9

with gender identity will be discussed and evaluated as a housing option.

10

1.5.6. The Committee will also discuss and manage issues of

11

searches, shower privacy, transition-related care as discussed in Section 7. The parties will work together to create a form that

12

will capture information about the person’s gender identity,

13

appropriate name and pronoun, preferences as to the gender of the person(s) who search them, housing preferences, and

14

cellmate preferences, if any.

15

1.5.7. The Committee will evaluate and make decisions for GBTI inmates specifically related to work assignments (if

16

applicable) and available program/education opportunities.

17

1.5.8. The Committee will identify, evaluate, and monitor any ongoing mental health or medical care issues or concerns.

18

1.5.9. The Committee will endeavor to come to a consensus but the

19

Facility Commander will have ultimate decision-making authority. The Committee will maintain notes of these meetings.

20

The Committee will document any disagreements over the

21

housing/programming plan, and document any rationale for housing a GBTI inmate in housing different than their preferred

22

choice. The inmate will be informed of the Committee’s

23

decisions and disagreements in a manner that allows the inmate to grieve the Committee’s decision.

24

1.5.10. The Committee will review GBTI grievances that deal with

25

housing, programs, work assignments or other confinement

5

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:1532

1

2

3

issues. The Committee shall not review any grievance that

4

alleges misconduct on behalf of staff. Those grievances shall

5

continue to be investigated and reviewed by the commander or designee.

6

2. HOUSING & CLASSIFICATION ISSUES

7

2.1. Renaming Unit. The housing location at West Valley Detention

8

Center currently known as the Alternative Lifestyle Tank (“ALT”)

shall be renamed the GBTI unit.

9

10

2.2. Range of Housing Options. Inmates who self-identify as GBTI shall have the following housing options:

11

2.2.1. General population, based on classification score;

12

2.2.2. GBTI Unit at WVDC, based on classification score;

13

2.2.3. For transgender and intersex inmates, housing based upon

and consistent with gender identity, if approved by the PREA-

14

GBTI Committee (for the period of time commencing with the

15

meeting specified in Section 1.4.1 of this Agreement) or the

Centralized Classification Unit (CCU) (for the period of time

16

prior to the meeting specified in Section 1.4.1 of this

17

Agreement).

18

2.2.4. Protective Custody housing, if the inmate needs protection from other inmates based on protective custody protocol and

19

for reasons other than their sexual orientation or gender

identity.

20

21

2.3. Factors to Consider. The following factors shall be considered in determining the housing assignment of a GBTI inmate:

22

23

2.3.1. Individual determination of safety with the jail, unit or segment; 2.3.2. Taking into consideration the inmates own view of safety and

24

a housing location, which will be given serious weight;

25

2.3.3. The location that maximizes access to program, work or other

6

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:1533

1

2

3

activities;

4

2.3.4. GBTI inmates will not be automatically assigned to the

5

GBTI unit, protective custody or restrictive housing; 2.3.5. The PREA/GBTI committee will review and approve housing

6

locations; and, 2.3.6. The SBSD reserves the right to relocate any inmate(s) based

7

on construction, inmate population needs, changes in

8

classification, medical/mental health concerns, etc. In other words, SBSD does not guarantee that all GBTI inmates will be

9

housed in one specific location (e.g. Unit One). They could be

10

moved to other units as necessary. There will remain a GBTI unit unless this agreement is modified.

11

3. INMATE WORKER OPTIONS
12

13

3.1. Eligibility. Nothing in this proposal shall alter the standard

requirements for inmate worker-eligibility. This agreement shall

14

only impact inmates who self-identify as GBTI and whose

15

housing location in the GBTI unit may have been the sole basis

for making them ineligible for employment.

16

3.2. GBTI Inmates in Standard General Population. GBTI inmates

17

who are housed in standard general population housing shall be

18

eligible for jobs without regard to their GBTI status.

19

3.3. Inmates in the GBTI Unit. Inmates housed in the GBTI Unit at

WVDC who are otherwise-eligible for and selected for an

20

assignment can become inmate workers in one of two ways:

21

3.3.1. An inmate in the GBTI Unit who has requested an inmate job

22

can remain living in the GBTI Unit while on a wait list and then

23

transfer to a work-based housing assignment once selected for an inmate job. Alternatively, an inmate in the GBTI Unit who is

24

work-eligible can choose to remain the GBTI Unit and opt to be

25

matched with an inmate job that has been approved for inmates

7

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:1534

1

2

3

in the GBTI Unit.

4

3.3.2. Pursuant to Policy 13.170, inmate workers are housed in

5

inmate worker units. Staff will ensure that the GBTI inmate understands the following. The request must come from the

6

inmate. There is no actual guarantee of a specific job, as there

7

are very few jobs available based on the inmate population. GBTI inmates will have to wait for a job opening just like non-

8

GBTI inmates. The Committee will inform inmates who are

9

eligible to work of the jobs available and the current wait list and location of those jobs. The wait list is determined in

10

chronological order of an inmate’s application to the wait list

11

when work eligible. The length of the wait list shall be shared with the inmates, and there will be different wait lists for

12

different jobs so that there is an informed choice as to whether

13

to go on one with a long wait list. 3.3.3. The SBSD will ensure that a minimum of three jobs for

14

inmates who elect to remain in the GBTI unit can be

15

accommodated at a given time. In addition to the law library position, the SBSD will identify and select two additional jobs

16

that can be provided to eligible inmates from the GBTI Unit.

17

Should a situation arise where more than three GBTI unit inmates need a job at the same time, the SBSD will in good

18

faith attempt to identify and fill the additional jobs.

19

3.3.4. All inmate workers must adhere to facility guidelines for job assignments. The PREA-GBTI Committee will coordinate and

20

ensure that GBTI inmates are afforded every opportunity and

21

equal access to a work assignment with the understanding that no inmate is guaranteed a job.

22

3.3.5. GBTI inmates will have the same opportunities to have

23

volunteer positions as other general population inmates at WVDC.

24

25

3.4. Job Postings. In addition to the information provided to GBTI

8

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:1535

1

2

3

inmates during their meetings with the PREA-GBTI Committee,

4

the SBSD shall post information about inmate jobs.

5

3.5. Credits. Any sentencing credits will be rewarded without regard

6

to sexual orientation, gender identity, or housing placement in the

7

GBTI Unit.

8

3.6. Work and HIV Status. The SBSD policies do not discriminate

9

based on HIV status. Therefore, HIV status does not disqualify an otherwise-eligible inmate from working.

10

4. PROGRAMMING

11

4.1. In-Person. If an in-person program is offered to inmates at Glen

12

Helen or general population at WVDC, then that program will be

13

offered in the GBTI Unit or a suitable classroom at WVDC.

Courses offered at WVDC will use the same eligibility, pre-

14

requisites, and scheduling rationale used at GHRC. Courses

15

offered at WVDC will use the same eligibility, pre-requisites, and

scheduling rationale used at GHRC.

16

17

4.2. Remote Access. If a program is offered via remote access (such as online, journalist, or tablets) to inmates at Glen Helen or other

18

general population units at WVDC, the inmates in the GBTI Unit at

19

WVDC will also be eligible to participate in the program via remote access.

20

4.3. Religious Providers. The SBSD will work with Plaintiffs in an

21

effort to find security- eligible religious providers who are willing to

22

provide religious services in the GBTI Unit and will provide

chaplains and group religious services in the same manner they do

23

for other general population units at WVDC, including possible

24

services in spaces outside of the day room.

25 9
26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:1536

1

2

3

4.4. Credits. Any sentencing credits for programming, including drug

4

rehabilitation or any other program for which credit is given by the

5

Court or SBCJ will be rewarded without regard to sexual orientation, gender identity, or placement in the GBTI Unit.

6

4.5. Programming and HIV Status. The SBSD policies do not

7

discriminate based on HIV status. Therefore, HIV status does

8

not disqualify an otherwise-eligible inmate from programming.

9

5. GBTI UNIT TIER TIME

10

5.1. Two Segments. Provided that a minimum of 20 inmates opt to be

11

housed in the GBTI Unit, then the GBTI Unit will be divided into two segments.

12

13

5.2. GP-3 to GP-5. One segment of the GBTI Unit shall consist of inmates with classifications of GP-3, GP-4, and GP-5. Inmates in

14

this segment shall receive half tier time. If in the future general

15

population inmates with classifications of GB-3, GP-4, and GP-5 start receiving more than half tier time, then similar increases will be

16

applied to the GBTI Unit with GP-3, GP-4, and GP-5 inmates.

17

5.3. GP-6 to GP-7. One segment of the GBTI Unit shall consist of

18

inmates with classifications of GP-6 and GP-7. Inmates in this segment shall receive full tier time.

19

5.4. Contingency for Single Segment. Should the population of the

20

GBTI Unit fall below 20 inmates, the SBSD reserves the right to

21

consolidate the GBTI Unit into a single segment. If the GBTI Unit is consolidated into a single segment under this provision, the Watch

22

Commander or his/her designee can decide to give less tier time

23

based on security considerations and the classification scores of the inmates in the GBTI Unit but no less than half tier time. The Watch

24

Commander or his/her designee can also decide to keep tier time at

25

the same level in their discretion. The decision will be documented.

10

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:1537

1

2

3

4

5.5. Exceptions. Any exception to the default tier time designated in Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 must be approved by the Watch Commander

5

and must be documented in the shift log.

6

5.6. Recreation Time. All inmates in the GBTI Unit shall receive

7

outside recreation time as required by Title 15.

8

6. TRAINING

9

6.1. Staff Training. The SBSD will provide comprehensive training for

10

staff, contractors, and volunteers who have contact with inmates on

GBTI and PREA issues prior to the assignment of the staff,

11

contractor, or volunteer to any position involving contact with

12

inmates.

13

6.2. Training Topics. The mandatory training shall cover the following

14

topics at minimum:

15

6.2.1. The Prison Rape Elimination Act;

16

6.2.2. The department’s zero tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment;

17

6.2.3. Common reactions of sexual abuse and sexual harassment victims;

18

6.2.4. Detection and response to signs of sexual abuse; 6.2.5. Inmates right to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment;

19

6.2.6. Inmates and staff members right to be free from retaliation

when reporting sexual abuse or sexual harassment incidents;

20

6.2.7. How to effectively and professionally communicate with

21

inmates including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,

intersex or gender non-conforming inmates (LBGTI);

22

6.2.8. How to comply with all relevant laws related to mandatory

23

reporting of sexual abuse to outside authorities;

24

6.2.9. Impact of discrimination against LBGTI inmates; and 6.2.10. Classification, housing, programming, education, work

25

opportunities and integration of LBGTI inmates in the

11

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:1538

1

2

3

prison setting.

4

6.3. Refresher Training. All staff, contractors, and volunteers shall

5

receive refresher training on the issues described in Sections 6.1

6

and 6.2 at least once every two years.

7

6.4. Training Records. Initial and refresher training shall be documented using the Acknowledgment of PREA training

8

form. Training compliance records will be computerized.

9

6.5. Educating Inmates. Materials designed to educate inmates on GBTI

10

and PREA issues shall be made available to all inmates in the jail system. The materials shall identify the SBSD’s zero tolerance

11

policy regarding sexual harassment and how to report incidents or

12

suspicion of sexual abuse or sexual harassment. Inmates shall receive this information during the intake process. Information will

13

be posted in housing areas and readily visible to inmates. Plaintiffs’

14

counsel will endeavor to work with experts to obtain quality videos and materials to be used for inmate education, which will be

15

provided to the SBSD. Absent an articulable objection from the

16

SBSD to the materials provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the SBSD will provide these materials to the inmates during orientation and

17

make these materials available for viewing by all inmates at other

18

appropriate times.

19

7. TRANSGENDER ISSUES

20

7.1. Orientation. It is understood that the appropriate correctional

21

approach to the housing and protection of transgender inmates is a relatively new and rapidly developing area of both correctional

22

practices and the law. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

23

is committed to an ongoing assessment of the special needs and best correctional practices for transgender inmates, and to developing

24

appropriate policies to address those issues.

25 12
26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:1539

1

2

3

7.2. Housing. Transgender women and intersex people assigned to

4

men’s facilities shall be housed based upon the recommendation of

5

the PREA-GBTI Committee, considering the range of housing options in Section 2.2 and the factors in Section 2.3. Plaintiffs and

6

SBSD will discuss, in developing this policy, whether the same

7

range of housing options and process should be made available to transgender men, whether assigned to men’s or women’s facilities.

8

7.3. Searches. Transgender and intersex inmates shall advise the PREA-

9

GBTI Committee of the preferred gender for deputies who will

10

perform searches of the inmates. The SBSD shall honor the inmates’ request subject to certain narrow exceptions that shall be

11

identified in a written policy. Plaintiffs will work with SBSD to

12

devise a specific question or gender preference search form.

13

7.4. Shower Privacy. Transgender and intersex inmates will have the

14

opportunity to shower, perform bodily functions, and change clothes in private, away from the view of other inmates and cross-gender,

15

non-medical staff (staff with a gender different than the gender the

16

inmate identifies as). This may be accomplished through housing and classification, shower curtains, privacy screens, or other

17

methods. Medical Issues. Correctional Health Services staff

18

including Qualified Mental Health Professionals shall assess,

diagnose, and establish a documented individual treatment plan for

19

inmates including, but not limited to, those inmates identified with

20

DSM diagnosis Gender Dysphoria. Qualified Mental Health

Professional Providers shall order treatment as clinically indicated

21

including, but not limited to, gap hormone medication.

22

7.5. Transport. Transgender inmates will not be cuffed, tied or otherwise

placed in immediate proximity to inmates of a different gender

23

identity during transport, including but not limited to bus transport

24

to and from court. Transgender inmates who so request will be

transported, if feasible, in individual protective ‘cages,’ or, where

25

13

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:1540

1

2

3

that is not feasible,

4

will be accorded special protections to ensure that they are not

5

harmed by other inmates during transport.

6

8. GENERAL PREA ISSUES

7

8.1. Zero Tolerance Policy for Harassment.

8

8.1.1. SBSD policy and employee bulletins will clearly prohibit

9

harassment and discrimination against GBTI inmates or those

perceived to be GBTI. This policy will have zero tolerance for

10

anti-LGBTIQ statements in SBSD facilities. Deputies shall be

11

subject to discipline for committing harassment and

discrimination, including name calling.

12

8.1.2. SBCSD will have a zero tolerance policy regarding the

13

intentional misgendering of transgender and intersex inmates by

14

staff. All staff will use the name and pronouns specified by the transgender or intersex inmate. Consistent use of the incorrect

15

name and pronoun will be considered and handled as sexual

16

harassment. Nothing in this section shall prohibit medical staff from complying with regulations or laws governing the

17

dispensing of pharmaceuticals and the use of an inmate’s legal

18

name.

19

8.2. PREA Pre-Audit. Within six months of the Court’s final approval of

the settlement, the SBSD agrees to conduct a PREA pre-audit at West

20

Valley Detention Center using a trained PREA auditor, based on a list

21

of approved auditors provided by the United States Department of

22

Justice. Following the pre-audit, the SBSD will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the findings, and what actions taken by

23

SBSD based on the findings. The SBSD shall conduct an assessment

24

addressing the issues identified in the PREA pre-audit after the meet and confer and will inform Plaintiffs’ counsel of actions taken in

25

response to the pre-audit and the meet and confer. Nothing in this

14

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:1541

1

2

3

agreement shall impose an affirmative obligation on the SBSD to

4

comply with the recommendations of the PREA pre-audit. Nothing in

5

this agreement shall require the SBSD to allow the auditor to review or access materials protected under California law by California Penal

6

Code § 832.5 et. seq. or California Evidence Code § 1040 et. seq. The

7

pre-audit will not be forwarded to the United States Department of Justice. However, nothing in this agreement shall limit Plaintiffs’

8

counsel’s ability to report any PREA violations that are not rectified by

9

the SBSD in response to the pre-audit or any future violations of PREA. Hotlines. The SBSD agrees to have working and anonymous

10

PREA hotlines.

11

8.3. Victim Counseling. Mental health counseling, by counselors

12

trained in rape and sexual assault consistent with PREA

13

regulations 115.53 and 115.82-83, shall be available for all inmate victims of sexual assault.

14

8.4. Not Relocating Victim. Following the reporting of a sexual

15

assault in the jails, the general rule is that the victim of the

16

assault shall not be moved to another housing location. Instead,

the alleged perpetrator shall be moved to another housing

17

location. Exceptions to this general rule shall exist. Victim

18

inmates may be moved out of a housing segment for his/her

own protection. Victim inmates shall be reassessed for a

19

different housing assignment by the Central Classification Unit

20

(CCU) and/or PREA- GBTI Committee.

21

8.5. Screening. The SBSD shall continue PREA screening. The

22

SBSD recognizes that not all GBTI inmates should be designated as PREA-vulnerable. The parties will jointly develop an

23

appropriate screening mechanism that will be utilized by the

24

PREA-GBTI Committee to facilitate appropriate housing, work and programming choices.

25 15
26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:1542

1

2

3

8.6. Compliance Manager. All type II jail facilities that house GBTI

4

or PREA-vulnerable inmates will have a PREA-GBTI

5

compliance manager. The compliance manager shall be responsible for the facility’s efforts to comply with PREA-GBTI

6

policies and procedures. The PREA-GBTI compliance manager

7

shall be responsible for and ensure compliance with the Bureau Polices. The PREA-GBTI Compliance Manager shall also serve

8

on the PREA-GBTI Committee.

9

8.7. PREA Requirements. Nothing in this agreement shall

10

otherwise alter any PREA requirements that may be applicable to SBSD.

11

12

9. ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT

13

9.1. Policies. The parties will negotiate the language of any SBSD policies that shall be necessary to implement this agreement.

14

15

9.2. Production. For three years after the Court’s final approval of the agreement, the SBSD shall produce the following documents on

16

an annual basis:

17

9.2.1. A computerized spreadsheet that lists all initial and refresher training courses presented to staff, contractors and

18

volunteers as well as a copy of each unique training. The

19

spreadsheet will document the date of each course and compliance with section 6.2 (Training topics). The

20

spreadsheet will certify that all required personnel are in

21

compliance pursuant to this injunctive relief item. 9.2.2. A computerized spreadsheet that lists the housing locations

22

for all inmates who openly identify during classification as

23

GBTI. A computerized spreadsheet that lists all inmates housed in the GBTI segments. The spreadsheet shall include the

24

inmates full name, booking number, classification rating, arrest

25

date, sentencing date (if applicable), release date, and housing

16

26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:1543

1

2

3

location.

4

9.2.3. A computerized list of all educational, vocational,

5

rehabilitation or other programming courses during the year provided to general population inmates.

6

9.2.4. A computerized list of all inmates housed in the GBTI

7

segments who requested and also who received educational or programming courses during the year. The list shall contain the

8

type of educational or programming course, date, etc.

9

9.2.5. Copies of the individual inmate PREA-GBTI Committee forms (includes housing options for each inmate).

10

9.2.6. Computerized list of GBTI inmates who requested jobs and

11

also a computerized list of GBTI inmates who are inmate workers and their job. This includes inmates housed in the

12

GBTI segments and those who transferred to general

13

population. 9.2.7. Annual average of tier time afforded to inmates housing in the

14

GBTI segments.

15

9.2.8. Annual report that provides statistics on sexual assault and sexual harassment of inmates.

16

9.2.9. Nothing in this section shall require the SBSD to provide

17

materials protected under California law by California Penal Code § 832.5 et. seq. or California Evidence Code §

18

1040 et. seq.

19

9.3. Meet and Confer. The parties will meet and confer before

20

any party seeks judicial enforcement of the settlement

agreement.

21

22

9.4. Expense. All parties shall be responsible for their own costs and fees incurred after the Court’s final approval of the settlement;

23

except that if the Court finds a material violation or issues a

24

remedial order, Plaintiffs will be entitled to fees.

25 17
26

27

28

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 102 Filed 02/28/19 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:1544

1

2

3

(9) DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

4

5 6 Dated: February 28, 2019

7

8

9

THE HONORABLE JESUS G. BERNAL

10

United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 18
26

27

28

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 14-2171 JGB (SPx)
Title Dan McKibben, et al. v. John McMahon et al.

Date February 28, 2019

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): None Present

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 86); and (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement (Dkt. No. 90) (IN CHAMBERS)

On January 18, 2019, Plaintiffs1 Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford2, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Named Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. (“MFACS,” Dkt. No. 90.) On November 7, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. (“MAF,” Dkt. No 86.) These matters are unopposed. The Court held a hearing on these matters on February 11, 2019. Upon consideration of the papers filed in support of these motions, as well as oral arguments presented by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MFACS and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MAF.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Sheriff John McMahon, Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, Sergeant James Mahan, Corporal Armando

1 Plaintiff Dan McKibben passed away while this lawsuit was pending, and is not listed as a Plaintiff. His name is still used as the Case Name.
2 At the February 11, 2019 hearing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel reported that Christopher Crawford passed away while this motion was pending.

Page 1 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:1546

Castillo, the County of San Bernardino (“the County”), and San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department (“SBCSD”) (collectively “Defendants”). (“SAC,” Dkt. 37.) Plaintiffs sue each individual defendant in both his individual and official capacity. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection afforded by the 14th Amendment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender; (2) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 for interfering with Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the California Constitution; and (3) injunctive relief under Article 1, § 7 of the California Constitution and violation of Cal. Govt. Code §1135(A) by the County, SBCSD, and McMahon. (Id.)
On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On September 10, 2018, the Court granted the preliminary approval of this class action settlement and granted conditional certification of the proposed settlement classes. (“Preliminary Approval Order,” Dkt. No 84.) In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court ordered:
1. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate for members of the settlement class.
2. The following settlement classes are certified for settlement purpose only:
a. Damages Class: Individuals who, between October 22, 2012 (two years prior to the filing of the original complaint, which is the statute of limitations period under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and March 31, 2018 (the end of the month in which the settlement was reached in principle) were gay, bisexual, and/or transgender inmates housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank of the San Bernardino County Jail facility known as West Valley Detention Center.
b. Injunctive Relief Class: Individuals who currently are, or in the future will be, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender inmates housed in the San Bernardino County jails, including but not limited to those housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank.
3. Barrett S. Litt, David McLane, and Lindsay Battles of Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, and Melissa Goodman, Amanda Goad, Brendan Hamme, and Aditi Fruitwala of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California are appointed as class counsel for purposes of settlement only.
4. Named Plaintiffs Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt are qualified to act as representatives of the settlement classes and are preliminarily appointed as class representatives.

Page 2 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:1547

5. JND Legal Administration is appointed as the settlement administrator.
6. The settlement notice, as set forth in Exhibit B to the Settlement Motion, is approved in form and substance for use in the administration of the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants the parties the authority to finalize the contact information, website address, response dates, and fairness hearing dates in accordance with this Order.
7. JND Legal Administration is directed to mail the notice and claim form to all individuals entitled to receive notice within two weeks of this Order.
8. Settlement class members will have until January 7, 2019 to file a claim, opt-out, or file an objection to the Settlement Agreement.
9. The final approval hearing will be scheduled for February 11, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501.
(Id. at 19-20).
II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs filed a Settlement Agreement on August 15, 2018. (“Settlement Agreement,” Dkt. No. 78.) The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on September 10, 2018. (Preliminary Approval Order.) The terms of the Settlement Agreement are discussed below.
A. Settlement Classes
The settlement classes for the purposes of the settlement of this case include both a Damages Class and an Injunctive Relief Class.
The Damages Class includes “individuals who, between October 22, 2012 (two years prior to the filing of the original complaint, which is the statute of limitations period under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and March 31, 2018 (the end of the month in which the settlement was reached in principle) self-identified as gay, bisexual and/or transgender inmates (“GBT inmates”) housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank (“ALT”) of the San Bernardino County Jail facility known as West Valley Detention Center (‘WVDC’).” (Settlement Agreement §1, ¶ 10.)
The Injunctive Relief Class includes “individuals who currently are, or in the future will be, GBT inmates housed in the San Bernardino County jails, including but not limited to those housed in the ALT.” (Id. § 1, ¶ 18.) The finalized class list consisted of 660 individuals. (“Keough Declaration,” Dkt. No. 92 ¶ 4.)

Page 3 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:1548

B. Release
All settlement class members agree to release their claims as follows:
The Settlement Agreement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full all claims against the Released Persons3 by all of the SCMs,4 including the Named Plaintiffs, involving violations of law or constitutional rights, including, without limitation, their equal protection rights under federal and California law, their rights under California Civil Code § 52.1, any other rights under any other federal, state or local law, regulation, duty, or obligation, or any other legal theory, action or cause of action, which arise from the class-wide factual allegations alleged in the complaint , as well as any claim regarding the bus transportation of transgender inmates (hereafter “Covered Claims”).
When the Settlement Agreement is final, as of the Effective Date, all SCMs, including the Named Plaintiffs, waive all rights to any and all claims relating to damages or reimbursement of any kind for the Covered Claims. This waiver and release shall include a full release and waiver of unknown rights regarding the Covered Claims that may exist as of the Effective Date.
As of the Effective Date, the SCMs, including the Named Plaintiffs, hereby waive any and all rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute, or commence any action or proceeding before any court, administrative agency or other tribunal, or to file any complaint regarding acts or omissions by the Released Persons with respect to the Covered Claims during the Class Period that fit within the definition of the Damages Class; and further, as it relates to this waiver or Release, expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542, which provides that “a general

3 Released Persons refers to:
Defendants and their affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns, together with past, present and future officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, and/or agents of San Bernardino County, including John McMahon, or any of them. “Released Persons” also includes any and all insurance carriers, and/or their representatives and attorneys, for the Released Persons.
(Settlement Agreement § II, ¶ 26)
4 SCMs stands for “Settlement Class Member,” which refers to:
[A]ny member of the Damages class as defied above (whether or not s/he files a Timely Claim form), including representatives, successors and assigns, who does not file a valid and timely Request for Exclusion as provided for in this Settlement Agreement.
(Settlement Agreement § II, ¶ 28.)

Page 4 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:1549

release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

. . .

Any Class Member who does not Opt-Out as set forth in this Settlement Agreement, shall be deemed conclusively to have become an SCM and to be bound by the Settlement Agreement and all subsequent proceedings, orders and judgments herein, regardless of whether s/he files a claim form.

(Settlement Agreement § VI, ¶¶ 21-23, 45.)

C. Financial Terms

Below is an overview of the financial terms of the Settlement Agreement:

 Gross settlement amount (“Class Fund”):  Expert, consulting, mediation costs  Settlement administration costs:  Service award to class representatives:  Net settlement amount:  Attorneys’ fees and costs:

$950,000.00 $36,304.49 $37,500.005 $55,500.006
$818,195.51 $1,100,000.007

(MFACS at 3.)

The Class Fund is non-reversionary. (Settlement Agreement §IV, ¶ 11.) However, if 11 to 24 Damages Class members opt-out of the class, Defendants will receive a credit against the Class Fund based on the amount each individual opt-out was due under the initial formula. (Settlement Agreement § XI, ¶ 48.) The credit is not available if 10 or fewer Damages Class Members opt-out. (Id.) If 25 or more Damages Class members or any Named Plaintiffs opt-out, Defendants have the option to use the same credit formula or rescind the Settlement Agreement. (Id. § XI, ¶ 49.) No damages class members opted out of the settlement. (Keough Decl. ¶17.)

5 The Settlement administration cost here differs from the cost listed in the Preliminary Approval because the County has already paid a $2,500 deposit to the Claims Administrator.
6 This amount differs from the amount listed in the Settlement Agreement because Plaintiff Christopher Crawford passed away and will no longer receive a Service Award. The net settlement amount is also adjusted to reflect this change.
7 Attorneys’ fees and litigation costs (excluding mediation and expert costs) are included in a request for attorneys’ fees separate from the settlement amount. (Settlement Agreement ¶ 30.)

Page 5 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:1550

1. Damages Class Members

Each Damages Class member is eligible to receive payment. Individual settlement amounts to class participants are paid from the net settlement amount. The portion of the net settlement amount payable to each Damages Class participant will be calculated through a pointsbased formula. (Settlement Agreement § IV, ¶¶ 8-9.) The total points for each participant will be added together, and each participant’s recovery will be a percentage of the net settlement amount based on that class member’s percentage of the total points for participants making timely claims. (Id. § IV, ¶ 9.) In addition to this formula, there is a recovery floor of $40 per participant and a recovery ceiling of $10,000 per participant. (Id. § IV, ¶ 10.) This recovery ceiling “is to ensure that outliers who have outsized claims do not distort the meaningfulness of the recovery to the remaining class members. (Such outliers would be entitled to opt out and pursue their own claims if they so chose.)” (Id.)

The formula to calculate the points each Damages Class member receives is designed to account for the fact that the severity of the challenged conditions varied over time and depended on an inmate’s sentencing status, security classification, and work eligibility. (MFACS at 5-6.) Those Damages Class members who were low security risks were more adversely affected by the challenged conditions because they would have received more out-of-cell time than inmates deemed a higher security risk. (Id.) Additionally, all Damages Class members were denied access to certain programs whose availability varied based on sentencing status and work eligibility. (Id.) Finally, the challenged conditions before October 14, 2014 were more restrictive and receive higher point values than conditions after October 14, 2014. (Id.) Based on these considerations and others addressed in the Settlement Motion, Plaintiffs divide these confinement conditions into nine categories and assign point values depending on their relative severity. (Settlement Agreement § IV, ¶ 8.) Points are assigned for each day a Damages Class member was incarcerated in a given category and aggregated. (Id.) Below are the nine per diem categories and corresponding point values:

 Category 1: Sentenced, work-eligible (Pre-October 2014)

100

 Category 2: Sentenced, not work-eligible (Pre-October 2014)

60

 Category 3: Pre-sentenced, lower security risk (Pre-October 2014)

55

 Category 4: Pre-sentenced, higher security risk (Pre-October 2014)

45

 Category 5: Pre-sentenced, unknown security risk (Pre-October 2014) 45

 Category 6: Sentenced, work-eligible, no job (Post-October 2014)

65

 Category 7: Sentenced, work-eligible, inferior job (Post-October 2014) 50

 Category 8: Sentenced, not work-eligible (Post-October 2014)

35

 Category 9: Pre-sentenced (Post-October 2014)

20

(Id. § IV, ¶ 8.)

As of the time of the MFACS, Claim Forms from 165 class members have been approved. (MFACS at 3.) This represents approximately 25% of the total 655 class members. (Id. at 11) Based on this number, the mean recovery is $4,000-$5,000. (Id.) On February 7, 2019 Plaintiffs

Page 6 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:1551

filed a notice of additional late claims. (“Late Claims Notice,” Dkt. No. 94.) Counsel has been made aware that two claims were filed after the January 7, 2019 cut-off date and that additional class members were incarcerated and did not receive the Class Notice. (Id.) As of February 4, 2019, the Claim Administrator has received ten additional claims. (Id.) Plaintiffs request this Court approve the payment of these ten late claims and any claims postmarked as of February 11, 2019. (Id.) Additionally, class representative Frederick Crockan has attempted to file his claim on multiple occasions, but his claim forms have not been received by the Class Administrator. (Id.) Plaintiffs request the Court deem Crockan to have filed a timely claim. (Id.) Further, Mr. Joe Raymond Fierro, a verified class member, never received a claim form. (“Additional Late Claim Notice,” Dkt. No. 95.) Plaintiffs request the court deem Mr. Fierro to have timely filed a claim. (Id.) At the February 11, 2019 hearing Defendants represented they do not oppose this request. Finally, on February 22, 2019, Counsel filed an ex parte application regarding the late filing of Andrew Afoa, who, due to no fault of his own, never received a claim form prior to the cut-off date. (Dkt. No. 98.) Counsel notes Defendant’s counsel has no objection to the ex parte application. (Id.) The Court APPROVES these requests.
2. Class Representatives
The Settlement Agreement provides a total of $55,500 of the gross settlement amount to the Named Plaintiffs. (Settlement Agreement §IV, ¶ 3.) There are 14 Named Plaintiffs, and each would receive between $2,000 to $5,500 depending on counsel’s assessment of their contributions to the litigation. (Id.) The Settlement Agreement proposes exact amounts for each of the Named Plaintiffs in paragraph 3.
3. Settlement Administration Costs
The settlement administrator, JND Legal Administration (“JND” or “Administrator”), will be paid from the gross settlement amount. (Id. § IV, ¶ 2.) Class counsel requested bids and selected the most reasonable bid based on price, scope of services, and capabilities of the administrator. (Id. § IX, ¶ 31.) In its bid JND estimated the administration to have a maximum of $40,000. (Id. § IV, ¶ 2.) The cost of administration totaled the $40,000 indicated in the Settlement Agreement. (MFACS at 3; Keough Decl. ¶ 22.) At the February 11, 2019, Defendants counsel informed the Court that the County has already paid $2,500 of the total Claims Administration cost as a deposit, making the outstanding total $37,500.
4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Class counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees separate from the gross settlement amount. (Settlement Agreement § IV, ¶ 12.) Class counsel seeks $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in a separate motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(h), which provide attorneys’ fees for prevailing plaintiffs. (See MAF at 2.) This amount was independently negotiated with the assistance of a professional mediator and, in order to effectuate the settlement, substantially discounted below the amounts Plaintiffs would have sought in an attorneys’ fees motion. (Id. at 12; Settlement Agreement § IV ¶ 13.)

Page 7 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:1552

D. Injunctive Relief
The Settlement Agreement also provides for injunctive relief over a three-year period. (MFACS at 16, “Injunctive Relief Agreement,” Dkt. No 90-2 at 15.) The terms of the injunctive relief are detailed in Exhibit 2 and include the development of policies not yet drafted. (Id. at 16.) Defendants estimate the resources associated with these Injunctive Terms will be approximately $500,000 per year. (Id.)
There are nine parts to the proposed Injunctive Terms: (1) create the PREA-GBTI Committee (“the Committee”)8; (2) establish policies for Housing and Classification Issues; (3) establish inmate worker options for GBTI inmates; (4) require access to programming; (5) require equal tier time for GBTI inmates; (6) require training on GBTI, PREA, and sexual harassment issues for staff, contractors, volunteers, and other inmates; (7) require specific policies for transgender inmates; (8) establish a zero-tolerance policy for harassment and ensuring PREA compliance; and (9) establish procedures to enforce the Settlement Agreement. (See generally “Injunctive Terms,” Dkt. No 78-3.)
Importantly, these terms include provisions to ensure that GBTI inmates have comparable access as their peers in general population to programming, education, religious services, tier time, and work. Additionally, the terms provide for housing that considers an inmate’s sexual orientation and gender identity when making assignments, and considers a GBTI inmate’s preferences. Finally, the terms provide specific policies needed to address the needs of transgender inmates, including housing assignment, choice as to the gender of deputies performing searches, and access to hormonal medication to treat gender dysphoria. (See generally Injunctive Terms; see also MFACS at 14.)
The complete text of the Injunctive Terms is available at Dkt. No. 78-3.
E. Notice
The Settlement Agreement proposed the following procedure to notify the settlement class members of the Settlement Agreement. The Administrator will be responsible for mailing class notice and the claim form to class members at their last known address. (Settlement Agreement § IX, ¶ 32.) The Administrator will use customary means to search for the last known address and do “whatever else is reasonably appropriate in order to reasonably notify Class Members . . . .” (Id.) Additionally, Defendants will post a summary notice in the ALT for the duration of the class notice period with a statement that the full notice will be provided on request. (Id.)

8 “PREA” refers to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and“GBTI” refers to individuals who are gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex.

Page 8 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:1553

The class notice describes the particulars of this case, provides the class definition, provides information for claimants to contact the Administrator, notifies the Damages Class members of the case website, and contains a series of questions and answers to help explain the Settlement Agreement. (Id. ¶ 34; see also “Class Notice,” Dkt. No. 81-2.) The Administrator will mail the class notice as soon as practicable after preliminary approval. (Settlement Agreement § IX, ¶ 35.) The Administrator will include in the physical mailing a claim form. (Id. § X, ¶ 37.) In addition to physical mail, the Administrator will also gather, to the extent reasonably possible and cost effective, email addresses of class members. (Id. § IX, ¶ 36.) A claim form will be timely submitted if it is received before the cutoff date, which Plaintiffs propose should be January 7, 2019. (Proposed Order at 3.) If a class member submits a deficient claim form the Administrator will provide mail notice of the deficiency and give the class member 30 days to provide a proper form. (Settlement Agreement § X, ¶ 39.) If the original form is received before the cutoff date, the corrected claim will still be considered timely. (Id.)
A class member who wishes to opt-out of the Damages Class must submit a request to be excluded to the Administrator before the cutoff date. (Id. § XI, ¶ 43.) Class members who do not timely opt-out of the Damages Class are deemed to have participated in the settlement and will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and all subsequent proceedings, even if s/he did not file a claim form. (Id. ¶ 45.)
F. Performance of the Settlement Agreement
JND Legal Administration is serving as the settlement administrator. (Settlement Agreement IX, ¶ 31.) The Administrator received 165 approved Claim Forms from individuals identified as Settlement Class Members. (Keough Decl. ¶ 21.) Four Claim Forms have been denied as duplicative. (Id.) 382 Claim Forms were submitted by individuals who do not appear on the Class List. (Id.) Two Claim Forms were missing signatures or other required information and were deemed deficient. (Id.) An additional two Claim Forms were received as of January 14, 2019 with postmarks dated after the January 7, 2019 deadline. (Id.) The claims administrator has received a total of 555 claims to date. (Id.) On February 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Late Claim Notice informing the Court that 10 late claims were filed. (Late Claims Notice.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to approve the payment of these late claims. See supra Part II.C.1.
III. Legal Standard
A. Class Action Settlement
Class action settlements must be approved by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Whether to approve a class action settlement is “committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). A strong judicial policy favors settlement of class actions. See id.
Nevertheless, the Court must examine the settlement as a whole for overall fairness. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Neither district courts nor

Page 9 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:1554

appellate courts have the power to delete, modify, or substitute provisions in the negotiated settlement agreement. See id. “The settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Id.

In order to approve the class action settlement herein, the Court must conduct a threestep inquiry. See Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2012). First, it assesses whether the parties have met notice requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act. Id. Next, it determines whether the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) have been satisfied. Id. Finally, the Court must find that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(3). Id.

B. Attorneys’ Fees

Class Counsel also requests approval of its request for attorneys’ fees. In the Ninth Circuit, the court has discretion to use either a percentage of the fund or a lodestar approach in compensating class counsel. See, e.g., Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989); In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Lit., 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 1994). When a statutory fee is available, such a statutory fee award is appropriate independent of the class damages fund. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 972 (9th Cir. 2003) (“in a class action involving both a statutory fee-shifting provision and an actual or putative common fund, the parties may negotiate and settle the amount of statutory fees along with the merits of the case, ...[and] the amount of such attorneys' fees can be approved if they meet the reasonableness standard when measured against statutory fee principles”). Here, a statutory fee is available under both 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(h). “The ‘lodestar method’ is appropriate in class actions brought under fee-shifting statutes (such as federal civil rights, securities, antitrust, copyright, and patent acts), where the relief sought—and obtained—is often primarily injunctive in nature and thus not easily monetized. . .” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).
The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation (supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer. Staton 325 F.3d at 965. Statutory attorneys’ fees are not correlated to the size of recovery but instead look to the attorneys’ reasonable hours and rates, as well as the public benefit conferred by the litigation. See City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 575 (1986).

IV. Rule 23 Requirements

A. Rule 23(a) and (b)

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified the Settlement Classes in this matter under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3). (Preliminary Approval Order at 3–8.) Accordingly, the Court “need not find anew that the settlement class[es] meet[] the certification requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b).” Adoma, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 974; see also Harris v. Vector Marketing, No. C–08–5198, 2012 WL 381202 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (“As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it previously certified . . . a Rule 23(b)(3) class . . . [and thus] need

Page 10 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:1555

not analyze whether the requirements for certification have been met and may focus instead on whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.”); In re Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Nos. CV 04–2147–PHX–JAT, CV 04–2204–PHX–JAT, CV 04–2334– PHX–JAT, 2012 WL 1378677 at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2012). Here, the Settlement Classes have not changed since they were conditionally certified. All the criteria for class certification remain satisfied, and the Court hereby confirms its order certifying the Settlement Classes.

B. Rule 23(c)(2) Notice Requirements

Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requires the Court “direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Similarly, Rule 23(e)(1) requires a proposed settlement may only be approved after notice is directed in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the notice sent to Settlement Class members. The claims administrator timely mailed the Notice Packet, provided e-mail notice, established a toll-free number to provide information on the settlement, created a settlement website, and advertised the settlement on the internet through Facebook. (Keough Declaration ¶¶ 7–15.) The Court therefore finds that notice to the Settlement Class was adequate.

C. Rule 23(e)

Under Rule 23(e), “the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). “The primary concern of [Rule 23(e)] is the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court’s inquiry is procedural in nature. Id. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), “[i]f the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Court held a final approval hearing on February 11, 2019. In determining whether a settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned, the Court may consider some or all of the following factors:

(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case;

(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;

(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;

(4) the amount offered in settlement;

(5) the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings;

(6) the experience and views of counsel;

(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and

Page 11 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:1556

(8) any opposition by class members.
Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998). This list of factors is not exclusive and a court may balance and weigh different factors depending on the circumstances of each case. See Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993).

1. Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case

The initial fairness factor addresses Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. See Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 964–65 (9th Cir. 2009). In determining the probability of Plaintiffs’ success on the merits, there is no “particular formula by which that outcome must be tested.” Id. at 965.

Plaintiffs considered their liability case to be strong, especially since California expressly applies strict scrutiny to claims of sexual orientation discrimination. (MFACS at 9.) However, Defendants similarly believe they have a strong defense in asserting that Plaintiffs made voluntary and informed decisions to be housed in the ALT. (Id.) Additionally, Defendants contest that a proper comparison for GBT inmates are general population inmates, and instead assert that protective custody inmates are the proper comparison group. (Id.)

Given the challenges Plaintiffs would face in continued litigation over such issues, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of approval.

2. Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation

Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges the risk, expense, and likely duration of litigation. (MFACS at 10-11.) Plaintiffs anticipate that even with what they perceive to be strong claims, litigation would take several years. (Id.) This would also greatly increase the costs of litigation. At this stage, Plaintiffs’ counsel already seek $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and at a substantially discounted rate. (Id. at 7.) Stretched over years of potential litigation, this sum would be substantially larger.

The risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation weigh in favor of final approval. Without the Settlement Agreement, the parties would be required to litigate class certification, as well as the ultimate merits of the case—a process which the Court acknowledges is long, complex, and expensive. Settlement of this matter will conserve the resources of this Court and the parties, thus weighing heavily in favor of final approval.

3. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout the Trial

Because the Court is not aware of any risks to maintaining class-action status throughout trial, this factor is neutral. Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431, 445 (E.D. Cal. 2013); see also In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 03–0283, 2005 WL 3096079, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005) (vacated in part on other grounds, 496 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2007)) (favoring neither approval nor disapproval of settlement where the court was “unaware of any

Page 12 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:1557

risk involved in maintaining class action status”); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 489 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (finding that there were no facts that would defeat class treatment, the factor was considered “neutral” for purposes of final approval of class settlement).
4. Amount Offered in Settlement
In determining whether the amount offered in settlement is fair, a court compares the settlement amount to the parties’ estimates of the maximum amount of damages recoverable in a successful litigation. In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000).
In valuing this litigation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel estimated each class members would recover a few thousand dollars. (MFACS at 9.) Under this Settlement, the average recovery for claiming class members is $4,000-5,000. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel considers the monetary recovery highly favorable when compare to other class actions for damages in the jail context involving over-detentions and strip searches. (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiffs also believe that the Injunctive Terms contribute significant additional value. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel, who are experienced in class action litigation regarding civil rights issues, believe the Injunctive Terms are “groundbreaking” and a “model in many respects.” (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiffs’ counsel determined that the benefit to the class of this injunctive relief was of such value that they agreed to a significantly reduced fee in return. (Id.)
The Court finds this factor weighs in favor of final approval.
5. Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of the Proceedings
This factor requires the Court evaluate whether “the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement.” Linney, 151 F.3d at 1239.
Plaintiffs assert they negotiated with Defendants at arms’ length and without collusion, which is evidenced by the extensive discovery and mediation process. (MFACS at 14.) Plaintiffs conducted extensive document discovery. (Id. at 12.) Although Plaintiffs did not conduct depositions, there were several meetings with Defendants’ counsel to address issues regarding jail operations. (Id.) SBCSD provided both formal and informal discovery concerning the operation and conditions of general population inmates as well as ALT inmates. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel inspected with an expert consultant WVDC premises where GBT and non-GBT inmates are housed, as well as the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. (Id.) The parties further held several in-person settlement conferences through private mediation before the Hon. Carla Woehrle (Ret.). (Id. at 2.)

///
Page 13 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:1558

The Court finds the parties have engaged in substantial investigation of the facts and the applicable law. This factor weighs in favor of granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Experience and Views of Counsel
“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience serving as counsel in civil rights class actions. (MFACS at 13.) Litt is a well-known civil rights lawyer with decades of experience. (MAF at 10). McClane has worked on civil rights and criminal defense cases for the last fifteen years. (Id.) Battles has been practicing civil rights cases for ten years. (Id.) Goodman, Goad, Hamme, Hill, and Fruitwala of ACLU SoCal have 15, 13, 6, 4 and 4 years of experience respectively. (Id.) Counsel further submits that the proposal is fair. (MFACS at 11.) This weighs in favor of final approval.
7. Presence of a Governmental Participant
“The participation of a government agency serves to protect the interests of the class members, particularly absentees, and approval by the agency is an important factor for the court's consideration.” Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 1977). Here, the County and SBCSD are government agencies, and as such, their participation and consent to the terms of injunctive relief weigh in favor of approving the settlement.
8. Opposition of Class Members
The existence of overwhelming support for a settlement agreement by the class lends weight to a finding that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. at 529 (“It is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.”).
Here, the record supports that class members have a positive reaction to the proposed settlement. JND has approved and received 165 Claim Forms. (Keough Decl. ¶ 21.) As of the date of the declaration, the settlement administrator had not received any opt-out requests nor any objections to the settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19.) Assuming this trend continues, this indicates that the classes approve of the settlement. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of final approval.

/// /// /// ///

Page 14 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:1559

D. Settlement Administration Costs
Plaintiffs seek $40,000 in settlement administration costs, the same amount that this Court preliminarily approved as part of the Settlement Agreement. (MFA at 4; Preliminary Approval Order at 6.) The Court approves $40,000 in administration costs.
E. Incentive Awards
The trial court has discretion to award incentives to the class representatives. See In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 463 (9th Cir. 2000); Pelletz, 592 F. Supp. 2d at 1329. The criteria courts have used in considering the propriety and amount of an incentive award include: (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing a class action, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort invested by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit, or lack thereof, enjoyed by the class representative. Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
The settlement provides a slight benefit to the 15 Named Plaintiffs (ranging from $2000 to $5,500 in addition to their class member formula award, depending on the role and contribution of the class representative). (MFACS at 17.) Although there is a larger than normal number of class representatives, it is because Class Counsel determined there were several categories of class representatives necessary to represent class members in custody with standing to seek injunctive relief and class members not in custody who were not subject to PLRA restrictions. (Id.) Class Counsel also determined that they needed a larger than usual number of class representatives due to the variety of deprivations at which the Complaint was aimed (e.g., drug treatment, mental health treatment, education, work opportunities), for each of which it was important to have a class representative who personally experienced the deprivation. (Id.)
Here, the class representatives were (either at the time of the filing of the complaint or previously) in SBCSD custody. (Id. at 19.) Those who were in custody exposed themselves to risk of retaliation, and those not in custody were still at risk of re- arrest and retaliation. (Id.) All Named Plaintiffs put their names in the public arena. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel spent dozens of hours interviewing class representatives while they were in custody, increasing their potential risk and demonstrating their personal participation in the litigation. (Id.)
Class Counsel asserts the requested amounts are well within the range of court approved incentive payments in recognition of work done on behalf of the class and in consideration of the risk undertaken in bringing the action. (Id.) “An incentive award of $5,000 per class representative is in line with other awards approved in this circuit.” Weeks v. Kellogg Co., No. CV 09-08102 MMM RZX, 2013 WL 6531177, at *37 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013). See also In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming $5,000 incentive award even though the average class member received only $12); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 463 (approving a $5,000 incentive award for each class representative).

Page 15 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:1560

Given these Named Plaintiffs’ involvement in the case and their assumption of significant risk, the Court AWARDS the following incentive awards:

NAME Bryan Bagwell Frederick Crockan Pedro Guzman Michael Aka Madison Hatfield William Kennedy Sean Lint Anthony Oliver Nick Ou Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt Steven Aka Lynn Price Jonathan Robertson Illich Vargas Tim Walker Taheash White
TOTAL

INCENTIVE AWARD9 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $5,000 $2,000
$55,500.00

V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Class counsel seeks $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in a separate motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(h), which provide reasonable attorneys’ fees for prevailing plaintiffs. (MFACS at 7.) This amount was independently negotiated with the assistance of a professional mediator and, in order to effectuate the settlement, substantially discounted below the amounts Plaintiffs would have sought in an attorneys’ fees motion. (Id.)
A. The Lodestar Approach is Appropriate
The lodestar approach is appropriate because this is a class action brought under feeshifting statutes where the primary relief sought is injunctive relief. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., at 941. The Ninth Circuit noted it has “repeatedly made it clear that the level of success achieved by a civil rights plaintiff should be measured by more than the amount of damages awarded.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 365 (9th Cir. 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997). In Morales, the damages verdict was itself “significant. . . [and] established a deterrent to the City, its law enforcement officials and others who establish and implement official policies.”

9 Christopher Crawford passed away and will no longer receive an incentive award. See supra Part II.C.

Page 16 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:1561

Here, Plaintiffs request $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees, which exceeds the class damages fund. In a case without an available statutory fee, this disparity would be inappropriate. However, in a case like this, it is common for statutory fees to exceed recovered damages, particularly where Plaintiffs obtained significant injunctive relief. Plaintiffs secured injunctive relief on a groundbreaking issue. The parties agree these statutory fees are appropriate. Like in Morales, the relief obtained through this settlement creates a deterrent for state agents has an effect on official policies. The value of this relief is difficult to measure but should not be underestimated given the critical implications for the injunctive class members and the potential for use as a model for other correctional facilities.
Given the nature of this case and the relief granted, this Court finds the lodestar method appropriate in this case.
B. The Requested Fees are Reasonable
Class counsel seeks $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees. (MFACS at 7.) This number was negotiated by the parties with the assistance of a professional mediator and represents a significantly discounted lodestar. (Id.)
District courts using the lodestar method to determine reasonable fees under § 1988 engage in a two-step process. First, courts “apply ... the ‘lodestar’ method to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee.” Costa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012); Morales 96 F.3d at 363; Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, “[t]he district court may then adjust [the lodestar] upward or downward based on a variety of factors.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). Statutory attorneys’ fees are not correlated to the size of recovery but instead look to the attorney’s reasonable hours and rates, as well as the public benefit conferred by the litigation. See City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 575 (1986).
1. Computation of the Lodestar
Under the lodestar method, the district court “multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Ballen, 466 F.3d at 746 (internal quotation marks omitted); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The product of this computation—the “lodestar figure”—is a “presumptively reasonable” fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Ballen, 466 F.3d at 746.
a. Reasonable Number of Hours
To calculate attorneys’ fees using the lodestar method, a court must determine the reasonable number of hours for which the prevailing party should be compensated. See, e.g., Fischer v. SJB–P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, a “reasonable” number of hours equals “[t]he number of hours ... [which] could reasonably have been billed to a private client.” Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111. The prevailing party has the burden of submitting

Page 17 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:1562

billing records to establish that the number of hours it has requested is reasonable. See In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, to determine whether attorneys for the prevailing party could have reasonably billed the hours they claim to their private clients, a district court should begin with the billing records the prevailing party has submitted. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013)
Here, Class Counsel provides billing records that were contemporaneously maintained which detail the time spent working on this case. ("Ex. C,” Dkt. No 87-3; “Ex. E,” Dkt. No. 881.) In their MFACS, Plaintiffs provide tables that include each timekeeper who worked on the case and the number of hours they worked. (MFACS at 13.) Billed hours were spent on activities such as extensive document review and analysis, interviewing class representatives and class members, and settlement negotiations. (Id. at 12). Plaintiffs note that negotiating the terms of injunctive relief was particularly time consuming and took several meetings with both the mediator and counsel. (Id.)
The Court has no reason to doubt the number of hours provided by Class Counsel. This is especially true given the substantial discount from Class Counsel’s lodestar total, as negotiated in the settlement. Further, the hours provided by Class Counsel do not account for work done for the MFACS and MAF, ongoing work with the Class Administrator and class members, and an appearance at the final approval hearing. (Id. at 14.) Given these reasons and the timeintensive nature of a settlement involving injunctive relief, this Court finds that Class Counsel billed a reasonable number of hours.
b. Reasonable Hourly Rate
Class Counsel asserts their requested hourly rates are reasonable for attorneys of their skill, experience, and reputation. California law entitles plaintiff attorneys to their requested rates if those rates are “within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable work.” Children’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. V. Bonta, 97 Cal. App. 4th, 740, 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Federal law similarly instructs that “requested rates [should be] in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan v. Multnomah Cty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987). In making this showing, “affidavits of the plaintiffs' attorney[s] and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008)(internal citations and marks omitted).
In calculating the lodestar, Plaintiffs may adjust for delay in payment. See, e.g., Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 282 (1989) (“an appropriate adjustment for delay in payment—whether by the application of current rather than historic hourly rates or otherwise—is within the contemplation of the statute [42 U.S.C. §1988]”); Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502–03 (9th Cir. 1997) (“the district court may choose to apply either the attorney's current rates to all hours billed or the attorney's historic rates plus interest”). Generally, for a “fee award to be reasonable, it must be based on current, rather than historic, hourly rates.” Charlebois v. Angels

Page 18 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:1563

Baseball LP, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1119 (C.D. Cal.2012) (citing Jenkins, 491 U.S. at 282) (lodestar award in settled class action).
To demonstrate the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s rates, Plaintiffs’ attorneys Barrett S. Litt (“Litt”) of Kaye, McClane, Bednarski and Litt (“KMBL”) and Amanda Goad of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (“ACLU SoCal”) have submitted declarations attesting to their experience litigating federal civil rights class actions and detailing their work on this case. (“Litt Declaration,” Dkt. No. 87; “Goad Declaration,” Dkt. No. 88.) Litt is licensed to practice law in the State of California, the U.S. District Courts in the Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, in the Ninth, Fourth, Fifth, Eleventh, and D.C. Courts of Appeal, and in the United States Supreme Court. (“Ex. B,” Dkt. No. 87-2.) Litt has been practicing for 45 years and has litigated an extensive list of complex civil rights cases, many of which have involved fee-shifting provisions. (Litt Decl. at 30) Litt asserts he bills an hourly rate of $1,150.00. (Id.)
In addition, Litt’s declaration provides information as to the experience and billing rates of Plaintiffs’ counsel David S. McLane (“McLane”), Lindsay Battles (“Battles”), and Ron Kaye (“Kaye”) of KMBL and Melissa Goodman (“Goodman”), Brendan M. Hamme (“Hamme”), Goad, Tasha Hill (“Hill”) and Aditi Fruitwala (“Fruitwala”) of ACLU SoCal. (Litt Decl. at 3045.) Litt further provides information regarding the rates of senior paralegal Julia White and junior paralegals Esteban Gil and Rene Arriaza of KMBL, as well as senior paralegal Duaba Gonzalez of ACLU SoCal. (Id.) Litt provides tables supporting the proposition that each member of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s rates fall within the range of rates for attorneys and paralegals of comparable experience by comparing Plaintiffs’ counsels’ rates with others working at prominent civil rights firms and organizations in the Central District of California within a close range of experience. (Id.)
The Court finds the range of rates provided by these tables adequately establishes billing rates for civil rights attorneys in the forum. The relevant portions of this table state that: attorneys practicing civil rights litigation with 26-49 years of experience bill adjusted lodestar rates of $887-$1230 per hour; attorneys practicing civil rights litigation with 23-33 years of experienced bill adjusted lodestar rates of $738-$1220 per hour; attorneys practicing civil rights litigation with 9-15 years of experience bill adjusted lodestar rates of $603-$855 per hour; and attorneys practicing civil rights litigation with 1-6 years of experience billed adjusted lodestar rates of $336-$671 per hour (Id. at 31-43). Litt further notes that fee-paying litigants bringing similars action would pay much higher commercial rates for attorneys of similar or less experience practicing civil rights litigation. (Id.)
Plaintiffs request the hourly rates for attorneys: $875 for McLane, who has 32 years of experience; $600 for Battle, who has 10 years of experience; $875 for Kaye, who has 30 years of experience; $715 for Goodman, who has 15 years of experience; $640 for Goad, who has 13 years of experience; $480 for Hamme, who has six years of experience; $390 for Hill, who has four years of experience; and $390 for Fruitwala, who has four years of experience. (Litt Decl. at 29.) Plaintiffs request the following rates for non-attorney timekeepers: $335 for Julia White, a senior

Page 19 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:1564

paralegal; $195 for Diana Gonzalez, a senior paralegal; $175 for Rene Arriaza, a junior paralegal; $225 for Sujata Awasthi, a law clerk; $225 for Evan Ettinghoff, a law clerk. (Id.)
The provided tables reflect that the hourly rates of Plaintiffs’ attorneys fall within the reasonable range for attorneys of their experience in this district. Further, the fact that counsel seeks a significantly discounted lodestar weighs in favor of finding that the provided rates are reasonable. Plaintiffs’ calculated lodestar total is $2,647,267.35. (Id.) They seek only the discounted amount of $1,100,000. (MFACS at 7.) Accordingly, this Court finds the rates, as reflected in Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable.
2. Adjustments to the Lodestar
After computing the lodestar figure, district courts may adjust that figure pursuant to a “variety of factors.” See Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111. “[T]he district court accounts for the following factors in the lodestar computation: ‘(1) the novelty and complexity of the issues, (2) the special skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality of representation, (4) the results obtained, and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement.’” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013)(citing Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)).
The Court has already provided an analysis for many of these factors above, including: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues; (2) counsel’s skill and experience; (4) the results obtained; and (5) the contingent nature of the fee arrangement. In those analyses, the Court found that all these factors weighed in favor of approving the settlement. The Court need not repeat this analysis and finds that these factors weigh in favor of approving Plaintiffs’ motion for award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court turns to the remaining factor.
Management of this case involved working with a large number of class representatives, working with two different subclasses, and managing both federal and state law claims. Counsel also compiled and analyzed data over four years. Plaintiffs conducted extensive document discovery. (MAF at 12.) Although Plaintiffs did not conduct depositions, there were several meetings with Defendants’ counsel to address issues regarding jail operations. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel inspected with an expert consultant WVDC premises where GBT and non-GBT inmates are housed, as well as the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center. (Id.) The parties further held several in-person settlement conferences through private mediation before the Hon. Carla Woehrle (Ret.). (Id. at 2.) The Court finds this factor weighs in favor of approval.
The aforementioned factors weigh in favor of approval. Notably, counsel achieved positive results and already stipulated to a substantially discounted lodestar during settlement. For the reasons stated above, the Court APPROVES Plaintiff’s request for $1,100,000 in attorneys’ fees.
///

Page 20 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:1565

C. Costs
Federal and state fee shifting statutes allow for reimbursement of litigation expenses that “are normally charged to a fee-paying client, in the course of providing legal services. Reasonable photocopying, paralegal expenses, and travel and telephone costs are thus recoverable pursuant to § 1988.” Thornberry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 676 F.2d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 461 U.S. 952 (1983).
Here, Plaintiffs request costs for travel, investigators, consultants, filing fees, photocopies, printing, scans, messenger services, telephone calls, postage, computerized legal research, and similar costs normally reimbursed by the client. See, e.g., In re Immune Responses Sec Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177-78 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Opinions of federal courts are applicable to determining allowable costs under California law. See, e.g., Bussey v. Affleck, 225 Cal. App. 3d, 1162, 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc. v. Mikesell, 69 Cal. App.4th 1141 (1999).
The Settlement Agreement provides for payments of costs up to $37,000, payable from the Class Fund. (Settlement Agreement ¶ 30.) Counsel now requests $36,304.49 in costs. (MAF at 21.) This Court has reviewed the provided itemized list of costs and finds they are appropriate. The Court therefore APPROVES the requested amount for costs.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court:
1. GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Injunctive Terms;
2. APPROVES payment of the ten late claims and any claims postmarked on or before February 11, 2019;
3. APPROVES Plaintiffs’ requests to deem Frederick Crockan, Joe Raymond Fierro, and Andrew Afoa to have filed a timely claim;
4. AWARDS Class Counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,100,000.00;
5. AWARDS Class Counsel costs in the amounts of $36,304.49 as provided in the Settlement Agreement;
6. AWARDS the following amounts to the Named Plaintiffs:
/// /// ///

Page 21 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 103 Filed 02/28/19 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:1566

NAME Bryan Bagwell Frederick Crockan Pedro Guzman Michael Aka Madison Hatfield William Kennedy Sean Lint Anthony Oliver Nick Ou Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt Steven Aka Lynn Price Jonathan Robertson Illich Vargas Tim Walker Taheash White
TOTAL

INCENTIVE AWARD $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 $5,500 $3,000 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $5,500 $5,000 $2,000
$55,500.00

7. ORDERS the payment of $37,500 to the claims administrator; and 8. DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

The Court ORDERS such judgment be entered.

Page 22 of 22

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 124 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1684

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAN MCKIBBEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHN MCMAHON, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP
ORDER APPROVING ADDITIONAL CLASS NOTICE AND AMENDED SETTLEMENT
[Filed concurrently with Stipulation For An Order Approving Additional Class Notice and Amended Settlement]
Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal

/// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
LA #4829-7170-1910 v1

-1 -

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER APPROVING
ADDITIONAL CLASS NOTICE

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 124 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1685

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation and finding good cause therefor, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the modified settlement

terms as outlined in paragraph 3 of the parties’ Stipulation.

2. The settlement payment date of May 7, 2019 is stayed pending

resolution of the issues raised by this stipulation.

3. By May 13, 2019, the parties shall provide the Court with both a

proposed notice to the supplemental class members and a proposed notice to the

existing claimants.

4. By May 13, 2019, the parties shall provide the supplemental class list

to the class administrator, JND.

5. By May 13, 2019, the parties shall prepare correspondence to be

posted on the class website advising the initial class members of the change in case

status and the delay in distributing the class proceeds. The order associated with

this notice will also be so posted.

6. Notice shall be mailed to the supplemental class members and to the

existing claimants no later than May 20, 2019.

7. The final day for supplemental class members or existing claimants to

object to any portion of the settlement agreement shall be July 19, 2019.

8. The final day for supplemental class members or existing claimants to

opt out of the settlement shall be July 19, 2019.

9. The final day for supplemental class members to file claims shall be

July 19, 2019.

10. The deadlines for the parties’ to reply to any opposition to the

settlement agreement filed by an existing or supplemental class member shall be

July 29, 2019.

11. The Amended [Proposed] Final Approval Order shall be filed with the

Court by July 29, 2019.

-2 -

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER APPROVING
ADDITIONAL CLASS NOTICE

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 124 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1686

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

12. The final approval hearing for the supplemental class members shall be held on August 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, which is located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. If there are no objections to the settlement, the hearing shall be vacated.
13. The effective date of the settlement for purposes of payments by the County shall be ten days after the date upon which a judgment entered by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Judgment will be deemed final only upon expiration of the time for a Damages Class member who files an objection to file a notice of appeal (30 days after entry of judgment) or, if a Notice of Appeal is filed by an objector, upon exhaustion of all appeals and petitions for writs of certiorari. If no Damages Class member files an objection, then the Judgment shall become final as of the entry of the Final Approval Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2019

Hon. Jesus G. Bernal United States District Judge

-3 -

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER APPROVING
ADDITIONAL CLASS NOTICE

 
 Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 134 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1737

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAN MCKIBBEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHN MCMAHON, et al.,
Defendants.
/// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER OF AMENDED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
[Filed concurrently with Stipulation For Final Approval Order of Amended Class Action Settlement]
Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal

-1-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER RE AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 134 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1738

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation For Final Approval Order of Amended Class Action Settlement and finding good cause therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Judgment entered by this Court on March 4, 2019 [Docket No. 102], which granted final approval of the class action settlement in this matter, shall remain the Judgment of this Court except as modified by the terms below.
2. The Court hereby grants final approval of the amended class action settlement in this matter, the terms of which the Court provided preliminary approval on May 10, 2019 [Docket No. 124].
3. Pursuant to the terms of the amended class action settlement, a. The amended settlement terms incorporate the 274 supplemental
class members into the settlement of the class action as follows. The claims of 34 supplemental class members are hereby approved.
b. The County (rather than the Class Fund) will pay JND for the cost of class administration that was incurred prior to the amended settlement, which amounted to $40,000.
c. The County will pay JND for the costs associated with administering the supplemental class and providing additional notice to the existing claimants.
d. The County will reimburse Plaintiffs’ counsel for $36,304.39 associated with the costs of mediation, a jail consultant, and a statistics consultant (rather than this amount being paid by the Class Fund).
4. The final approval hearing for the amended settlement, which had been scheduled for August 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., is hereby vacated because there were no objections to the settlement.
5. The effective date of the settlement for purposes of payment by the County shall be ten days after the date upon which a judgment by the Court approving the amended settlement becomes final. Because there were no

-2-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER RE AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL

Case 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP Document 134 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1739

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

objections to the amended settlement, the judgment shall become final as of the entry of the Final Approval Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

Hon. Jesus G. Bernal United States District Judge

-3-

CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02171-JGB-SP ORDER RE AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL

 
 ACCO,(SPx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division − Riverside)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14−cv−02171−JGB−SP

Dan McKibben et al v. John McMahon et al Assigned to: Judge Jesus G. Bernal Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Date Terminated: 02/28/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Dan McKibben individually

represented by Amanda C Goad ACLU of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90007 213 977 5218 Email: agoad@aclusocal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: blitt@kmbllaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aditi Fruitwala ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: afruitwala@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan M Hamme ACLU of Southern California 1851 East First Street Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714−450−3963 Email: BHamme@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S McLane Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: dmclane@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Battles Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670

Plaintiff
Pedro Guzman individually

Email: lbattles@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5288 Email: mgoodman@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: peliasberg@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: rok@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nick Ou individually
Plaintiff Sean Lint individually

Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address)

Plaintiff Timothy Walker individually
Plaintiff Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero individually

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt

Plaintiff
William Kennedy individually

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg

Plaintiff Jonathan Robertson individually
Plaintiff Steven Price individually also known as Lynn Price

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bryan Bagwell individually
Plaintiff Christopher Crawford individually

David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Frederick Crockan individually

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address)

Plaintiff Taheash White individually
Plaintiff Michael Hatfield individually also known as Madison Hatfield

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kevin Pratt individually also known as Veronica Pratt
Plaintiff

Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan McKibben as class representative
Plaintiff Pedro Guzman as class representative

represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nick Ou as class representative
Plaintiff Sean Lint as class representative

Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala

Plaintiff
Timothy Walker as class representative

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address)

Plaintiff Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero as class representative
Plaintiff William Kennedy as class representative

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jonathan Robertson as class representative
Plaintiff Steve Price as class representative also known as Lynn Price

Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Bryan Bagwell as class representative

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christopher Crawford as class representative
Plaintiff Frederick Crockan as class representative

Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane

Plaintiff Taheash White as class representative
Plaintiff Michael Hatfield as class representative also known as Madison Hatfield

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin Pratt as class representative also known as Veronica Pratt

Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda C Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aditi Fruitwala (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Oliver individually
Plaintiff Anthony Oliver as class representative

Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M Hamme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S McLane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa A Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Eliasberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald O Kaye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John McMahon Sheriff, individually
Defendant Greg Garland individually
Defendant Jeff Rose individually
Defendant

represented by Susan E Coleman Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071−2953 213−236−0600 Fax: 213−236−2700 Email: scoleman@bwslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071−2953 213−236−0600 Fax: 213−236−2700 Email: ckim@bwslaw.com TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071−2953 213−236−0600 Fax: 213−236−2700 Email: noyster@bwslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

James Mahan Sargeant individually
Defendant Armando Castillo Corporal, Individually Erroneously Sued As A Castillo
Defendant County of San Bernardino a government entity
Defendant San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department a California public entity
Defendant Does 1 through 10 Defendant John McMahon Sheriff in his official capacity

Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address)

Defendant Greg Garland in his official capacity
Defendant Jeff Rose in his official capacity
Defendant James Mahan Sargeant in his official capacity
Defendant Armando Castillo Corporal in his official capacity Erroneously Sued As A Castillo

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017
Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Coleman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Taewoo Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/16/2017

Nathan A Oyster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/22/2014
10/22/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014 10/22/2014
10/28/2014
10/28/2014 12/08/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−14654656 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs Christopher Crawford, William Kennedy, Pedro Guzman, Dan McKibben, Taheash White, Ilich Vargas, Nick Ou, Steven Price, Frederick Crockan, Michael Hatfield, Kevin Pratt, Jonathan Robertson, Sean Lint, Bryan Bagwell, Timothy Walker. (Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Bryan Bagwell(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Christopher Crawford(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Frederick Crockan(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Pedro Guzman(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Michael Hatfield(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party William Kennedy(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Sean Lint(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Dan McKibben(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Nick Ou(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Kevin Pratt(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Steven Price(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Jonathan Robertson(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Ilich Vargas(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Timothy Walker(pty:pla), Attorney Barrett S Litt added to party Taheash White(pty:pla))(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben, identifying All Named Defendants. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Jesus G. Bernal and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (vp) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (vp) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, 1 as to Defendants Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity), Castillas(Corporal individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (vp) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
8 PAPERLESS ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: The Court orders the party who filed the case−initiating documents in this action to deliver mandatory chambers copies to Judge Bernal's courtesy box located outside of Courtroom 1, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501 within 3 days of this order. See Local Rule 5−4.5; General Order No. 14.01(IV)(E). THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ima) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/28/2014)
9 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (ima) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant County of San Bernardino served on 11/26/2014, answer due 12/17/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Laura Welsh, Agent for Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/12/2014
12/15/2014

11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity) served on 11/26/2014, answer due 12/17/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Valerie Escobedo, Subpoena Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity) served on 11/26/2014, answer due 12/17/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Valerie Escobedo, Subpoena Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant Greg Garland(in his official capacity) served on 11/26/2014, answer due 12/17/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Valerie Escobedo, Subpoena Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity) served on 12/3/2014, answer due 12/24/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Valerie Escobedo, Subpoena Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative), upon Defendant Jeff Rose(in his official capacity) served on 11/26/2014, answer due 12/17/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Valerie Escobedo, Subpoena Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Susan E Coleman on behalf of Defendants Castillas, Castillas, County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland, Greg Garland, James Mahan, James Mahan, John McMahon, John McMahon, Jeff Rose, Jeff Rose, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Castillas(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Castillas(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party County of San Bernardino(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party John McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party John McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Susan E Coleman added to party San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department(pty:dft))(Coleman, Susan) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
17 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to County of San Bernardino answer now due 1/16/2015; Jeff Rose(in his official capacity) answer now due 1/16/2015; Greg Garland(individually) answer now due 1/16/2015; Jeff Rose(individually) answer now due 1/16/2015; John McMahon(Sheriff, individually) answer now due 1/16/2015; Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity) answer now due 1/16/2015; Castillas(Corporal individually) answer now due 1/16/2015; John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity) answer now due 1/16/2015; Greg Garland(in his official capacity) answer now due 1/16/2015; San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department answer now due 1/16/2015; James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity) answer now due 1/16/2015; James Mahan(Sargeant individually) answer now due 1/16/2015, filed by Defendants County of San Bernardino; Jeff Rose(in his official capacity); Greg Garland(individually); Jeff Rose(individually); John McMahon(Sheriff, individually); Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity); Castillas(Corporal individually); John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity); Greg Garland(in his official capacity); San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department; James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity); James Mahan(Sargeant

01/05/2015 01/14/2015 01/16/2015 01/20/2015 01/27/2015
01/28/2015
02/17/2015
02/20/2015

individually).(Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Castillas(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Castillas(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party County of San Bernardino(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party John McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party John McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Nathan A Oyster added to party San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department(pty:dft))(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
18 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), identifying County of San Bernardino. (Coleman, Susan) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
19 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, 1 , filed by All Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
20 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
21 ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FILING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 20 . The January 20, 2015 deadline to file the class certification motion is vacated. The parties shall submit a proposed schedule for such filing within 30 days from the date of this Order. If agreement cannot be reached, the parties shall submit a joint document setting out each sides proposals and the reasons therefore, after which the Court will set a schedule. (mrgo) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
22 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint and to set Schedule for Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Castillas(Corporal in his official capacity), Castillas(Corporal individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
23 ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal Re Stipulation 22 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following deadlines shall apply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss certain claims in the First Amended Complaint: 1. The last day for Defendants to file a Motion to Dismiss shall be February 17, 2015. 2. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion to Dismiss shall be due on March 2, 2015. 3. Defendants' reply brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be due on March 9, 2015. 4. The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shall be on March 23, 2015 at 9:00am. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
24 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually). Motion set for hearing on 3/23/2015 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
25 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/23/2015 03/02/2015 03/04/2015 03/09/2015 03/16/2015 04/01/2015
04/17/2015
05/07/2015 05/18/2015 05/20/2015 05/20/2015

26 ORDER RE DEADLINES FOR FILING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation to Reschedule 25 .( Responses due by 9/21/2015, Replies due by 10/5/2015. Motion set for hearing on 10/26/2015 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.)(Motion due by 8/31/2015.) (mrgo) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
27 Opposition In Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 24 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
28 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 10−15 days, filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben.. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
29 REPLY in support MOTION to Dismiss Case 24 filed by Defendants Armando Castillo, Armando Castillo, County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland, Greg Garland, James Mahan, James Mahan, John McMahon, John McMahon, Jeff Rose, Jeff Rose. (Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
30 SCHEDULING NOTICE: On the Court's own motion, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint 24 , is hereby continued to April 6, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wro) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/16/2015)
31 SCHEDULING NOTICE and Order by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. On the Court's own motion, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 24), is hereby continued to April 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/01/2015)
32 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) and (2) VACATING the April 20, 2015 Hearing by Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: 24 Motion to Dismiss Case. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Motion. The Court: 1) DENIES Defendants Motion as to Plaintiffs cause of action under the Bane Act; and 2) DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiffs cause of action for violation of California Government Code § 815.6. (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
33 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Lindsay Battles on behalf of Plaintiff Dan McKibben (Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Dan McKibben(pty:pla))(Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
34 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
35 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS STIPULATION FOR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: Stipulation for Leave 34 . (See document for specifics.) (iva) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
37 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Does, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department amending Amended Complaint/Petition 19 , filed by plaintiffs Michael Hatfield(as class representative), Bryan Bagwell(as class representative), Kevin Pratt(as class representative), William Kennedy(individually), Pedro Guzman(individually), Dan McKibben(individually), Sean Lint(as class representative), Ilich Vargas(as class representative), Michael Hatfield(individually), Jonathan Robertson(as class representative), Bryan Bagwell(individually), Christopher Crawford(individually), Pedro Guzman(as class representative), Taheash White(individually), Frederick Crockan(as class representative), Ilich Vargas(individually), Nick Ou(individually), Christopher Crawford(as class representative), Steven Price, William Kennedy(as class representative), Frederick Crockan(individually), Kevin Pratt(individually), Dan McKibben(as class representative), Jonathan Robertson(individually), Sean Lint(individually), Steve Price, Timothy Walker(as class representative), Taheash White(as class

06/11/2015
07/15/2015 07/16/2015 07/29/2015
07/29/2015

representative), Nick Ou(as class representative), Timothy Walker(individually) (Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Bryan Bagwell(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Bryan Bagwell(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Christopher Crawford(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Christopher Crawford(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Frederick Crockan(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Frederick Crockan(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Pedro Guzman(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Pedro Guzman(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Michael Hatfield(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Michael Hatfield(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party William Kennedy(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party William Kennedy(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Sean Lint(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Sean Lint(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Dan McKibben(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Nick Ou(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Nick Ou(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Kevin Pratt(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Kevin Pratt(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Steve Price(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Steven Price(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Jonathan Robertson(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Jonathan Robertson(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Ilich Vargas(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Ilich Vargas(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Timothy Walker(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Timothy Walker(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Taheash White(pty:pla), Attorney Lindsay Battles added to party Taheash White(pty:pla))(mrgo) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
36 ANSWER JURY DEMAND. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Class Action Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.(Oyster, Nathan) Modified on 6/11/2015 (mrgo). (Entered: 06/11/2015)
38 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
39 ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 38 . ( Motion due by 2/29/2016. Motion continued to 4/25/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.) (Opposition due by 3/21/2016, Reply due by 4/4/2016.) (iva) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
40 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
41 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim on behalf of Defendants Armando Castillo, Armando Castillo, County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland, Greg Garland, James Mahan, James Mahan, John McMahon, John McMahon, Jeff Rose, Jeff Rose, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Armando Castillo(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Armando Castillo(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party County of San Bernardino(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Greg Garland(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party James Mahan(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party John

08/05/2015 02/25/2016 02/25/2016 03/01/2016 03/28/2016
04/11/2016
06/15/2016 06/16/2016
07/01/2016 07/12/2016 01/06/2017 01/09/2017

McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party John McMahon(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party Jeff Rose(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher Taewoo Kim added to party San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department(pty:dft))(Kim, Christopher) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
42 PROTECTIVE ORDER approved by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym re Stipulation for Protective Order, 40 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
43 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
44 ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 43 . (Motion due by 9/19/2016; Opposition due by 10/24/2016; Reply due by 11/14/2016; Motion set for hearing on 12/5/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.) (iva) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
45 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Scheduling Conference set for 4/11/2016 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (mga) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
46 FIRST AMENDED JOINT REPORT of THE PARTIES FRCP 26(f) CONFERENCE filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Kevin Pratt, Steve Price, Steven Price, Jonathan Robertson, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Vargas, Ilich Vargas, Timothy Walker, Timothy Walker, Taheash White, Taheash White. (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
47 CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Amended Pleadings due by 6/27/2016. Discovery cut−off (last day to be heard) 11/14/2016. Dispositive Motions cut−off (last day to be heard) 2/13/2017. Last date to conduct settlement conference is 1/2/2017(leave to do private mediation or with the assigned Magistrate Judge). Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/27/2017 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Jury Trial set for 4/11/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (mga) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
48 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
49 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO AMEND LAST DATE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to Amend 48 . GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, based on the stipulation of the parties and the current April 11, 2016 scheduling order, it is hereby ordered that the last date to file a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is September 3, 2016. (iva) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
50 STIPULATION to Continue Class Certification and Scheduling Order Deadlines filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
51 ORDER RE STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES AND TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation to Continue 50 . (See document for specifics.) (iva) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
52 STIPULATION to Continue Trial from September 12, 2017 to December 12, 2017 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(individually). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To continue trial and related deadlines)(McLane, David) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
53 ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation to Continue 52 . (Discovery cut−off 7/28/2017. Motions due by 11/6/2017. Last date to conduct settlement conference is 8/11/2017. Final Pretrial Conference continued to 11/27/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Jury Trial continued to 12/12/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G.

04/24/2017 04/24/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/16/2017
10/16/2017
11/28/2017 11/28/2017 11/28/2017

Bernal.) (See document for further details.) (iva) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
54 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Trial and Related Dates filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
55 ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES AND TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal Re Stipulation 54 : (see document image for further details). IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
56 STIPULATION to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates from 03/20/18 to 12/04/18 filed by Defendant Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
57 ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation to Continue 56 . ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that the following deadlines and hearing dates shall becontinued to the respective dates listed in the New Date column: Discovery cut−off 7/9/2018. Motions hearing due by 9/17/2018. Final Pretrial Conference continued to 11/19/2018 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Jury Trial continued to 12/4/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (iva) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
58 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Nathan A Oyster counsel for Defendants Armando Castillo, Armando Castillo, County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland, Greg Garland, James Mahan, James Mahan, John McMahon, John McMahon, Jeff Rose, Jeff Rose, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. CHRISTOPHER TAEWOO KIM is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Sheriif John McMahon, Greg Garland, Jeff Rose, Sergeant James Mahan, A. Castillo and County of San Bernardino (also sued herein as San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
59 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Melissa A Goodman counsel for Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Kevin Pratt, Steve Price, Steven Price, Jonathan Robertson, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Timothy Walker, Taheash White, Taheash White. Adding Amanda C. Goad as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Melissa Goodman. (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
60 STIPULATION for Order Allowing The In−Custody Deposition of Plaintiff Ilich Vargas filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
61 STIPULATION for Order Allowing the In−Custody Deposition of Plaintiff Jonathan Robertson filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
62 STIPULATION for Order Allowing the In−Custody Deposition of Plaintiff Christopher Crawford filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff,

11/30/2017 11/30/2017 11/30/2017 12/29/2017
01/17/2018 01/29/2018
01/29/2018 03/29/2018
03/30/2018

individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
63 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ALLOWING THE IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
64 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ALLOWING THE IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF JONATHAN ROBERTSON (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
65 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ALLOWING THE IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ILICH VARGAS (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
66 NOTICE of Change of address by Lindsay Battles attorney for Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Steven Price, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Taheash White. Changing attorneys address to 975 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106. Filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Steven Price, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Taheash White. (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 12/29/2017)
67 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Melissa A Goodman counsel for Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Steve Price, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Taheash White. Adding Aditi Fruitwala as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Melissa Goodman. (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
68 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Class Certification Motion and Related Documents filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell(as class representative), Christopher Crawford(individually), Frederick Crockan(as class representative), Pedro Guzman(individually), Michael Hatfield(as class representative), William Kennedy(individually), Sean Lint(as class representative), Dan McKibben(individually), Nick Ou(individually), Kevin Pratt(as class representative), Steve Price, Jonathan Robertson(as class representative), Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero(as class representative), Timothy Walker(as class representative), Taheash White(individually). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
69 ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES AND TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File, 68 . (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS)(Discovery cut−off 8/27/2018. Final Pretrial Conference continued to 1/7/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Jury Trial continued to 1/22/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.) (iva) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
70 STIPULATION to Vacate Trial and Pretrial Deadlines Based on Conditional Settlement of Entire Action filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
71 ORDER VACATING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL DATES BASED ON CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal Re Stipulation 70 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The trial date and all pretrial deadlines in this matter are hereby vacated. 2. If Plaintiffs have not filed their unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary settlement approval by June 15, 2018, the parties shall

06/14/2018 06/14/2018 07/31/2018 08/02/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018
08/16/2018
08/21/2018

file a joint report on the status of the settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
72 STIPULATION to Continue Deadline for Preliminary Settlement Approval from June 15, 2018 to August 1, 2018 Re: Order, 71 filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
73 ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 72 by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The date for Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and unopposed motion for class certification is extended to August 1, 2018. (es) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
74 STIPULATION to Continue Deadline for Preliminary Settlement Approval from August 1, 2018 to August 15, 2018 filed by Defendants County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
75 ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation to Continue 74 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The date for Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and unopposed motion for class certification is extended from 8/1/18 to 8/15/18. (twdb) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
76 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Unopposed Hearing on Class Certification Matters filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
77 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). Motion set for hearing on 9/17/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Representative Declarations) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
78 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 77 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−Proposed Class Notice, # 2 Exhibit C−Claim Form, # 3 Exhibit D−Injunctive Relief Terms, # 4 Exhibit E−JND Class Administration Submission)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
79 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 77 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
80 DECLARATION of Melissa Goodman In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 77 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
81 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). Motion set for hearing on 9/17/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit B−Proposed Class Notice, # 3 Exhibit C−Claim Form, # 4 Exhibit D−Injunctive Relief Terms, # 5 Exhibit E−Class Administration Information, # 6 Proposed Order Preliminary Approval Order) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
82 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 81 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 77 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ad) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
83 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting Stipulation 76 Shortening Time for Hearing on Unopposed: 1) Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and, 2) Motion for Class Certification 77 81 . ( Motion hearing shortened 9/10/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.) (twdb) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

09/10/2018
09/21/2018 11/07/2018
11/07/2018
11/07/2018
01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 02/07/2019 02/07/2019 02/11/2019

84 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: GRANTING 77 Plaintiffs' Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class Action; GRANTING 81 Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. The Court thus ORDERS as follows: SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. The final approval hearing will be scheduled for February 11, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. (twdb) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
85 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (yl) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
86 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell(as class representative), Christopher Crawford(individually), Frederick Crockan(as class representative), Pedro Guzman(individually), Michael Hatfield(as class representative), William Kennedy(individually), Sean Lint(as class representative), Nick Ou(individually), Kevin Pratt(as class representative), Steve Price, Jonathan Robertson(as class representative), Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero(as class representative), Timothy Walker(as class representative), Taheash White(individually). Motion set for hearing on 2/11/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
87 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 86 filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Steve Price, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Taheash White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
88 DECLARATION of Amanda Goad In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 86 filed by Plaintiffs Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Pedro Guzman, Michael Hatfield, William Kennedy, Sean Lint, Dan McKibben, Nick Ou, Kevin Pratt, Steve Price, Jonathan Robertson, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, Timothy Walker, Taheash White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F)(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
89 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Late Filing filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
90 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). Motion set for hearing on 2/11/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit Injunctive Relief Agreement, # 3 Proposed Order) (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
91 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 90 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
92 DECLARATION of Jennifer Keough In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 90 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
93 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 89 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order Allowing for Later Filing of Motion for Final Approval. That Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval may be filed on January 18, 2019. (twdb) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
94 NOTICE Notification of Additional Late Claims and Request for Revisions to Final Approval Order filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
95 NOTICE Further Notice of Late Claim filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
101 MINUTES OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL CLASS SETTLEMENT (Doc. No. 90)MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (Doc. No. 86). Counsel make their appearances. The Court and counsel confer. The Court approves

02/14/2019 02/14/2019 02/22/2019 02/25/2019 02/28/2019
02/28/2019 03/04/2019 03/05/2019 03/20/2019 03/20/2019 04/05/2019 04/05/2019 04/09/2019
04/17/2019

the Class action settlement. A separate order will issue. Motion Hearing held before Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Court Reporter: Adele Frazier. (yl) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
96 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McLane, David) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
97 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 96 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order RE: Filing of Late Claim By Damian Liggins. (twdb) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
98 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing for Andrew Afoa filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McLane, David) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
99 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 98 EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: Filing of Late Claim by Andrew Afoa. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Andrew Afoa be deemed to have filed a timely claim. (twdb) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
102 JUDGMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Pursuant to the Order filed concurrently herewith, the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. Thus, the Court: GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Injunctive. AWARDS Class Counsel attorneys fees in the amount of $1,100,000. AWARDS Class Counsel costs in the amount of $36,304.49; ORDERS the payment of $37,500.00 to the claims administrator (SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS)Terms; (MD JS−6, Case Terminated) (yl) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
103 MINUTE ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. No. 86); and (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of ClassSettlement (Dkt. No. 90) (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal:(SEE MINUTES FOR FURTHER DETAILS) re: 90 . (yl) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
100 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing for Leobardo Olivares−Tapia filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (McLane, David) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
104 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Approval of Late Filing for Leobardo Olivares−Tapia 100 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Leobardo Olivares−Tapia be deemed to have filed a timely claim. (twdb) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
105 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing for Kelly Shelton filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
106 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: GRANTING 105 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order Re: Filing of Late Claim by Kelly Shelton. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kelly Shelton be deemed to have filed a timely claim. (twdb) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
107 APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing for Darren Gregory, David Lake, Allen Brewster, Jose Alfredo Aispuro filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
108 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 107 APPLICATION RE: Filing of Late Claims by Darren Gregory, David Lake, Allen Brewster, Jose Alfredo Aispuro. (twdb) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
109 STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Payment Date from April 13, 2019 to April 30, 2019 Re: Motion Related Document, 78 filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal, Individually), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant individually), John McMahon(Sheriff in his official capacity), Jeff Rose(individually), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
110 ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT PAYMENT DATE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Having reviewed the parties' Stipulation and finding good cause therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The deadline for Defendants to provide payment of any

04/18/2019 04/22/2019 04/25/2019 04/25/2019 04/25/2019 04/25/2019
04/26/2019
04/29/2019
04/30/2019
05/02/2019 05/06/2019
05/09/2019 05/09/2019

settlement proceeds, including attorneys fees, is hereby continued from April 13, 2019 to April 30 2019. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) 109 (yl) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
111 APPLICATION for Leave for In Camera Review filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
118 NOTICE of Change of address Changing address to 1050 Carl Griffin Drive Savannah Georgia 31405. Filed by non party Anthony Oliver (twdb) Modified on 5/1/2019 (twdb). Modified on 5/1/2019 (twdb). (Entered: 05/01/2019)
112 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 111 APPLICATION to File Under Seal and In Camera Ex Parte Application RE Class Representative Anthony Oliver. (twdb) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
113 EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document under seal filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben.(McLane, David) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
114 APPLICATION to file document Order Approving Application under seal filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben.(McLane, David) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
115 SEALED DOCUMENT Ex Parte Application, Declaration of David McLane, Exhibits A & B, Proof of Personal Service, Proposed Order re Leave For In Camera Review 112 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Affidavit Proof of Personal Service, # 5 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
116 Second STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Payment Date from April 30, 2019 to May 7, 2019 Re: Stipulation to Continue, 109 filed by Defendants County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
117 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting Stipulation to Continue Settlement Payment Date 116 . The deadline for Defendants to provide payment of any settlement proceeds, including attorneys fees, is hereby continued from April 30, 2019 to May 7, 2019. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
119 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal ORDERING Notice of change of address submitted by Anthony Oliver received on 4/22/19 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (twdb) Modified on 5/1/2019 (twdb). (Entered: 05/01/2019)
120 OPPOSITION for application for withdraw as counsel and for order regarding deduction filed by Plaintiff Anthony Oliver. (twdb) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
121 STIPULATION for Order Approving Additional Class Notice and Amended Settlement filed by Defendants County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
122 APPLICATION for Leave for In Camera Review filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(McLane, David) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
123 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ANTHONY OLIVER AND FOR ORDER REGARDING DEDUCTION FROM MR. OLIVER'S SETTLEMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: 113 . Plaintiffs' counsel may withdraw as counsel for class representative, Anthony Oliver; When settlement funds are dispersed, JND Legal Administration shall deduct $3,579.65 from Mr. Oliver's share of the settlement to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for a loan advance. (twdb) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/13/2019
05/14/2019 05/14/2019
05/15/2019 07/03/2019 07/10/2019 07/25/2019
07/29/2019 07/30/2019

124 ORDER APPROVING ADDITIONAL CLASS NOTICE AND AMENDED SETTLEMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal 121 . The Court grants preliminary approval of the modified settlement terms as outlined in paragraph 3 of the parties Stipulation. The final approval hearing for the supplemental class members shall be held on August 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
125 EX PARTE APPLICATION to CORRECT Order,, 123 filed by Plaintiff Dan McKibben(individually). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David McLane) (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
126 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION to CORRECT Order,, 123 125 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 7−19.1 Notice to other parties of ex parte application lacking. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ad) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
127 STIPULATION for Order Approving Class Notice to Supplement Class Members and Supplemental Notice to Existing Claimants filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(individually), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
128 CORRECTED ORDER RE EX PARTE REGARDING DEDUCTION FROM MR. OLIVER'S SETTLEMENT 125 by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Per Dkt. 123, Plaintiffs' counsel may withdraw as counsel for class representative, Anthony Oliver; (2) When settlement funds are dispersed, JND Legal Administration shall deduct $3,566.09 from Mr. Oliver's share of the settlement to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for a loan advance. (es) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
129 ORDER APPROVING CLASS NOTICE TO SUPPLEMENTAL CLASS MEMBERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE TO EXISTING CLAIMANTS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation 127 . SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
130 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, ORDERING Letter from Anthony Bowie Christopher RE: Disbursement of Settlement Proceeds, received on 6/27/19 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: No letters to the judge. (twdb) Modified on 7/11/2019 (twdb). (Entered: 07/11/2019)
131 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, ORDERING Letter submitted by Non party Anthony Bowie Christopher received on 7/1/19 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: No letters to the judge. (twdb) Modified on 7/12/2019 (twdb). (Entered: 07/12/2019)
133 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, ORDERING Letter/Motion for Order to use the Law Library submitted by Plaintiffs Anthony Oliver, Anthony Oliver received on 5/28/19 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: 1) Case closed 2/28/19; 2) LR 83−2.3.1. Whenever a party has appeared by an attorney, the party may not thereafter appear or act pro se, except upon order made by the court after notice to such attorney and to any other parties who have appeared in the action.. (twdb) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
132 STIPULATION for Settlement for Final Approval Order of Amended Class Action filed by Defendants Armando Castillo(Corporal in his official capacity), County of San Bernardino, Greg Garland(in his official capacity), James Mahan(Sargeant in his official capacity), John McMahon(Sheriff, individually), Jeff Rose(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Oyster, Nathan) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
134 FINAL APPROVAL ORDER OF AMENDED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation for Settlement 132 . The County will pay JND for cost of class administration which amounted to $40,000. The County will reimburse Plaintiffs' counsel for $36,304.39 associated with the costs of mediation, a jail consultant, and a statistics consultant. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER

08/27/2019 08/28/2019 08/29/2019 08/29/2019

INFORMATION. The final approval hearing for the amended settlement, which had been scheduled for August 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., is hereby vacated because there were no objections to the settlement. (twdb) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
135 APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing of Tommy Amaya filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
137 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting 135 EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: Filing of Late Claim Tommy Amaya. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tommy Amaya be deemed to have filed a timely claim. (twdb) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
136 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval for Late Filing of Claims of Jason Bissell and Mike Hawkins filed by Plaintiffs Dan McKibben(as class representative). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Battles, Lindsay) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
138 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION RE: FILING OF LATE CLAIMS FOR JASON BISSELL AND MIKE HAWKINS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal 136 . (twdb) (Entered: 08/30/2019)