fiLf:-t)

t 2

frer3 f qqf,l{,gg
i11;,n

i . X 1l., - , 1 1 0

3

3Y ",lIr'i.:

4

5

6

I

I

U N I T E DS T A T E $P I S T R I C ICTO U R T

I

E A $ T E R ND I $ T R I E TO F C A L I F O R N I A

x0

11 7 2 IROBERMTcGRATHe,t.al.

13

P l a i n t i,f f

1,4

VS.

1 5 INEVADCAOUNTY,et.aI.,

tr6

D e fe n d a n t s .

C A S EN O . C V - S - 8 9 .615 8 EJG-JFM
P R E L I M I N A IRNYJ U N O T I O N

\7

18

1 . T h e $ t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i aB o a r do f C o r r e c t i o n sh a s r a t e dt t r e

1 9 r;apacitiesof the NevadaCburrtyjail systenras follows:

f,l/|
AV

a . N e v a d aC o u n t yJ a i l : 6 3

2l

b. NevadaCountyDetentionFacility: 48

22

c. TruckeeHoldingFacility: 6

23

T h i s I n j u n c t i o ns h a l l p e r t a i na n d a p p l y t o t h e a b o v e f a c i l i t i e so n l y .

24

2. Beds in the hallwaysshall be removedno later tharrfive days

25 of the date of this injunction,

26

3 . T h e s h e r i f fs h a l l m a i n t a i nt h e a b o v e r a t e dc a p a c i t i e s .T h e

27

28

\t

4Ti

1 countshallbe doneno laterthan12:00p.m.of eachclay. Prisonersshall

2 be releasetdo meetthe raiedcapacitiecsommencinwgith non-violent

3 prisonersclosest to releasedate or pre-trialdetaineesheld for non-

4 v i o l e n tc r i m e s .

5

4. The populatioonf the NevadaCountyjailsshallnot exceectlhe

6 overallratedcapacityafterlthedate of this lnjunction.Everyinmate

I shallbe provideda bed in the appropriatcelassificationT. he jail rnay

I exceedthe ratedcapacityof individuaslectionsonly twicein any sevel

I day period.

10

5. Everysucharresteb shailbe processedpromptlyn, ormally

1 1 within2 hours. Inmatesmaybe herdfor no morethan4 hoursin the

12 holdingcellsexcept hatan inmatemaybe heldfor up to B hours

1S pendingsecuringof bail,avrlaitintgransporot ut of the jail or upon

1 4 expressconsentof the facilitycommandefror emergency

It5 c i r c u m s t a n c eosr o n - g o i n go r i m i n ailn v e s t i g a t i o n sR. e a s o n sf o r h o l d i r r q [ 6 over4 hoursmustbe documbnted.

ilT

6. Dentalcare shallde promptlyprovidedto all inrnatesincludirrg

[ 8 the repairof teethand the provisionor repairof cjenturews hen

[ 9 necessary.SuchnecessitSy hallbe basedon generallyacceptecdlental

PO practicesfor the communityand to allowinmatesto eat solidfood ancJ

'f}l maintaingood dentalhealth. The Sheriffshallprovidedentalservices

p2 in orderto avoidunnecessarpfainancJsufferingby the inmatesin the

.jail: The provisionof necesdardyentaland medicacl are shallnot be

discourageidn any manner"

7' T h e S h e r i f fw i l l n o t h o l d i n t h e j a i l s a n y w a r r a n l e s sa r r e s t e e 'whohas not beenprovidedr/vitha determinatiobneforea judge,

En

F/1iEi"Fi :."':":

#"::-

F-

I commissioneor judgepro tem of probableeausefor continued

oe. ,detentiown ithin36 hoursof arrest.

aa,

B. StephenA. Munkeltl,ocalcounseiln NevadaCourrtys,hallbe

4 p e r m i t t e du n l i m i t e du n a n n o u n c eadc c e s st o t h e j a i l f a c i l i t i e sl o a s s e s s

5 c o m p l i a n cwe i t h t h i s P r e l i m i n a rIyn j u n c t i o n .N o t i c ea n d a n o p p o r t u n i t y

6 to accompanhy im shallbe providedto CountyCounsel'os fficepriorto

7 any such visit. This visitationshall be perrnittecait such timesas will

E not unreasonabliynterferewith jail operationsor securityand the

I numberof suchvisitsshallbe a reasonablneumber.

t0

L Plaintiff'csounselshall be requiredto meet arrdconferuritlr

1 1 counselfor defendantsif the visitationreferredto in paragraph# I

n2 a b o v ed i s c l o s e sa n y v i o l a t i o no f t h i s P r e l i m i n a rIyn j u n c t i o np r i o rt o

1 3 bringingany actionfor enforcemenbteforetlris Court.

x4

10. As to the mattersset forth above,the partiesto this rnatter

x5 have agreedto waivetheir time for objectionand this Preliminary

1 6 l n j u n c t i o ns h a l lb e c o m ee f f e c t i v ei m r r r e d i a t eul yp o n t h e s i g n i n gl h e r e o f

1 7 by a Judgeof the UnitedStatesDistricCt ourt"

18

l9

I RECOMMENTD'HISORDER"

20

ttaarch/7 , 1990

2r

22

23

I TI SS OO R D E R E D .

24 s e e #

25

+4a,Fc,h^ , 1990

26

-U-LN-d=Th=rT-!'t''rDr -Sf\Tl A-T-L'E*1,',Dj bDtiISr,Tu:R,,,.N.a1T:e_-JUiIG-

27

3

28

"w'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EAFTERN Drsfnlct oF CALIFQHNrA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

R O B E R T] ! { c G R A T H ,e t a I . v,
IIEVADA COUNTY, et al.

)

) )

CIV-S- 89-] 658 EJG,/JFM

)

)

)

It the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in Lhe Offj-ce of the Clerk, U.s. District Court, Eastern District of California"

That on October 3. L990

, J Ferved a copy of the attached ORDF,R

by placllng said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinaftr:r

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S" Mail aL Sacramento. California" or by p-Lacing said copy into an inter-office deli'ar' r6^6r'r-ah1^ located in t-he

Clerk's Office.

SERVBD BY MAIL:

SERVED BY II{TER-OFFICE:

S T E P H E NA . M U N K E L T 107 Court Street Ndvada City, CA 95959
PAUL T. PERSO}IS lE34 Arroro Canyon Chico, CA 95928

EJG SS,/JFIt

RICHAF.DP. HERMAN 229 Mar|ne Avenue P.O, Box 328 Balboa Island, CA 92662

PAUL WAYNECOMTSKY 1909 6th Street Sacramento, CA 95814

James A. Curtis Brian A. Bishop Harold E. Decraw IUelanie K. Wellner Deputy County Counsel 950 Maidu Avenue P.O. Box 6L00 Nevada City, CA 95959-6100

TitrAcNm.,Cler]<

(-nn I arz

\.1

f)onlr|

rz

 
 FTLET}

\t l'
\
I i

IN THE UNITEq STATES DISTRICT COURT' FOR THE EASTERND I S T R I C T O F C A L I F O R N I A

RoBERT MCGRATH, €t dl., Plaintiff,

No. CTV 5-89-1658 GEB JFM P

VS.

THE COUNTVOF NEVADA, €t al '

Def endarits "

ORDER

._-)/ P l a i n t i f f , a s t ia t e p r l s o n e r p r o c e e c l i - n l t p r o s € , h a s f i l e c i t h i s c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n sI e e k i n g r e l i e f u n c l e r :4 2 U . S . C . S 1 9 8 3' T h e r n a t t e r w a s r e f e r r e d t ro a U n i t e d S t a t e s M a g . i . s t r a t e , I u d g e purs;uant to 28 U'S.C. S 636(b) (1) (B) and Locdl General-order No"

262. O n D e c e f t b e r 2 9 , 1 " g t 9 2 ,t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e f j - 1 e d f i n d i n g
ancl recommendatiohs herei .n w[ricfr were served on all parti.es and which cont-ained notice tor all parties that any obiections Lo the findinqs and recommendati-ons were to be f j.led within ten (10) days NeirLher party has filed objections to the Findings and
R e c r c m m e n d a t i - o n s'

1

%CI

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findinqs and recomrnenciations to be su;iported by the record and by the magist.rate judgeos analysis" Accordingly, IT TS HEREBY ORDERET) that :
- L" T h e F ' i n d i n g s a 4 d R e c o m m e n < l a ti r : n s f i l e d D e c e m h e r ? . 9 199'2, at:e adopted in ful1; arfld
J " D e f e n d a n t s r mn # i nr\ t o d i s m i s s t h i s a c r t . i o n , f i l e c i M a y 2 ' 7, L 9 9 2 , i s g r a n t e d ;
3 . D e f e n d a n t s t r e g ue st f o r s a n c t . i o n s i s d e r i i e d ; a n d 4 . T h i s a c t i o n i $ d -t,sr n i . s s e d
ir;\';'BP; FebrUary _-i__-_,1993

JFM; qri

fIN]TED STATES D]STRTCT JT]DGE

* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE # * 2:89-cv-01658

McGrath v.
Nevada

T,
iln

the
"-6r

.

un
ir,

d

elsi'gn
u.s:

€Dd ,i

s

t

here
rict

b{
e

certif
ourt''

y

E

a

that
ster

n

I am an Discrict

emPloYee in ttre Of fice of Cal.ifornia" 'recL coPY(ies) of

of

1e Paicl env tePbsit-ing
li-b;t- int6

eloPe sa'id
an in

L

e

r-

o

f

f

ic

e

Melanie KaLharine WeIIner

fuevaOa CounLY Counsel

P O Box 6100

950
N;;"

Mai
d,i

du
ci

t

Av
v,

e

nue
cA

e5e5e- 5loo

Dan Lrewis Stormer

Hadse,Il and Stormer

The 128

Marine North

Building !'air Oaks

Avenue

Suite 204

Pasadena, CA 91-103

Paul WaYne ComiskeY Prisc,ne? Rights Union P O Elox 101-9

2308 ,I SLreeL

Suite C sr"rur*"ttto,

cA 958L2- 1-019

Rich:rrd P Herman iiw Offices of Richard

P Herman

24O1"tZCaIIe de Ia PlaLa

Suit.t= 330

l,aguna Hills, CA 92653

#hgb"Wems

GHB SF CFIJFM

DepuLy CIe
,t-

MCGRATH v.
COUNTY OF NEVADA, et aI

JIIDGIIIENT II\[ A CIVIT, C"ASE
C . A S EN U M B E R TC I V S * 8 9 - 1 5 5 8 G E B J F M P
' ffiflfiI$ffiffi
nATr::,-,..:"l*P.-:",.r:i'fi:,ru,

f,;-

Decision bY the Court" before the Court. The

This issues

action came to have been tried

brial or heari'nql or heard and a

decision has been rendered'

I'f IS ORDEREDAND ADJUDGED TIIAT JIIDGI{ENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN ACCORDAT{CE WII'H THE COURT"S ORDERAE 2126/93"

ffiruYffiffitrffiffi
ENTERTID: February 25, 1993
0LF-RlKl ,\ lli;-iiliilTCl]lJFl{ EASE] liNUIS!'i;iiirtif CAt.iffiHNlA
DEFUTY CLEfrf{

Jack L. Wagner" Cler.'k of the Court

a" h
(r=,-..' i o $
U

f,or ehe '8asterrr Dj-sEtLcx of California
FebruarY 26' A993

McGrat.h
V"
Nevada

* * CERTTFTCATEOF SERVTCE * * 2 : B 9- c v - 0 1 - 5 5 8

, h

the e Cl

urlders erk, U.

:ig S:

ned, Dis

t

here .ii"i

b

y to

certif urt,

y E

i

s

t t

h e

aL rn

DI

i

** st

r

i

an ct

employee in the of California"

Office

of

haL on Febrruary 26, 1993, I

ir*-"ii" Oares il;i;p;

oh;a; sea L
in

b y'p-lpaei irnsgo n i ss) o"L.h'e
r,he u'.s. Mait,

aid he of

r

elive?y recept,acle located in

S ERVEDa copy(ies) eiiritter by placin

Lrue and correct,.copy(ies) of

l- i

isot

e

a"

l

-

p

obqyt

,

agggeppoagiidt i

en ng

velop said

e

g_said gobv(ibs) into an inLe

tfre C1erk's office'

r

-

o

f

f j.ee

Melanie Kat,harine Wellner

illevada CounLy Counsel

F O Box 6100

950 Maidu Avenue Nevada Cit,yn CA

95959- 61-00

Dan Lrewis Stormer Hadsell and SLormer The iltarine Building x-28 NlorLh Fair Oaks Avenue Suiter 204 Pasadlena, CA 9L1-03

Paul Wayne Comiskey

Prisoner RighEs Union

P O Etox 1019

2308 iI Street

SuiLel C Sacrement,o, CA

9581-2- 1-01-9

Richarrd P Herman Law Offices of Richard P Herman 24jttl. Calle de Ia Plat.a Suit,el 330 Laguna Hillso CA 92553

PmibtruAryPssl*

GEB SF cF/,JFM Judgment File

Coiurt da CL

#greec EY, CA

9s959

rTack L. Waginer' Clerk BY:
DeputY

 
 Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 1 of 7
PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS, APPEAL, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:89−cv−01658−GEB −JFM

(PC) McGrath, et al v. Nevada, et al Assigned to: Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds Demand: $0 Case in other court: 94−15692 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff Robert McGrath
Plaintiff Robert Goetcha

Date Filed: 12/04/1989 Date Terminated: 02/26/1993 Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Dan Lewis Stormer Hadsell and Stormer The Marine Building 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Wayne Comiskey Prisoner Rights Union 900 G Street Suite 302 Sacramento, CA 95814−1019 916−442−6868 Email: paulcomiskey@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Turner Persons Law Offices of Paul T Persons 1834 Arroyo Canyon Chico, CA 95928 916−893−4710 Email: ptpersons@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard P Herman Prisoner Rights Union PO Box 4108 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 949−494−9411 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Alan Munkelt Law Office Of Stephen A. Munkelt 206 Providence Mine Road, Suite 218 Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 265−8508 x12 Fax: (530) 265−0881 Email: smunk@gv.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 2 of 7

Dan Lewis Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Wayne Comiskey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Turner Persons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard P Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Alan Munkelt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael May

represented by Dan Lewis Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Wayne Comiskey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Turner Persons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard P Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Alan Munkelt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Nevada County

represented by Brian A Bishop Nevada County Counsel Eric Rood Administration Center P O Box 6100 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959−6100 530−265−1319 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 3 of 7

Defendant Bill Heafey

Harold E DeGraw Nevada County Counsel Eric Rood Administration Center P O Box 6100 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959−6100 530−265−1319 Fax: 15302651505 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Curtis Shine Compton, APC 131 South Auburn Street Suite 203 Grass Valley, CA 95945 530−272−2686 Fax: 530−272−5570 Email: jcurtis@nccn.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melanie Katharine Wellner Nevada County Counsel Eric Rood Administration Center P O Box 6100 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959−6100 530−265−1319 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian A Bishop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold E DeGraw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Curtis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melanie Katharine Wellner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/03/1990

# Docket Text
19 ORDER by Judge Edward J. Garcia for preliminary injunction re: capacities of the Nevada County jail system, Stephen A Munkelt, local counsel in Nevada County shall be permitted unlimited unannounced access to the jail facilities to assess compliance with this Preliminary Injunction (see order for details) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/05/1990)

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 4 of 7

12/06/1990 01/10/1991 01/30/1991 01/30/1991 01/31/1991 02/27/1991
11/21/1991 12/02/1991
12/04/1991
12/06/1991 12/09/1991 12/13/1991 01/27/1992 02/03/1992 03/13/1992
04/01/1992 04/28/1992
04/28/1992 04/30/1992 05/18/1992
05/27/1992

20 RESPONSE by defendant County of Nevada to request to permit entry (old) (Entered: 12/11/1990)
21 ORDER by Chief Judge Robert E. Coyle reassigning case to the Honorable William B. Shubb. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)
22 MOTION by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May to compel set for 2/28/91 @ 9:00 (old) (Entered: 01/30/1991)
23 NOTICE 251 − discovery disagreement, copy to all parties. (old) (Entered: 01/30/1991)
24 NOTICE by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May of change of firm name of attorney (old) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
25 LETTER to court from plaintiff confirming phone call to remove Motion to Compell Further Discovery set for 2/28/91 be taken off calender. Also, that a settlement conference has been set for 3/22/91. (old) (Entered: 02/28/1991)
LODGED Substitution of attorneys (old) Modified on 12/02/1991 (Entered: 11/22/1991)
26 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds GRANTING lodged substitution of attorney, substituting Dan Lewis Stormer as attorney of record (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/02/1991)
27 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE by Magistrate John F Moulds ORDERING: Status Conference SET for 1/23/92 at 9:00am in ctrm 6 before Magistrate Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/04/1991)
28 ORDER ; Scheduling conf continued to 1/30/92 @ 9:00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/06/1991)
29 MAIL Returned Order granting substitution of atty [26−1] addressed to plaintiff atty Paul Comiskey; reserved 12/10/91 (old) (Entered: 12/10/1991)
30 MAIL Returned addressed to Paul W Comiskey marked return to sender, does nt work here. (old) (Entered: 12/13/1991)
LODGED: stipulation and order to continue status conference (old) (Entered: 01/27/1992)
31 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds : ; Scheduling conf continued to 4/30/92 @ 9:00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/03/1992)
32 ORDER by Chief Judge Robert E. Coyle Case reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell ; plaintiff to complete status form within 7 days, Magistrate Judge to remain the same (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/13/1992)
33 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May (old) (Entered: 04/01/1992)
34 STATUS CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May; conference set for 4/30/92 at 10:00 in courtroom 6 (old) (Entered: 04/28/1992)
35 STATUS REPORT by defendant County Of Nevada, defendant Bill Heafey; conference set for 4/30/92 at 9:00 before JFM (old) (Entered: 04/29/1992)
36 MINUTES of status conference; defendants to file written motion to dismiss within 30 days (old) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
37 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds status conference held ; the defendant's motion to dismiss shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this hearing (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/18/1992)
38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendants County Of Nevada, Bill Heafey to dismiss before Magistrate John F Moulds and request for atty fees; hrg 7/23/92 9:00 ; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES and DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF (old) (Entered: 05/29/1992)

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 5 of 7

06/05/1992 06/16/1992 07/06/1992 07/13/1992 07/23/1992
08/12/1992 08/21/1992
08/24/1992 08/25/1992 12/29/1992
01/20/1993 02/26/1993 02/26/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993 03/05/1993

39 NOTICE by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May of change of address (old) (Entered: 06/08/1992)
40 REVISED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May to compel discovery for entry to observe the operations of the Nevada County Jail set for 8/13/92 at 9:00 before JFM (old) (Entered: 06/17/1992)
41 RESPONSE by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May to motion to dismiss before Magistrate John F Moulds and request for atty fees; hrg 7/23/92 9:00 [38−1] (old) (Entered: 07/07/1992)
42 REPLY by defendant County Of Nevada, defendant Bill Heafey to response to motion to compel discovery for entry to observe the operations of the Nevada County Jail set for 8/13/92 at 9:00 before JFM [40−1] (old) (Entered: 07/15/1992)
43 MINUTES of Motion Hearing setting hearing on motion to compel discovery for entry to observe the operations of the Nevada County Jail set for 8/13/92 at 9:00 before JFM [40−1] 9:00 8/27/92, that the motion to dismiss before Magistrate John F Moulds and request for atty fees; hrg 7/23/92 9:00 [38−1] is submitted; defense submits with request for increase of sanctions to $4300. to incorporate cost of preparing response; plaintiff arguments; defense rebuttal; plaintiff response; defendant response; matter submitted; counsel to consult local rules regarding filing of response; 251 stipulation to proceed today (old) (Entered: 07/23/1992)
44 OPPOSITION by defendant County Of Nevada, defendant Bill Heafey to motion to compel discovery for entry to observe the operations of the Nevada County Jail set for 8/13/92 at 9:00 before JFM [40−1] (old) (Entered: 08/12/1992)
45 ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds SETTING hearing on motion to compel discovery for entry to observe the operations of the Nevada County Jail set for 8/13/92 at before JFM [40−1] 9:00 8/27/92; Findings and Recommendations concerning defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motions for sanctions shall issue under seperate cover (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/21/1992)
47 DECLARATION of Paul W Cominsky to Local Rule 251 d (old) (Entered: 08/25/1992)
46 ORDER by Judge Garland E Burrell ORDERING that this action is CERTIFIED as a CLASS ACTION consisting of all prisoners in the Nevada County Jail and Nevada County Detention Center from 12/1/89 to date and all present and future prisoners (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/25/1992)
48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds RECOMMENDING: dfts' motion to dismiss [38−1] be GRANTED; dfts' request for sanctions be DENIED; and this action be DISMISSED; any party may object w/i 10 days after service; any reply w/i 10 days after service of objections (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/29/1992)
49 NOTICE by co−counsel for pltfs of change of address TO: Richard P Herman, 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330, Laguna Hills, CA 92653; phone: (714)768−3601 (old) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
50 ORDER by Judge Garland E Burrell ADOPTING report &recommendation [48−1]; ORDERING: dfts' motion to dismiss [38−1] GRANTED; dfts' request for sanctions DENIED; case DISMISSED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
51 JUDGMENT: by Judge Garland E Burrell entered according to the court's order filed 2/26/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/26/1993)
52 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by pltfs for attorney fees, costs and expenses set 4/8/93 at 10:00 before JFM (old) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
53 MEMORANDUM by pltfs in SUPPORT of motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] (old) Modified on 03/08/1993 (Entered: 03/08/1993)
54 EXHIBITS by pltfs in SUPPORT of motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses [52−1] (old) (Entered: 03/08/1993)

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 6 of 7

03/08/1993 03/24/1993 04/01/1993 04/02/1993 04/13/1993 04/13/1993 04/22/1993 04/22/1993 09/03/1993 12/20/1993 12/20/1993 12/20/1993 01/10/1994 01/18/1994
02/01/1994
02/10/1994 02/17/1994 02/18/1994 02/18/1994 03/09/1994

55 DECLARATION of Paul Comiskey in SUPPORT of motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] (old) (Entered: 03/09/1993)
LODGED stipulation and order continuing hearing on motion for an award of attorney's fees (old) (Entered: 03/24/1993)
56 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate John F Moulds setting hearing on motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] 10:00 4/22/93 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/01/1993)
57 MEMORANDUM by defendant Bill Heafey, defendant County Of Nevada in opposition to motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] (old) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
58 REPLY MEMORANDUM by pltfs in SUPPORT of motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] (old) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
59 EXHIBITS in SUPPORT of pltfs' reply memorandum [58−1] (old) (Entered: 04/15/1993)
60 NOTICE by Richard P Herman, co−counsel for pltfs, of change of address TO: Richard P Herman, 301 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651; phone: (714) 494−1404 (old) (Entered: 04/22/1993)
61 MINUTES of motion for attorneys fees before Magistrate John F Moulds: pltf's arguments; dft's arguments; pltf's rebuttal; pltf's motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] SUBMITTED; court to prepare order (old) (Entered: 04/23/1993)
62 REQUEST for Judicial notice by plaintiff Michael May, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Robert McGrath (old) (Entered: 09/08/1993)
63 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to vacate the Magistrate by Plaintiffs Michael May, Robert Goetcha, Robert McGrath motion to be heard on 1/18/94 at 9:00am by Judge Garland E Burrell (kb) (Entered: 12/21/1993)
64 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Michael May, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Robert McGrath in support of motion to vacate the Magistrate by Plaintiffs Michael May, Robert Goetcha, Robert McGrath [63−1] (kb) (Entered: 12/21/1993)
LODGED Proposed Order by Plaintiffs (kb) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
LODGED stipulation and order continuing hearing on motion to vacate the magistrate (old) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
65 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Garland E Burrell ORDERING: hearing on motion to vacated the Magistrate is CONTINUED to 1/31/94 at 9:00am in Courtroom 6 before Judge Garland E Burrell (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
66 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds recommending plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] be GRANTED; Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $38,061.00 and reasonable expenses in the amount of 2,518.59 for a total award of $40,579.59 ; objections are due within 10 days after being served (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 02/01/1994)
67 OBJECTIONS by defendants County Of Nevada and Bill Heafey to Findings and Recommendation [66−1] (kb) (Entered: 02/14/1994)
68 WITHDRAWAL by plaintiffs of motion to vacate the Magistrate by Plaintiffs Michael May, Robert Goetcha, Robert McGrath [63−1] (kb) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
69 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations [67−1] (kb) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
70 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS in support of reply to defendants objections [69−1] (kb) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
71 LODGED Document Proposed order from plaintiffs not to be signed (kb) (Entered: 03/09/1994)

Case: 2:89-cv-01658-GEB -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:55 AM PDT 7 of 7

03/17/1994 03/22/1994
04/15/1994
04/18/1994 04/29/1994 04/29/1994 04/29/1994 05/11/1994 05/19/1994 06/09/1994 06/09/1994 06/09/1994 06/09/1994 06/09/1994 09/26/1994 10/26/1995 11/22/1995 11/30/1995
12/08/1995

72 RESPONSE (titled Catch 22) by plaintiff Robert McGrath, plaintiff Robert Goetcha, plaintiff Michael May to [66−1] (old) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
73 ORDER by Judge Garland E Burrell ORDERING: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds recommending plaintiffs' motion attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] be granted; and plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $38,061.00 and reasonable expenses in the amount of 2,518.59 for a total award of $40,579.59 [66−1] is ADOPTED IN FULL, plaintiffs motion for attorney fees, costs and expenses [52−1] is GRANTED; plaintiffs are awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $38,061.00 and reasonable expenses in the amount of $2,518.59 for a total award of $40,579.59 (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 03/22/1994)
74 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants County Of Nevada and Bill Heafey from Dist Court decision [73−1] and notice of designation of transcript of proceedings on 2/22/90, 4/30/92, 7/23/92, 4/22/93 ( fee status: not paid) (kb) Modified on 04/18/1994 (Entered: 04/18/1994)
75 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (kb) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
76 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 94−15692 (kb) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
77 NOTICE by Ninth Circut of time schedule (kb) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
78 RETURNED Receipt from Nith Circuit of receipt of Clerk's and Reporter's Transcript(s) (kb) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
79 RECEIPT #158321 for $105 for appeal fee (kb) (Entered: 05/13/1994)
80 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 2/22/90, 4/30/92, 7/23/92, 4/22/93 (kb) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
81 CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
82 TRANSCRIPT of 2/22/90 Status conference and pltf's motion for preliminary injunction (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
83 TRANSCRIPT of 4/30/92 Status report (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
84 TRANSCRIPT of 7/23/92 Defendants' motion to dismiss (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
85 TRANSCRIPT of 4/22/93 pltfs' motion for costs and attorney fees (old) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
86 CLERK'S record on appeal transmitted to 9th Circuit original case file volumes 2; transcripts 4 and copy of docket mailed to 9th Circuit regarding appeal [74−1] (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
87 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order AFFIRMING in part the decision of the District Court and Attorney's Fee Award VACATED AND REMANDED [74−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/26/1995)
LODGED Stipulation &Order for attorneys fees by defendant (old) (Entered: 11/28/1995)
88 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Garland E Burrell; Pltf's counsel agrees to settle all outstanding fee and cost issues remaining in this action in the amount of $35,000 as full and complete settlement (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
89 RECORD on appeal returned from 9th Circuit volumes 2 transcripts 4 (old) (Entered: 12/15/1995)

 
 67 F.3d 248 (1995)
Robert McGRATH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
COUNTY OF NEVADA; and Bill Heafey, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94-15692.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 12, 1994[*]. Decided October 3, 1995.
24590 *249 *250 Lawrence T. Woodlock, Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer, Sacramento, California, for defendantsappellants.
Richard P. Herman, Laguna Hills, California, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before: CHOY, BEEZER, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
CHOY, Circuit Judge:
Defendants Nevada County and Nevada County Sheriff, Bill Heafey (collectively "the County"), appeal the district court's award to plaintiffs of $38,061 in attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Having jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court's award of costs to plaintiffs, but vacate and remand the attorney's fee award.
I.
In the underlying action filed on December 4, 1989, prisoners in California's Nevada County jails ("plaintiffs") brought a civil rights class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that conditions in the jails violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs broadly alleged that the jails were overcrowded and that prisoners in the jails had been deprived of the following essentials: beds, seating at meals, clothing, medical, dental, and mental health care, safety, access to attorneys, reasonable visitation, prompt determination of probable cause for detention, and prompt bail determinations. The County concedes that the Nevada County Jail was overcrowded and that it had installed three triple bunk beds in the jail hallways to accommodate the surplus of prisoners. Declarations filed with the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction demonstrate that prisoners were sleeping and eating on the floor in Nevada County's main jail, the Nevada County Jail.
At the time the plaintiffs' lawsuit was filed, Nevada County had plans in place for the construction of a new and larger jail facility. However, as the County had reported to the district court, the new facility was not expected to be ready for two years. Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, No. CV-S-89-1658 GEB J at 8 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 1990) (Preliminary injunction hearing). This prediction proved to be accurate; Nevada County prisoners were not 251 transferred to the new *251 facility until March of 1992, over two years after this action commenced.
In October of 1990, plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction, which remedied some of the issues raised in the complaint. The County had opposed plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and submitted its own proposed injunction. After the parties argued the motion before Magistrate Judge John Moulds on February 22, 1990, the parties agreed to a stipulated injunction which they submitted to Judge Moulds on March 6, 1990.[1] Judge Moulds slightly modified the injunction and recommended it to the district court on March 17, 1990. The district court then filed the injunction on October 31, 1990. The injunction imposed a strict population cap on the County jails and required the County to remove all beds from the hallways of the jails, to provide each prisoner with a bed in his or her appropriate classification, to provide dental care according to accepted dental practices for the

community, and to provide prompt judicial probable cause hearings. The injunction also required the County to permit plaintiffs' counsel unlimited and unannounced access for the purpose of monitoring compliance.
Plaintiffs' counsel contend that after the preliminary injunction became effective on October 31, 1990, they monitored the County's compliance with the injunction, sought to achieve a permanent injunction, and sought to expand the injunction to address issues not addressed in the preliminary injunction. Two status conferences took place and plaintiffs attempted some discovery. When the prisoners in Nevada County jails were moved to the new facility in March of 1992, the County requested several times that plaintiffs' counsel dismiss voluntarily the case. Taking the position that several issues raised in the complaint remained unresolved and carried over to the new facility, such as inadequate medical and dental care, plaintiffs did not wish to dismiss voluntarily their complaint. Thus, on May 27, 1992, the County moved to dismiss plaintiffs' action. On December 29, 1992, Judge Moulds recommended dismissing the case on the ground that the new facility mooted plaintiffs' claims, and the district court adopted this recommendation on February 26, 1993.
Following the dismissal, plaintiffs filed a motion for $80,434 in attorney's fees and $2,698 in expenses pursuant to § 1988. This figure represents 277.7 hours of work. Plaintiffs sought San Francisco Bay Area rates of $325 per hour for Richard Herman, Paul Persons, and Paul Comiskey and $150 per hour for local counsel, Steven Munkelt. Included in this request are 20 hours allegedly billed by Herman in pursuing the attorney fee application. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that they litigated this action in a cost-effective manner and that the factors set forth in this circuit's precedent support an award of full fees. In support of their fee request, plaintiffs submitted affidavits from Herman, Persons, and Munkelt, setting forth their experience and background and submitted time and billing records from all four attorneys.
In opposition, the County contended that the plaintiff class is not a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees, and that, even if it were, plaintiffs' counsel are not entitled to any attorney's fees because the litigation was unnecessary. In the alternative, the County argued that any award of fees must be limited to work performed prior to the preliminary injunction[2] and that the number of hours claimed should be reduced.
252 *252 Judge Moulds, who had presided over the case since its inception, found that plaintiffs were the "prevailing party" and recommended granting in part plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees. Judge Moulds found that the preliminary injunction remedied overcrowded conditions at the Nevada County Jails. However, he concluded that once the preliminary injunction was in place, no further relief was obtained for plaintiffs. Accordingly, Judge Moulds recommended limiting the fee award to hours it found were reasonably spent prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction and in monitoring compliance with the preliminary injunction. It also appears that Judge Moulds recommended granting fees for the hours plaintiffs' counsel spent pursuing the attorney fee application. Judge Moulds recommended that plaintiffs' counsel be compensated for a total of 207.7 hours.
After the County filed objections to Judge Moulds' Findings and Recommendations and plaintiffs filed a response, the district court adopted the Findings and Recommendations. The County timely appealed from the fee award, arguing that the district court's opinion failed to explain adequately its conclusion that 207.7 hours were reasonably expended by plaintiffs' counsel in this case and that this number of hours was excessive.
II.
We review an attorney's fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for an abuse of discretion. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1992).
There is no dispute that plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee for their work in this case; the County has abandoned its argument, made below, that the plaintiff class is not the prevailing party within the meaning of § 1988(b). Nor does the County challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rate employed by the district court. The sole issue before us is whether the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs should be compensated for 207.7 hours of work.[3]
A district court has discretion to award "a reasonable attorney's fee" to the "prevailing party" in a § 1983 action. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the district court's first step is to calculate a

"lodestar" by multiplying the number of hours it finds the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The district court should exclude hours that were not "`reasonably expended.'" Id. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1939 (quoting S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976 at pp. 5908, 5913). In determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, the district court should take into account the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976), that it finds to be relevant.[4]D'Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 904 F.2d 1379, 1383, 1386 (9th Cir.1990).
The second step in the fee calculation is to assess whether the presumptively reasonable lodestar figure should 253 be adjusted on the basis of Kerr factors not already subsumed in the initial calculation. Id. at 1383. *253 The
application of this step is not at issue here.
Although § 1988(b) endows the district court with discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee, the Supreme Court has directed that "it remains important ... for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. If the district court fails to provide a clear indication of how it exercised its discretion, we will remand the fee award for the court to provide an explanation. D'Emanuele, 904 F.2d at 1385.
A. Was an Explanation Provided?
We begin with the County's claim that the district court abused its discretion by not giving any explanation for its conclusion that the number of hours it awarded were reasonably expended. This argument ignores the text of the district court's decision. In calculating the lodestar, the district court explicitly set forth reasons for its decision to reduce substantially plaintiffs' claimed hours from the proposed 277.7 hours to 207.7 hours. The district court reviewed plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees in light of the relevant Kerr factors, as we require. See, e.g., D'Emanuele, 904 F.2d at 1386. Relevant to determining the reasonableness of the hours counsel expended, the district court considered the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the results obtained by the litigation, and the time and labor required. See Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70.
Regarding the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the district court considered the fact that jail civil rights litigation requires special expertise and that plaintiffs' counsel are experts in the field. As to the results obtained, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs obtained "very substantial relief" by securing a preliminary injunction which alleviated overcrowding at the Nevada County jails, but that no further relief was obtained after the preliminary injunction was imposed. Accordingly, the district court held plaintiffs' counsel were properly compensable only for work reasonably expended in obtaining and monitoring the preliminary injunction. And, as for the time and labor required by the litigation, the district court noted that counsel filed several pleadings, attended four status conferences, filed a motion to compel, defended against a motion to dismiss, and filed a motion for fees. The district court concluded that the time plaintiffs spent litigating prevailing issues was reasonable:
While the parties make the usual claim regarding the time and labor expended 0907 plaintiffs maintain that they were understaffed throughout this litigation and defendants suggest plaintiffs were profligate 0907 the hours claimed by plaintiffs counsel are unreasonable only in that they include discrete issues on which plaintiffs did not prevail. The necessary reductions are made and described below.
McGrath v. County of Nevada, No. CIV S-89-1658 GEB P at 10 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 1994) ("Fee Award Recommendation"). This statement reveals, contrary to the County's assertion, that the district court considered and rejected the defendants' argument that the fees were excessive due to overstaffing or duplication of effort. Finally, the district court set forth the number of hours it was deducting from each attorney's claim and concluded that 207.7 hours "is a reasonable amount of time in view of the work involved and the results obtained for the plaintiff class." Id. at 11.

However, although the district court articulated reasons which generally explained its reasonableness determination for the hours spent prior to plaintiffs' fee application, it did not mention plaintiffs' request for compensation for 20 hours they asserted Herman spent in pursuing the fee application. Work performed on a motion for fees under § 1988(b) is compensable. Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 987, 992 (9th Cir.1986). The district court did not discuss this request. Thus, it is impossible for us to determine whether the request was considered, let alone whether it was granted or why. The failure to discuss the reasonableness of these 20 hours claimed was an abuse of discretion, requiring remand. See D'Emanuele, 904 F.2d at 1387-88 (holding that district 254 court abused its discretion when it failed to discuss the reasonableness of hours *254 claimed for work performed on an attorney's fee motion in an ERISA case). We note that, with the exception of 3.8 hours set forth in Herman's time record which appear relevant to the fee application, plaintiffs submitted no supporting documentation for their claim that 20 hours were actually spent in pursuing the attorney's fee motion. The district court may reduce the award where the hours claimed are not adequately documented. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940.
B. Was the Explanation Provided Adequate?
With the exception of hours that may have been awarded for pursuing the fee application, the district court provided reasons for its conclusion that 207.7 hours were reasonably expended in this litigation.[5] The significant question is whether the district court's articulation of its reasons is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. See Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1398.
The district court stated that, in light of the Kerr factors discussed above, it deducted hours spent by counsel after the entry of the preliminary injunction on non-monitoring activity. The court deducted 37 hours from Herman's claim, 12.1 hours from Persons' claim, 20.9 hours from Munkelt's claim, and no hours from Comiskey's claim.
We find that the district court insufficiently explained how it arrived at these figures. Our review of the evidence reveals that the district court's stated reasons for deducting these figures do not correspond to the amount of time deducted. Consequently, we cannot discern whether the district court appropriately exercised its discretion. See D'Emanuele, 904 F.2d at 1386 (remanding award of attorney's fees for inadequate explanation in part due to lack of correspondence between matters district court deemed noncompensable and the amount of time actually deducted by the district court); Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 485 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988) (rejecting the district court's reduction of hours on the basis of inadequate documentation where the court did not specify what portion of the hours claimed was documented), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 757, 107 L.Ed.2d 773 (1990).
The most obvious example of this lack of correspondence can be found in Munkelt's hours. The district court deducted 20.9 hours from Munkelt's claim, yet his time record indicates that only 6.9 of his reported hours were spent after the preliminary injunction was filed. This deduction is in tension with the district court's explanation that it was only deducting hours expended after the preliminary injunction became effective. We have no way of accounting for the discrepancy. This discrepancy alone is sufficient to require remand.
Another discrepancy not explained by the district court's reasoning lies in Comiskey's claim. The district court deducted no hours from Comiskey's claim. Yet, 8.2 of the total 20.3 hours Comiskey claimed are dedicated to defending against the County's motion to dismiss. Although we are generally in an inferior position to determine 255 which of plaintiffs' counsels' entries relate to "monitoring activity," it is clear to us that hours expended *255 in opposing the County's motion to dismiss cannot constitute work reasonably performed in monitoring the County's compliance with the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' opposition to dismissal had nothing to do with monitoring the preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction expressly pertained only to the Nevada County Jail, the Nevada County Detention Facility, and the Truckee Holding Facility. In March of 1992, all inmates in these facilities were transferred to the newly constructed jail. Although the plaintiffs argued that their claims were still valid because problems that existed in the old jails also existed in the new jail, the district court rejected this contention and found that the plaintiffs' claims were moot. It is also evident that work on the motion to dismiss was not work

performed in furtherance of a prevailing issue since the plaintiffs lost the motion. Yet, the district court stated it was disallowing hours spent on non-prevailing issues.
It is also unclear why the district court deducted only 12.1 hours from Persons' claim. Persons spent over 23 hours after the entry of the preliminary injunction on settlement discussions and on drafting a proposed consent decree. Unless the district court found that these activities were monitoring activities, which they do not appear to be, its proffered explanation does not account for the hours it deducted.
C. The Reasonableness of Plaintiffs' Claimed Hours.
The County further contends that the hours claimed by the plaintiffs are unreasonable and that the district court impermissibly failed to address questions it raised below regarding the accuracy and reasonableness of the plaintiffs' fee application. We will address these arguments in order to provide guidance on remand.
The County argues that the hours plaintiffs claim are unreasonable because their time records reveal inaccuracies and because the number of hours is excessive due to overstaffing, duplication of effort, and the inclusion of hours billed to other cases. As an initial matter, the trial court need not expressly rule on each of the County's objections. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1400 (holding "[t]he `concise but clear' explanation requirement ... does not demand that the court make findings as to each of defendants' specific objections to plaintiffs' billing judgment."). Moreover, the County bears the burden of providing specific evidence to challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir.1995); see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1545 n. 5, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984).
Regarding the County's challenge to the accuracy of the time records submitted by plaintiffs' counsel, the County did not meet its burden of challenging their accuracy below, and we are limited to reviewing the evidence presented to the district court. See Gomez, 60 F.3d at 535.
Next, as we noted above, the district court rejected the County's claims that the case was plagued by overstaffing and duplication of work. In light of the trial court's familiarity with the underlying litigation, we accord considerable deference to its findings regarding whether hours claimed by prevailing counsel are redundant. Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1544 (9th Cir.1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (1993). We have also recognized that "the participation of more than one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary duplication of effort." Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1435 n. 9 (9th Cir.1989). In its opposition to the fee motion, the County proposed subtracting 12.4 hours for communications between counsel, reducing by two-thirds the charges for jail inspections, and reducing by 20 hours the time charged for the preliminary injunction hearing. The County faults the district court for not agreeing with its proposed reductions, yet the County offered no evidence to support either the reductions or its claim that the hours originally charged were unnecessary. The County may not rely on conclusory challenges to plaintiffs' evidence. As we recently held in Gomez, the county "did not meet [its] ... rebuttal burden of providing specific evidence that plaintiffs' hours were 256 duplicative or inefficient." 60 *256 F.3d at 534. In its reply brief, the County argues that the district court should have compared the work invested in similar cases within the Eastern District of California to determine whether the hours billed were reasonable. It is the County's burden to submit evidence of this kind for the district court's consideration.
Finally, the County asserts that plaintiffs' time records impermissibly include time spent on other cases. For example, the County claimed before Judge Moulds that plaintiffs' counsel "double billed." The County concluded that because Herman and Persons billed court appearances to two different cases on the same day, they must have double billed. There appears to be little merit to this contention, for, in response, the plaintiffs demonstrated that although Herman and Persons attended two hearings on the same day in Sacramento, they billed their time separately to each client. Plaintiffs submitted time sheets to buttress this position. The County also points to time billed relating to habeas corpus petitions of Nevada County prisoners. On remand, the district court should consider whether these hours were reasonably related to this litigation or whether they should be excluded.

III.
Because we conclude that the district court did not articulate adequately its reasons for concluding that plaintiffs' counsel reasonably expended 207.7 hours in this litigation, we vacate the attorney's fee award and remand for the district court to calculate a reasonable attorney's fee consistent with this disposition. The district court's award of costs to plaintiffs is affirmed, as the County has not challenged the award. The parties shall bear their own costs on this appeal. As appellees are not the prevailing party on this appeal, their request for attorney's fees is denied. 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
AFFIRMED IN PART; ATTORNEY'S FEE AWARD VACATED AND REMANDED.
[*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4.
[1] In an effort to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the plaintiffs' fee request, the County presents itself as a party who was willing to settle this case from the outset. Although the County may have wished to settle this case expeditiously, it is evident that there were issues which were not immediately resolvable. Most significantly, plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion sought to cap strictly the population at the County jails. In contrast, the County's proposed injunction contained a population cap that would allow significant exceptions to compliance.
[2] Although the district court did not file the preliminary injunction until October 31, 1990, the County used February 2, 1990 as the cut-off date for the time plaintiffs spent on prevailing issues. The County contends that it agreed as of that date to the terms of the injunction. Nonetheless, the stipulated injunction was not submitted to the court until March 6, 1990 and was not in effect until October 31, 1990.
[3] The plaintiffs argue that even if we find that the district court erred in its fee calculation, we should affirm the fee award using the higher out-of-district rates plaintiffs had requested in their fee application in lieu of the Sacramento hourly rates the district court applied. We decline to address this argument because the plaintiffs did not appeal the district court's decision to apply Sacramento hourly rates.
[4] In Kerr, we held the following factors are appropriate for consideration in determining a reasonable attorney's fee award:
(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the "undesirability" of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.
526 F.2d at 70.
[5] In a related argument, the County contends that the court accepted "whole cloth" the plaintiffs' fee request and "uncritically accepted" the representations by plaintiffs' counsel that their fee request was reasonable. With the exception of the compensation requested for the fee application, there is no merit to this argument. The court did not "uncritically accept" the plaintiffs' fee request; rather, it analyzed the request in light of the factors set forth in Kerr and awarded less than half of the amount which plaintiffs originally requested. The cases on which the County principally relies highlight the misplaced nature of the County's argument. In Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1400-01, we held the district court abused its discretion when it "threw up its hands" and accepted an "arbitrary" ten percent reduction proposed by the fee applicant without independently reviewing the record. And in Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1984), we remanded for the district court to conduct a more thorough and detailed inquiry where it adopted wholesale the findings drafted by the plaintiff prevailing party. The court had awarded the entire amount requested by the plaintiff, without analyzing whether the amount

was reasonable. Id. In contrast to the case at bar, in both Deukmejian and Sealy, the district court adopted the prevailing party's representations without conducting an independent review of the fee application.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 r

l

P A U L W . C O M f S K E Y , S t a t e B a r # 6 5 5 1 0[ , t '

PRISONERS RIGHT UNTON

ll

1909 Sixth Street

Sacramento, CA 958L4

(e16) 325-27Or RICHARD P. HERMAN, ^ ! ^ ! ^ 229 Marine Avenue

I
D ^ # 5 3 14 3 t$' -il .

'{ ?',1
t.t'\h-lil'l"i'

P.O. Box 328

Balboa Island, CA 92662

(714) 673-757O PAUIL PERSONS, StAtC

bar

#Y z

89

|
l/

,

''r"'{,
rt

1834 Arroyo CanYon

Chico, CA 95928

(e15) 8e3-47rO

DAI\[STORMER,State B a r # 1 0 1 6 7

LIT]T AND STORMER

3550 Wilshire BIvd., #LZOO

IO Los; Angeles, CA 90010 (2r_3) 386-4303

tl

LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN A. MU I{ELT, State Bar # 8 0 4 4 9 i

107 Court Street

["\i

o
lt)

L2 Netrada City, CA 95959

\, i\,r

OO
Do. 6l

(err6) 265-8508

r19

Lo
t! O

ol;; l{ndzr.Nno_ rla

I
ro

515

E(

U>u xF z

J

<*
UJ
<u >F
uz

Attorneys L4
I5

for Plaintiffs
U N I T E D S T T E S D T S T R I C ' r ' C I O U iIi E A S T E R N D I T R I C T O F - C A L . I -] T O R h I I A

L 7 \ RonrRt McGRATH,)-RoBERT

G O I I T C H A , 3I T I C U A N L M A Y ,

and aII others

CASE I\O.

sirnilarly situated,

COMPLAINT F'OR DECLARATORV

20

Plainti ffs,

AND INJUNCT-IVE RELlE]F

2L

vs.

22 TH.ECOUNTYOF NEVADA and BTLL HEAFEY,Sherif f ,
23
Defendants.
21

CLASS AC'IIIObT

25,

26,

This is a class a f inn hrnrrcrlrt lrv thr- nr- i snrrerS _ilr tlfe

2V Nevada County Jails

to re rFq,q tho

r'lonri rr;r1- i nn

,h rJr I r d ov q I l o rr r ur ] a\ nJ j .I q .

2q County of Nevada and Sherif Bill lleaf ey, of plaint if f s ' r'ights,

\

L !! privileges and imrnunities arising under the Constitutil '! of the united states and the de-privation under col-or

ancl l,av'rs of lat',r i:y

:t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s o f t h e s e r i g h t s ( I ' i r s t , F o u r t h , E i g h t l r + and Fourteenth Amendments of ttre Constitr,rti-on of the Uni'Lecl
q
states, 42 USC Section r983) through overcrowdilg, inadequate

c!
,v

staff

and inadequate procedures, by failing

to p1ovide- beds, a

p l a c e t o s i t w h i l e e a t i n g m e a l - s, c l o t i t e s , m e d i c a r1 -, d e n t - a I a n c l

{f m e n ' b a lh e a l t h c a r e , a c l e c e n t , c l e a n j a i l / a s a f e i a i l , r e a s o t l a i l l - e

visitation,

prompt judicial determination of probable cat'rse f-or:

Lil dertention and prompt bail determinations,
''I "[
conversations with attorneYs-

and privacy for

.LA
Li5 1"4 t5 .i"6 l"? I8
x9 "ea
?I

2 "

Named plaintif f s are prisoners

in the ltlevacla Cottttty

Jeiils who were arrested without a warrant arld tak'en to the fJeiraclar

County Jails, locatecl in Nevada City, Cal i for nia.

P 1a i n t i f f

MIICHAEL MAY has not yet seen a Juclge, had a cletermination

of

pr:obable cause for continued detention, nor had a bail hear:ilrg,

arrd is presently still a prisoner in the Nevacla. Colrnby Jaif more

tSan 55 hours after sr:ntenced prisoners such overcrowded

his arriest. Many warrarrt-Iess ari:estees, artrcl

, are detained condi-tiotrs

i n L h e I r T e v a c l aCr : o u t l t y J a - i - L j l i

that

they

are

cienj ed a

cr)nstitutionally

adequate place of detention, irrcludit-tg failttre

&fr

t,o provide a bed to sleep on.

During jnspections

tfre excessr'

23 prisoners

in the Nevada County Jail

are transferred

'to Lhe

cl, k*

A

'e5 "Minimum Security Jailr' overcl:owding that jai-I.

3.

The jurisdiction

of this Court is involied uttcler 28 USC

26
1331, this being an action arising under the Constitut-i.on and

27
Laws of the United States and under 42 USC 1343, ds an action

28
authorized by 1aw to redress the deprivation uncler cofor of- StaLe

t /,
!i
Kf i, , ) :

J.hw, .,xatr,,t-'e'
privilr3$e and Fourth, Eighth

.,t].,,,,u,,.,.-' rtgt't-{it"t'

custom and usage or a

r1L'

immunity

secureb to plaintif

f s L;y ttre First- '

and Fourteenth

dmendments of the cr-rttt-'t-itr-rtio' of

the United States'

4.

Defendant

coUNTY In

NEVADA (he-reinaf ter

carll ed

rrCountyrr) is a unit

of tocdt

government ' duly

l ot''mecl ano'

a{rthor:ized und'er the }av'rs of dn" State of cal j f orrii a '

hs pa r-t

of its; duties,

defendant count! pr:ovides local lai I f acirit--ies '

speciliically

the Nevada countf Jail and the "l'litritttLt't s:iecuril-y

Jiail,|IocatedinNevadaCity,CountyofNevacla.'1.|rroug}it"ire.:

$herif f ,s dgencies,

Department of the fot-rnty of Nevada ancl other

defendant county urlo provicles supervision

to

county persons

:i-n the Nevada CountY Jails'

5.BilltleafeyrstheSheriff.oftlreCoutrtyoJ.l'levacla'

responsible

for the Nevada co]inty Jails ancl jt-s itruarte:;'

6.AtaI}timespeftinenttot}ri:;Cclnplailrt,h-he

clefelrdantsandtheiremployeesandagetrt.r-;rverea'rcti.rrgutrclert-he

color

of their:

official

lapacity

ancl ttre or:clinances and

regulations

of Nevada countf , ancl the l-ai,vs o'f t-}re S]tate oJ:

CaI ifornia '

7"Thenamedplaintl-ffsarecitiZensC)]:IJerSO}-lsjr.esidinq

in t-he United States '

B.

During all times mdnt j.onecl herein,

t.lre c]efenc.Iants, anil

eac}rofthem/separatelyandinconcert,;rct-eclttncieLco]-oratrcl

pre'benseoflaw,towit,undercolorofthestatutes;,orcl-inallceS/

regulations,

customs anct usa$e of tire state of Califortriar and the

county.

Each of the clef endadts herein, separatery

ancl in concert-

:

engagedintheconductnAreinmentionedtotheirrjuryoI

:ived the plaint-Lf f s of the rights, privi e eS :ed to plaintif fs by the First' Fourth' Eigirtir

ndmentstotheConstitutiorrofLlreUnjt.ec|'

ws of the Unitecl States ' pursuant

bo the

of defendant County' :Ievant timeso Lhe plaintiffs

v/ere prisoners

'ada CountY Jail "

Lvations suffered by plaintiffs

were and al:e

oing patterns

of concluct' and practices

of

ing defendant unless ancl

COUNTY OF NEVADA and defendatrt

until

orderecl by th j s court '

ions resulting

in inadequate food' clothitig'

nts, medical and mental he-alth' safety' accessi

excessivedeterrtionofwarrantlessai:.r.estees

ruse and bail determitrations

w-ilI corttintte tc-r

of

the

Nevada CountY Jail s of

their

hts '
CLASS ACTION I\LI'EGATTONS :d plainti-f f s al:e representat j ves of a class q of Rule 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) of ttre Federal

>cedure " )ers of 'Lhe class

are so nulnerous bhat joinder

impractical,

there being mol:e than 50 prrsoners

rcY Jails at any one t-ime'

lers of the class are readily identifiable

frotti

ecords. rre questions of law and f act common to t'he ; claims predominate over any individual cfarm.

+A

p

and immurnities secured to plal-ntiffs

by the First, Fourth, Eightir

q

and Fourteenth Amendments to the consti-tution

of the unitecl

& states

and the laws of the united

states,

pursuant to the

practicr= ancl policy of defendant County"

6

g " At all relevant times, the plaintiffs

were prisoners

I and hel-,C in the Nevada County Jail "

I

10" The deprivations suffered by plaintiffs

welre-and a'r:e

a the res;ult of ongoing patterns of concluct ancl practi-ces of

l_0 d e f e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g d e f e n d a n t C O U N T YO F N E V A D Aa n d d e f e n d a n t

'l 'I

&A

Bill

Heaf ey, and unless ancl untit

ordered by bhj s courl-,

"19
overcrowded conditions resulting in inadequate food, c1-othing,

1"5 sleepin,g arrangements, medicat and mental health, safe|yf access

14 to attclrneys and excessive detention of warrantless alrrestees

1S before probable cause and bai.l- determinaLions wil I continue to

Ib

depriver inmates of the Nevada County J ail s of

'ln LI
constitutional

rights.

1.8

CLASS ACTION 4I,LESAT,IA}LS-

their

l_9

i_lL. The named plaintiffs

are representatives of a class

20 within the meaning of RuIe 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) of the Fecleral 2L
Rules of Civil- Procedure'

2p

T',2. The members of the class are so numel:otls that ioirrder

aa of aII of them is impractical, Lhere being nore tltan 50 prisonLrrs

24 in the Nevada Coun'Ly Jails at ally one t-irne.

26

l - : 3" T h e m e m b e r s o f t h e c l a s s a r e r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e f r o n r

P6

the de:Eendants' records.

p7

I,4" There are questions of ]aw and f act common to the

28

cf.ass; their cl-ass claims predominate over any individual c1aim.

f,

4)
A
R,
6 't
I I -ln
-la .4^{-tro J.E
JLil 'lA rdf
ts
lA, 'l r/
It
18
-lo
2A gL
"e2
&a

t'::'
l-5- The defencla]lts have acLed or r:efused to act on g::ounds S

genera.ll-y applicabre

to the crass by fai-ri'g

to provide

consti-'L.utiona11y adequate facili-ties ancl hearlnss.

l-r5. The named plaintif fs will fai_rry and adequatel y protect the j-nterests of the cl_ass; haviirg no other inclividual jnteresLs.

1 - ' 7' T h e c l a s s c o n s i s t s county Jail from December l, prisoners "

of all prisoners held i5 the lrlevada 19g9, to the present, and afl future

1U. Pl-aintiffs consistent with their

do not propose notice at p r a c t j - c e i - r - rs i m i r a r c a s e s .

this

time,

W F I E R E F O R Ep,l a i n t i f f s

pray:

1'

For an order and judgnient requiringi defendan.Ls provide

adequate conditions of confinelnent including a bed for every

prisonerr, limiting the populatlon to the Board of correcLions

Rated capacity, adeguate food, adequate medicar_ and mentar hearth

care' s;afety' access to attorneys, and to provicie in-custocly

arreste,es, arrested without warrants, pronp.t probabl.e cause

determinations and bail hearings;

2 3 Lo effect

For reasonab-r-e attorneys f ees and costs of suit; For such other rerief as may rce necessary and proper Lhe purposes of this Jritigation.

DATED: December 4, 1989

24

25

PAUL W. COMTSKEY RICIJARD P. HERMAN

26

DAN STORMER PAUL PERSONS

2V

Attorneys for ptaintiffs

PB