Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1 of 6

1N TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TilE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(Name ofPlaintiff)
lloiT WL?\: tQ\:

0~_m\o\ lJA~ddrCesos..

o f Plaintiff)
otfDffi\

vs.

:l:~·c."\1. €-Je,j.. ,_._ ('rc.)
(Case Number)
COMPLA1NT

\
NQd)ckl DNeciof) Cf,M.& DQ AlkSt,~ (Names of Defendants)
I. Previous Lawsuits:

A Have you brought any other lawsuits while a prisoner: 00 Yes DNo

B. Ifyour answer to A is yes, how many?: Oil\f.

Describe the lawsuit in the space

below. (Ifthere is more than one lawsuit. describe the additional lawsuits on another piece ofpaper

using the same outline.)

I. Parties to this previous lawsuit:
Plaintiff ~~REi\- S\0SefA ~

.
FORM TO BE USED BY A PRISONER IN FILING A COMPLAINT
UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Rev'd 5/99

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2 of 6

2. Court (ifFederal Court, give name of District; if State Court, give name of County)
3. DocketNumber· f:X..o - l\Gt!J 6: -fWtt.M. !'tM(~ ~~~rcA-)
4. Name ofjudge to whom case was assigned \~(S~\1\t:(.. LJt~\}Jv\

6. Approximate date of:filing lawsuit _.IDIIU:Loa.L.J__.2-00~:lo.Llolfa""'---------
7. Approximate date of disposition __2.!=-0.....!/~e:'>::::.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

ll. Exhaustion ofAdministrative Remedies A. Is there a grievance procedure available at your institution?

~Yes

DNo

B. Have you filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to this complaint?

1JYes

DNo

Ifyour answer is no, explain why n o t - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C. Is the grievance process completed?

'fi{';Yes

DNo

ll1. Defendants

(In Item A below, place the full name ofthe defendant in the first blank, his/her official

position in the second blank, and his/her place of employment in the third blank. Use item B for the names, positions and places ofemployment of any additional defendants.)

A. DefensrKfk.~tiN~'fo!IJ<~I~ t'4Jit<;) {,to..f is employed as tiJ:~\±!IJ ~11-\;:

'XN>U\

at ~ho.tkt C&~ :SO..d

/t;djt; ~ C.6M~t:; ~~ Po~ B. Ad ·tio al defendants '5 t1.vluu')

~ · ~ '·~"cf.t..:.,,\..-

..

r4.t5#(\ I

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3 of 6
N. Statement of Claim (State here as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved, including dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. Attach extra sheets ifnecessary.)

V. Relief.

(State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Cite

no cases or statutes.)

~

78 :f~k~~$

1 l-4L Signed this day of ft.~ v..~f

,20.!2_.

I declare under penalty.of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Lf- L~-tl
(Date)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 05/06/13 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:13S-cHv-A00S8T82A-MCCOE-UACNTDYocDumEeTnEt 1NTFiIleOdN05F/0A6/C13ILPITagYe 5 of 6

INMATE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

To: ---~\ ~"'\I\

From: ---~=:..l!. {;=wdJ-~------

Booking #: . 4lt-f itJL{ U
/5 Date: to{ I 1.11

Booking Date: -+/-:...._-+/--f-f.-::r$e:;...__ _ _ _ __ 1
Housing Assignment: -. .L.ft-1-J~[,. . .!~'-d<. . !. . fCJ...Jio:...uf_·-\::(Aj""·',.II£(j_::..___jL{~.--_ _ _ _ __

Check One:

( ) Request

Grievance

Time: / 93:Q /~""

Rec'd By: _:2~/J2~.-----­ Name and Badge #

ANSWER;

( ) APPROVED

( ) DENIED (state reason)

•s- ·'Tin&

ML:,Jt""'u""" S:::f\.....,nf\·-.'I_J;:)S (Svx:n.-S ~'1 L{-Y\S.~~- CJN\:7' {\:;:w..-~

i?f"t~ bt"!J:) . b-b Tv \ p.> (§) LS: ?:xt.. :D•Z. ::sA.' L AA ........ \....; I } fr\.J'. 1) :>--J n

By: L\~ i)A~,-£H l2r;;r-.lC- u-, <J-::>

White: Booking Folder

Yellow: Reply to Inmate

Pink: Kept by Inmate

Date:

6"1 .:2-. I /3

(Request Form) Rev 08/09/11

Case 2:13S-cv.-0S08T82A-MCCOE-UACNTDYocDumEenTt 1ENFilTed!0.5F/0A6/C13ILIPTaYge 6 of 6

To: ~\J\tQJ \r!~l

Booking #: tj'{ttfL/'f l,..

L !J Date:

I {a I {

INMATE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
tt· From.. - ~~... .A ...., "~1·
Booking Date:j_-_,f{_-_,·/Sr--?-·I;-,.-----,------'--
Housing Assignment: --tt:~.-L)_r-____,"S;;;;JII·-· - - - - - - - - - , - - - -

Check One:

C:~) Request

( ) Grievance

. :. · · ~;! · ~ · :_ :':.'.

R~= \\ff]~ Ajtnf~:t~~4~c .~

;

.

~- ..~:. ~. · ·rttW.E;, ·.. ::Ct UtMIHi t1LI .H~vi ti\1 t~~25li~!.:::> .& .· {2ctJJ~~Jt~/t.ft

-h tW\ ~ C!"Affri~\Ck ~· o\ CCAiC±itJ-\\C:o

. Date Rec'd: _ _ _ __

Time: _ _ __

Rec'd By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _...:.__

Name and Badge #

Routed To: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANSWER;

( ) APPROVED

~ DENIED (state reason)

Pink: Kept by Inmate

Date: ___d._j_.2__ l /3
(Request i<onn) Rev 08109/1 I

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 37

1 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@kvn.com AJAY KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@kvn.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@kvn.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, Esq. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 300 Spectrum Center Dr., Ste. 400 Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER ANNA RIVERA - # 239601
11 Anna.Rivera@drlcenter.org KARA JANSSEN - # 274762
12 Kara.Janssen@drlcenter.org 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B
13 Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: 213 736 1031
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL
16 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

19

FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

20

DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of

21

themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

24 DEPARTMENT, A PUBLIC ENTITY;

TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public

entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity;

and DOES 1 through 25, in their

27 individual capacities,

28

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 1. Americans with Disabilities Act
(42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) 2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) 3. California Government Code Section
11135, et seq. 4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil
Code §51, et seq.) 5. California Government Code § 4450, et
seq. 6. Violation of California Civil Code §
52.1 (Bane Act)
Date Filed: May 16, 2013 Trial Date: Not Assignedd

1062780.01

FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 37

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. More than twenty-five years after the Americans with Disabilities Act was made

3 the law of the land, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County, and California

4 Forensic Medical Group, Inc., continue to ignore its mandates, and disobey it and other federal

5 and state law—routinely violating the civil rights of named Plaintiffs and all those similarly

6 situated. There is no excuse or justification for this conduct and it must be remedied.

7

2. This lawsuit addresses Defendants’ systemic and pervasive discrimination against

8 people with mobility disabilities in the Shasta County Jail, located in Redding, California (the 9 “Jail”). Despite the acute need for accommodations and physical access within the Jail, Shasta 10 County (“County”), Shasta County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”), and California Forensic

11 Medical Group (“CFMG”) fail to provide any legally acceptable level of access, services, or

12 accommodations for people with disabilities held at the Jail.

13

3. People with mobility disabilities are denied accommodations, provided inadequate

14 accommodations, inappropriately segregated from the general population, placed in 23 hour lock 15 down, excluded from jail programs and services, and subjected to multiple and pervasive physical 16 access barriers throughout the facilities. The result is a system that imposes some of the worst

17 conditions on people with mobility disabilities while at the same time excluding them from the 18 most beneficial programs within the jail. These conditions have dire mental and physical 19 consequences and are in flagrant violation of the law.

20

4. Starting with the time they are processed, persons with mobility disabilities face

21 myriad discriminatory conditions and physical barriers. For example, the initial intake area

22 booking cells do not have the required assistive devices to allow a person with a physical

23 disability to use the toilet safely and/or independently. Additionally, disabled persons must 24 surrender their assistive devices, such as canes and crutches, upon entering the Jail and are not 25 provided with replacement assistive devices for multiple weeks or more.

26

5. Prisoners with mobility disabilities are frequently segregated from the general

27 population in the Jail’s Outpatient Housing Unit (“Medical Unit”), which is operated by

28 Defendant CFMG in conjunction with the County and SCSD, due solely to their need for assistive

1062780.01

1
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 37

1 devices, such as canes, walkers, wheelchairs, and prostheses. While segregated, they are put on

2 twenty three hour lock down, despite not having committed any infraction to warrant such a

3 punishment. This segregation is in direct violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

4 Furthermore, none of the cells in the Medical Unit contain required access features. The cells

5 lack sufficient clearance and knee space to allow a wheelchair user to freely navigate within the

6 cell. The cells lack hand bars to permit persons with mobility disabilities to independently use the

7 toilet. In fact, some cells do not even have beds, instead requiring prisoners with mobility

8 disabilities to sleep on a thin mat on the floor. Additionally, prisoners housed in the Medical

9 Unit, are not given the opportunity to consistently take advantage of adult schooling programs or

10 attend religious services in the same manner as their non-disabled peers.

11

6. To be housed outside of the Medical Unit, prisoners with mobility disabilities are

12 routinely required to give up their assistive devices, including the use of their canes, walkers,

13 wheelchairs, or prosthesis. If housed outside the medical unit, prisoners with physical disabilities

14 face pervasive architectural barriers. Many of the hallway doors have one inch beveled

15 thresholds preventing persons using assistive devices from passing through safely. All of these

16 housing units’ day rooms lack required access features, such as handrails or grab bars in the

17 showers. The day rooms also have no wheelchair seating. The housing units’ cells lack grab bars

18 to allow prisoners to safely and independently use the toilet and lack sufficient clearance and knee

19 space to allow a wheelchair user to freely navigate within the cell. Even the stairs, which must be

20 climbed to access the second tier of cells, do not provide adequate handrail extensions to allow

21 persons with impaired mobility to climb them safely and people with mobility disabilities may be

22 housed in these upstairs cells despite the difficulties they experience in having to go up and down

23 the stairs.

24

7. Disabled prisoners pleas for a safe living environment are either routinely denied

25 or are not made by the prisoners because of fear of retribution by Jail Staff. Prisoners, are not

26 only often misinformed about the grievance process, but consistently not informed at all that such

27 a process exists. Furthermore, the prisoners that do file grievances are threatened that they will

28 be placed in an even more restrictive environment. Additionally, prisoners’ food is often tainted

1062780.01

2
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 37

1 and inedible following the filing of a grievance. The Jail even retaliates against disabled

2 prisoners seeking legal advice, by punishing them following attorney client meetings. This lack

3 of information and constant threat of retaliation renders the grievance procedure ineffective and

4 not available to prisoners.

5

8. These, and many other conditions, result in a system that violates the fundamental

6 rights of people with disabilities within the Jail. Plaintiffs thus initiate this suit under Title II of

7 the America with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. (the “ADA”), Section 504 of the

8 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the “Rehabilitation Act”), as well as analogous state

9 statutes, to remedy this rampant discrimination against Plaintiffs based on their disabilities.

10

9. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the above statutes, as

11 well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under applicable law.

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13

10. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought under federal law pursuant to

14 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Through the same actions and omissions that form the basis of

15 Plaintiffs’ federal claims, Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs’ rights under state law, over

16 which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court also has

17 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

18 2201 and 2202.

19

11. Venue over Plaintiffs’ claims is proper in the Eastern District of California

20 because Defendants reside in the Eastern District of California within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

21 1391 and because the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the

22 Eastern District of California.

23

PARTIES

24

12. Plaintiffs are persons with mobility disabilities who are or were housed within

25 Shasta County Jail facilities. They bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all present and

26 future prisoners and detainees with mobility disabilities who are or will be housed in the Shasta

27 County Jail.

28

1062780.01

3
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 37

1

13. Plaintiff Everett Jewett suffers from chronic pain and has bulging and herniated

2 discs in his spinal column, degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and muscular neuropathy.

3 As a result of these conditions, which substantially limit his ability to walk, Mr. Jewett uses a

4 cane. Mr. Jewett is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of all applicable

5 statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code

6 § 12926. Mr. Jewett has been detained and/or incarcerated in the Shasta County Jail multiple

7 times over the past decade and was most recently there from April of 2013 to December of 2014.

8 On each occasion, Mr. Jewett has had a number of disability-related problems at the Jail,

9 including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access, and access to programs at

10 the jail.

11

14. Plaintiff Glen Harold Everett has Type II diabetes, muscular neuropathy, chronic

12 back pain, degenerative disk disease, and bulging discs. As a result of these conditions, which

13 substantially limit his ability to walk, Mr. Everett uses a cane. Mr. Everett is a “qualified person

14 with a disability” within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29

15 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926. Mr. Everett has had a number of

16 disability-related problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical

17 access, and access to programs at the jail.

18

15. Plaintiff Michael Don Ackley has extensive back and leg injuries which were

19 caused when he was crushed by a heavy pipe nearly twenty years ago. As a result of these

20 injuries, which substantially limit his ability to walk, Mr. Ackley has used a variety of assistive

21 devices in the past and currently uses crutches. Mr. Ackley is a “qualified person with a

22 disability” within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C.

23 §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926. Mr. Ackley has had a number of

24 disability-related problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical

25 access, and access to programs at the jail.

26

16. Plaintiff H. Robert Marquette has prostate cancer, a traumatic brain injury that

27 causes seizures, and a back injury. As a result of these conditions, which substantially limit his

28 ability to walk, Mr. Marquette uses a cane. Mr. Marquette is a “qualified person with a

1062780.01

4
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 37

1 disability” within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C.

2 §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926. Mr. Marquette has had a number of

3 disability-related problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical

4 access, and access to programs at the jail.

5

17. Plaintiff Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (“LSPC”) is a non-profit

6 organization founded in 1978. LSPC advocates for the civil rights and empowerment of

7 incarcerated parents, children, family members, and people at risk for incarceration by responding

8 to requests for information, training, technical assistance, litigation, and community activism.

9

18. LSPC has done significant work to raise awareness regarding the concerns of

10 elderly prisoners and their unique needs in part due to the physical limitations and disabilities that

11 occur more frequently among older prisoners.

12

19. In 2003, LSPC launched “All of Us or None,” a grassroots organizing initiative of

13 former prisoners that fights for the rights of the formerly and currently incarcerated people and

14 their families. The goal of All of Us or None is to strengthen the voices of the people most

15 affected by the “prison-industrial complex.” All of Us or None is a membership organization

16 comprised of a network of chapters and associated organizations nationwide, including a chapter

17 in Sacramento, California. There are approximately 13,000 members of All of Us or None

18 nationwide, 200 of whom reside in Northern California.

19

20. LSPC currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work

20 concerning policies and procedures that affect individuals, including individuals with disabilities,

21 who are incarcerated in California’s prisons and local county jails including the Shasta County

22 Jail. These projects include advocacy around the effects of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act,

23 which shifts people convicted of “non-serious,” “non-sexual,” and “nonviolent offenses” out of

24 the state prison system and into county jurisdiction and county jails. This work includes

25 improving the conditions at county jails, many of which were not designed for long-term

26 incarceration and lack access to sunlight, exercise, and programming opportunities, and ensuring

27 full access to all programs and services for disabled people.

28

1062780.01

5
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 7 of 37

1

21. LSPC has been injured as a direct result of the Defendants’ actions and omissions

2 as alleged herein. LSPC’s interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it

3 is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by the Defendants’

4 discriminatory policies and practices.

5

22. In addition, one or more members of LSPC’s All of Us or None project have been

6 injured as a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices.

7

23. LSPC can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake

8 are germane to LSPC’s purpose and because LSPC seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief,

9 individual members are not required to participate to bring this lawsuit forth.

10

24. The Plaintiff class consists of all present and future detainees and prisoners with

11 mobility disabilities who are or will be housed in the Shasta County Jail.

12

25. Hereafter, references to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiffs

13 and each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.

14

26. Defendant Shasta County (“County”) is a local government entity within the

15 meaning of Title II of the ADA. The County is responsible for providing the jail facilities and for

16 funding the construction and operations of the Shasta County Jail facility. The County is further

17 responsible for the funding and oversight of Defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Department. The

18 County also promulgates policies and procedures at these facilities.

19

27. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant County received

20 federal financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

21

28. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant County received

22 state financial assistance within the meaning of Government Code Section 11135.

23

29. Defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Department (“SCSD”) is a local government

24 entity created under the laws of the State of California, and an agency of Defendant County and a

25 public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. The SCSD is responsible for operating

26 the Shasta County Jail facility, including promulgating policies and procedures for that facility.

27

30. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant SCSD has

28 received federal financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.

1062780.01

6
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 8 of 37

1

31. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint Defendant SCSD has received

2 state financial assistance within the meaning of Government Code Section 11135.

3

32. Defendant Tom Bosenko is the Sheriff of Shasta County. He is an elected official

4 of the County and is responsible for the oversight of Defendant SCSD and implementation of its

5 policies. Plaintiffs name Defendant Bosenko in his official capacity only.

6

33. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”) is a for-profit

7 corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and employs fifty (50) or more

8 persons. CFMG provides all health care services to prisoners in the Jail pursuant to a contract

9 with the County.

10

34. Does 1-25 are current or former Jail Staff or CFMG staff. Does 1-25 were at all

11 times relevant acting in the course of their employment. On information and belief, each Doe 1-

12 25 participated in the incarceration of Mr. Jewett, as well as the decisions to deprive him of

13 assistive devices and to threaten him when he complained about the failure of Defendants to

14 reasonably accommodate his mobility impairment. On information and belief Shasta County

15 Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, and CFMG are in possession of records that

16 will identify Does 1-25. In due course, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to identify these

17 Defendants’ true names when they have been ascertained.

18

35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant was the

19 agent and employee of every other defendant and was at all times acting within the scope of such

20 agency.

21

36. Hereafter, references to Defendants shall be deemed to include all named

22 Defendants, unless otherwise indicated.

23

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

24 Background and History

25

37. The Shasta County Jail is a high security local detention facility used for the

26 detention of persons who are pending arraignment, undergoing trial, or serving a sentence of

27 commitment. The Jail was built in 1984 and can hold up to 381 prisoners; 317 males and 64

28 females. The facility is attached to the Justice Center, which includes the Municipal and Superior

1062780.01

7
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 9 of 37

1 Courts of Shasta County, and is located at 1655 West Street, Redding. In 2015, the annual budget

2 for the Jail was over $14 million dollars. The County is currently in the process of building a

3 new, additional, 64-bed jail to be located in Redding, California that would provide vocational

4 training to prisoners.

5

38. The Jail provides custodial and security services for incarcerated and detained

6 individuals for the SCSD. The Jail is operated by Defendants County and SCSD, which contract

7 with Defendant CFMG to provide medical care, including mental health care. In doing so, the

8 Defendants are responsible for the health, safety, care, and welfare of those individuals housed in

9 the Jail’s facilities, including individuals with disabilities.

10

39. The Jail consists of an entry level floor and three additional levels of prisoner

11 housing.

12

40. The entry level floor includes the lobby, visitor security entrance, lobby restrooms,

13 booking and intake areas, visiting areas, and the Medical Unit.

14

41. The three upper levels are composed of housing and are referred to as Level 1,

15 Level 2, and Level 3. Each of these levels are divided into four pods - A, B, C and D - each

16 consisting of two floors, referred to as an upper and lower tier. Each pod has a shower and day

17 room with dining tables on the lower tier. In addition, each Level has access to a classroom and

18 an outdoor exercise yard with an outdoor restroom.

19

42. Each prisoner has his own cell or shares a cell with another prisoner. Each cell

20 includes a toilet, sink, mirror, and bed, or beds if shared. A typical housing module includes cells

21 that open onto a common day room area equipped with tables, chairs, and telephones. Housing

22 units consist of a main level that is on the same level as the elevator serving that level, plus an

23 upper level accessible only via a stairway from the day room.

24

43. There are no areas of the Jail that are specifically designated for use specifically

25 by, or to otherwise accommodate, prisoners with mobility disabilities.

26

44. Defendant County has constructed, altered, or repaired the Jail since the enactment

27 of the ADA,

28

45. The Jail was constructed after the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

1062780.01

8
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 10 of 37

1

46. The Jail was constructed after the enactment of California Government Code

2 11135.

3

47. Rehabilitation Act, California Government Code § 4450, Title 24 of the California

4 Code of Regulations (“Title 24”), and California Government Code § 11135. The

5 aforementioned laws forbid discrimination against people with disabilities in public services and

6 programs, in particular services and programs that are funded using financial assistance from the

7 State and/or Federal government. California Government Code § 4450 and Title 24 provide

8 specific accessibility requirements for buildings, structures and/or related facilities which are

9 constructed using state, county, and/or municipal funds. Despite these obligations, the County

10 failed to construct, alter, and/or repair the Jail in compliance with these laws.

11

48. Additionally, the County has never performed a complete assessment of the

12 physical and programmatic accessibility of the Jail and has never created a complete transition

13 plan to improve the accessibility of the Jail for the individuals detained and incarcerated therein

14 as required by the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code § 11135.

15

49. Throughout Shasta County Jail, significant problems exist for people with

16 disabilities with respect to classification, housing, access to programs and services, and physical

17 access barriers. Defendants systemically fail to effectively evaluate the needs of people with

18 disabilities within the Jail, and fail to meet those needs through appropriate accommodations and

19 physical access.

20

50. Systemic issues include, but are not limited to, inappropriate placement and/or

21 security classification of people with mobility disabilities; failure to provide appropriate mobility

22 aids; failure to accommodate the needs of people with mobility disabilities; failure to modify

23 policies and procedures for people with mobility disabilities; failure to remove multiple and

24 pervasive architectural barriers throughout the jails; failure to allow people with mobility

25 disabilities access to vocational, educational, religious, and other programs and services; failure

26 to have an emergency and/or evacuation policy for people with mobility disabilities; and failure

27 to provide an effective complaint procedure for disability related complaints.

28

1062780.01

9
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 11 of 37

1

51. These violations result from a number of pervasive problems, including, but not

2 limited to the following:

3

a. There is no comprehensive set of policies or procedures for determining

4

appropriate accommodations, modifications or services for prisoners with

5

disabilities;

6

b. People who are identified as having mobility disabilities and who require assistive

7

devices are frequently housed in segregated facilities that provide severely

8

restricted access to the programs and services available in the Jail;

9

c. Architectural barriers are pervasive throughout the Jail. These include failure to

10

make housing and programming accessible to people with mobility disabilities, as

11

well as a failure to provide emergency evacuation plans for people with mobility

12

disabilities.

13 Physical Barriers at the Jail

14

52. None of the cells at the Jail are ADA complaint.

15

53. Specifically, none of the cells are accessible to prisoners with mobility disabilities.

16 Specifically, the Jail has no cells designated for use by prisoners with mobility disabilities and

17 none of the cells at the Jail, including those in the Medical Unit, have grab bars to allow prisoners

18 with mobility disabilities to independently and safely use the toilet.

19

54. The only shower at the Jail with grab bars is located in the Medical Unit and the

20 grab bars in that shower were installed within the last year, long after this case was initially filed.

21 Prior to that there were no showers at the Jail with grab bars that allowed a prisoner with a

22 mobility disability to shower safely. None of the showers at the Jail, with the exception of the

23 shower in the Medical Unit, include a shower seat and no shower seats are otherwise made

24 available for prisoners with mobility disabilities to allow them to sit when taking a shower.

25

55. Additionally, the showers located on each of the housing units in Level 1, 2, and 3

26 each have a six to eight inch high lip that must be stepped over in order to access the shower.

27 There are two showers in the entire Jail that do not have this barrier, one of which is located in the

28 Medical Unit and the other in the booking area. However, transporting prisoners from other units

1062780.01

10
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 12 of 37

1 to the medical or booking area showers takes a significant amount of time, resulting in disabled

2 prisoners being denied regular use of the shower.

3

56. For example, after Mr. Jewett fell multiple times in the general housing showers,

4 he was permitted to use the shower in the booking area. However, after being formally permitted

5 to use these showers, he was regularly denied access to them by some subset of the Doe

6 Defendants. On average, Mr. Jewett was only permitted to shower two or three times a week

7 despite asking to shower every day. Additionally, Messrs. Everett, Ackley, and Marquette have

8 all been reguarly denied the use of the medical shower and instead forced to shower in showers

9 without grab bars or benches.

10

57. Furthermore, the lack of assistive features, such as grab bars in the shower, has

11 directly resulted in further exacerbating permanently disabled persons’ disabilities. For example,

12 Mr. Jewett fell while showering, tearing his meniscus, and permanently injuring his right knee.

13 This fall was a result of Mr. Jewett being forced—by at least some subset of the Doe

14 Defendants—to use the intake shower, despite the shower not having any assistive devices. At

15 the time, Mr. Jewett’s disability required him to use crutches to walk, or even stand. While

16 showering, one crutch slipped out from under Mr. Jewett. Mr. Jewett fell and struck his knee.

17 The Jail Staff’s only response was to laugh and order him to stand. After it became clear that Mr.

18 Jewett could not stand without assistance, Mr. Jewett was escorted to medical. At Medical, the

19 nurse asked Mr. Jewett to wiggle his toe. Mr. Jewett complied, and the Nurse stated that if he

20 could wiggle his toe there was no knee injury.

21

58. Several days later the pain in Mr. Jewett’s knee increased and its mobility

22 decreased. Mr. Jewett requested to see the physician’s assistant. The physician assistant

23 determined there was no knee injury. After several weeks, Mr. Jewett’s knee became swollen and

24 more painful. Mr. Jewett was again informed by medical staff that his knee was not injured, but

25 that he would receive cortisone shots. Following two rounds of cortisone shots, and no

26 improvement to his knee, Mr. Jewett was sent to an orthopedic surgeon who determined that Mr.

27 Jewett’s right knee had a torn meniscus. Throughout this time Mr. Jewett made multiple requests

28

1062780.01

11
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 13 of 37

1 to the Defendants for medical attention regarding his knee, the overwhelming majority of these

2 requests were either denied or ignored. Mr. Jewett must now undergo knee replacement surgery.

3

59. Likewise, despite Mr. Ackley needing crutches to walk or stand, he has been

4 denied access to the medical shower except on two or three occasions. Out of fear that a single

5 fall will further disable him, Mr. Ackley gives himself daily sponge baths instead of using the

6 unsafe shower. When Mr. Ackley does attempt to use the shower, because the shower has no

7 grab bars, he is forced to hold himself up by the shower head.

8

60. Prisoners who use assistive devices are also improperly housed on the “upper tier”

9 which is the second floor of the housing unit accessible only by going up a flight of stairs. A

10 subset of the Doe Defendants caused Mr. Jewett to be housed in a cell on the upper tier despite

11 the fact that he relies on a cane to walk and was supposed to only be housed on lower tiers where

12 he would not have to climb up and down stairs. Furthermore, Mr. Jewett was forced to walk up

13 and down the stairs to eat his meals, take his medication, use the phone, use the dayroom, and see

14 visitors without the use of his cane. As a result, Mr. Jewett fell down the stairs on at least two

15 occasions. Mr. Jewett suffered multiple injuries that exacerbated his disabilities, including

16 injuries to his shoulder, back, neck, leg, and mouth. On one occasion his fall led to his teeth

17 puncturing his cheek.

18

61. Prisoners with mobility disabilities are also routinely improperly housed on the

19 upper bunk. For example, Mr. Marquette was assigned an upper bunk despite the seizures,

20 caused by his previous traumatic brain injury, and his back injury. On two separate occasions Mr.

21 Marquette fell off of the upper bunk and onto the cement floor because of a seizure. One such

22 fall resulted in an injury to his head, vomiting, and an extended period of blurred vision. This

23 head injury was left untreated by Defendants, despite Mr. Marquette requesting treatment for a

24 concussion.

25

62. In addition, the holding, sobering, and safety cells in the intake and transfer unit of

26 the Jail lack grab bars and fail to provide sufficient knee space and clearance to allow a

27 wheelchair user to access the sink and toilet.

28

1062780.01

12
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 14 of 37

1

63. Additionally, Defendants have failed to put proper policies and practices in place

2 to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against.

3

64. For example, despite the existence of a policy that prisoners with disabilities are to

4 be permitted the use of assistive devices while in the Jail, they are regularly denied the use of

5 such devices. For example, Mr. Everett arrived at the Jail with a cane. His cane was promptly

6 confiscated. Despite him asking for his cane during intake and again later while in custody, he

7 was not provided with one. As a result, he was largely confined to his bed as it was too painful to

8 walk. Additionally, because he was unable to take the pressure off of his feet while walking, he

9 formed lesions on the soles of his feet because of his diabetes. These sores went untreated,

10 despite Mr. Everett requesting treatment from Defendants.

11

65. Mr. Ackley was also deprived of his crutches upon entering the Jail. Defendants

12 did not provide crutches to Mr. Ackley, despite frequent requests for them, for over a year.

13 Because Mr. Ackley did not have his crutches he fell numerous times. Each time he fell caused

14 his back condition to worsen, and put him at extreme risk of further permanent injury to his spine.

15 Out of fear that he would suffer further nerve damage to his spine every time he fell, Mr. Ackley

16 was effectively confined to his bed.

17

66. Mr. Marquette was also deprived access to his cane by Defendants when he first

18 came to the Jail. Mr. Marquette requested a cane both during booking and during his initial

19 medical appointment at the Jail. However, he was denied the use of his cane for weeks. During

20 this time, he was barely able to walk, and when he did walk he was in extreme pain. Defendants

21 still deny Mr. Marquette the use of his prescribed back brace and wrist brace, both of which he

22 has also requested on numerous occasions. Because of being deprived his back brace and wrist

23 brace, both his back and wrist conditions continue to worsen.

24

67. Due to the aforementioned pervasive barriers, in combination with erroneous

25 assumptions about the capabilities and legal rights of people with disabilities, individuals with

26 mobility disabilities have little to no access to the vast majority of Defendants’ programs and

27 services. These barriers and erroneous assumptions further lead to prisoners with disabilities

28 being routinely housed in inaccessible cells and being denied the ability to independently and

1062780.01

13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 15 of 37

1 safely go about daily life activities including going to the bathroom, bathing, using the toilet, and

2 navigating their cells.

3

68. This discrimination has a dramatic impact on people with disabilities within the

4 Jail as represented by the experiences of the named Plaintiffs in this matter.

5

a. Mr. Jewett has fallen on multiple occasions, including down a flight of stairs and

6

in the showers, causing him to permanently injure his right knee, suffer

7

tremendous pain, and exacerbate his preexisting permanent disabilities;

8

b. Mr. Marquette suffered a head injury as a result of falling out of the upper bunk;

9

c. Mr. Ackley fell on multiple occasions while deprived of his crutches and is forced

10

to give himself sponge baths as he us unable to shower without the use of grab

11

bars;

12

d. Mr. Everett was effectively confined to his bed while deprived of his cane and

13

formed sores on the soles of his feet because of walking without a cane while

14

suffering from Type II diabetes.

15 Involuntary Segregation of Individuals with Disabilities

16

69. Prisoners who use assistive devices are routinely segregated in the Jail’s

17 Outpatient Housing Unit (“Medical Unit”) which is operated within the Jail by Defendant CFMG

18 in coordination with Defendant County and Defendant SCSD.

19

70. Prisoners held in the Medical Unit are held in conditions similar to that of solitary

20 confinement. They are not given the opportunity to take advantage of the adult schooling

21 program in the Jail, attend religious services in the Jail, or allowed out of their cells for more than

22 one hour a day. There is also no day room for prisoners held in the Medical Unit and the day

23 room they are sometimes permitted to access, which is down a hallway adjoining the Medical

24 Unit, is significantly smaller than the day rooms on the other levels. The sole reason given to

25 these prisoners for why they must be held in the Medical Unit is that they require the use of an

26 assistive device, such as a wheelchair, walker, or cane.

27

71. Mr. Jewett was held for months at a time in the Medical Unit by a subset of the

28 Doe Defendants. While there, he was confined to his cell 23 hours a day. His cell contained only

1062780.01

14
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 16 of 37

1 a bed and a lavatory unit. During this time, Mr. Jewett was effectively confined to his bed.

2 While he was sporadically permitted to go to the yard he was unable to utilize this program

3 because both the yard and the path to the yard contained numerous physical barriers, including

4 the fact that there is no place to sit in the yard. This confinement resulted in degradation of his

5 physical and mental health, including the formation of bed sores.

6

72. While Mr. Jewett was confined to his Medical Unit cell, he made numerous

7 requests to a subset of the Doe Defendants to attend religious ceremonies. These requests were

8 routinely denied. Mr. Jewett was told that he could instead check out a religious book to read in

9 his cell. Similarly, Mr. Jewett’s requests to attend educational courses were routinely denied.

10

73. Mr. Everett and Mr. Marquette have also been housed almost exclusively in the

11 medical unit cells. During this time, they have only been permitted out of their cells for one hour

12 a day. While the Jail does offer them an opportunity to go to the yard once a week, they are

13 unable to go because both the yard and the path to the yard contain numerous physical barriers.

14 One such barrier is the lack of a place for either of them to sit.

15

74. Additionally, prisoners in the Medical Unit are sometimes housed in cells without

16 beds and are forced to sleep on thin mats on the floor by at least a subset of the Doe Defendants.

17 Without beds at the required height, prisoners who use assistive devices are at risk of injuring

18 themselves every time they get in and out of bed. Mr. Jewett was at times housed in such a cell

19 by a subset of the Doe Defendants. When housed without a bed, he remained lying on the floor

20 almost all day, as his disabilities made it difficult for him to stand up.

21

75. Persons with disabilities were often forced to choose between their health and

22 safety, on one hand, and being allowed to leave the highly restrictive conditions found within the

23 Medical Unit, on the other. For example, disabled prisoners were occasionally given the

24 paradoxical choice between giving up their assistive devices (such as their cane or prosthetic) and

25 being permitted to take advantage of the less restrictive general population environment or keep

26 their assistive device, but remain in the Medical Unit. Mr. Jewett was given just such a choice—

27 by the Doe Defendants—and was forced to choose between his health and greater liberty.

28

1062780.01

15
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 17 of 37

1

76. Furthermore, when the Medical Unit has been full, persons with mobility

2 disabilities have had their assistive devices confiscated and were placed in general housing,

3 despite the housing not being accessible.

4

77. All of these conditions exist despite a letter from Jail Administration to “Custody

5 Staff,” on or about February 27, 2014, indicating that prisoners with assistive devices, such as

6 prosthetics and canes, will be housed in general population. The policy, as described in the letter,

7 has not been substantially followed. Prisoners with assistive devices remain either largely

8 confined to the Medical Unit or deprived of their assistive devices and housed in general

9 population at a significant risk to their health and safety.

10 Religious Services and Educational Programs

11

78. The Jail frequently denies individuals with mobility disabilities access to medical

12 devices and equipment necessary for them to participate in Jail programs and services. For

13 example, Jail Staff have denied prisoners with disabilities access to canes while in general

14 population, despite the fact that these prisoners require canes in order to safely and independently

15 navigate the Jail. In one such instance, when Mr. Jewett was permitted to go to church, his cane

16 was taken away from him upon. This prevented Mr. Jewett from leaving his seat during the

17 service, even when the service required him to stand.

18

79. Furthermore, despite written reminders sent from Jail Administration to Custody

19 Staff informing the Custody Staff that all prisoners are to be afforded equal opportunity to

20 participate in programs and services, including prisoners with disabilities and those confined to

21 the Medical Unit, disabled prisoners continued to be regularly denied equal access to these

22 programs and services. In fact, prisoners with mobility disabilities are regularly not informed of

23 what educational programming is even available to them.

24 Grievances and Retaliation

25

80. Individuals with disabilities housed at the Jail are not only often misinformed or

26 not informed about the Jail’s grievance process, but are retaliated against by Jail Staff when they

27 do use the grievance process. This lack of information and constant threat of retaliation renders

28 the grievance procedure ineffective and unavailable to them.

1062780.01

16
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 18 of 37

1

81. It is regular practice at the Jail to not provide prisoners with instructions on how to

2 file a grievance when prisoners with mobility disabilities are initially booked. For example

3 Messrs., Everett, Ackley, Jewett, and Marquette were all not provided a prisoner handbook when

4 they were initially booked into the Jail. Furthermore, Mr. Ackley was denied a paper copy of the

5 handbook for over nine months, despite requesting one in writing on multiple occasions.

6 Additionally, even when a prisoner is informed of how to file a grievance, prisoners are routinely

7 not informed that an appeal process exists for denied grievances, let alone the method to file such

8 an appeal.

9

82. Furthermore, disabled prisoners are regularly denied grievance forms. On a

10 consistent basis Messrs. Jewett, Everett, Ackley, and Marquette were denied grievance forms by

11 at least a subset of Due defendants. For example, Mr. Marquette has been denied grievance forms

12 from guards, even though on at least on occasion the guard had multiple blank grievance forms in

13 his pocket. Jail Staff have also stated to prisoners that they will not provide grievance forms to

14 them because the forms are better off used to “wipe their ass with.”

15

83. When individuals with disabilities are able to file a grievance they face retaliation

16 from Jail Staff. This type of retaliation deters prisoners with disabilities from exercising their

17 right to file a grievance with the Jail regarding the barriers they experience due to their

18 disabilities. Prisoner’s food is regularly tainted and inedible on days following the filling of

19 grievances by a prisoner. Additionally, Mr. Jewett was informed that his written complaints

20 about not being allowed to use the day room would result in him being disciplined by a subset of

21 the Doe Defendants.

22

84. For example, Mr. Jewett was retaliated against by a subset of the Doe Defendants

23 in the following ways for both asking for and/or submitting a grievance:

24

a. Written up for a rule infraction;

25

b. Cell searches;

26

c. Verbal abuse;

27

d. Body searches;

28

e. Denial of medication;

1062780.01

17
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 19 of 37

1

f. Being placed in solitary confinement;

2

g. Destroying his cane;

3

h. Removal of his cane; and

4

i. Forced to use the intake shower.

5

85. Prisoners are even retaliated against for meeting with counsel. For example, after

6 Mr. Marquette met with legal counsel, he was immediately moved from a medical cell to

7 administrative segregation. Mr. Marquette requested to know why he was being placed in the

8 “hole” but Jail Staff refused to inform him of the reason. Mr. Marquette then asked for a

9 grievance form, which was also denied. Jail Staff then proceeded to deny him his cancer

10 medication. The same day Mr. Marquette met with his attorney he had undergone his last round

11 of chemotherapy; the denial of Mr. Marquette’s cancer medication put him at a higher risk of

12 relapse. When prisoners are retaliated against for meeting with their attorneys, it renders the

13 prisons entire grievance system ineffective.

14 Exhaustion of Administrative Avenues

15

86. Mr. Jewett has filed administrative complaints with the Jail in compliance with the

16 Jail’s grievance policies and has exhausted the procedures, including all appeals, for such

17 administrative complaints. Defendants have been on notice about these conditions for a

18 considerable amount of time, and have been specifically on notice about the issues raised in this

19 lawsuit since it was initially filed on May 6, 2013.

20

87. Plaintiff Glen Harold Everett has either filed administrative complaints with the

21 Jail in compliance with the Jail’s grievance policies and has exhausted the procedures, including

22 all appeals, for such administrative complaints, or has been denied access to forms necessary to

23 file grievances with the Jail. Defendants have been on notice about these conditions for a

24 considerable amount of time, and have been specifically on notice about the issues raised in this

25 lawsuit since it was initially filed on May 6, 2013.

26

88. Plaintiff Michael Donald Ackley has either filed administrative complaints with

27 the Jail in compliance with the Jail’s grievance policies and has exhausted the procedures,

28 including all appeals, for such administrative complaints, or has been denied access to forms

1062780.01

18
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 20 of 37

1 necessary to file grievances with the Jail. Defendants have been on notice about these conditions

2 for a considerable amount of time, and have been specifically on notice about the issues raised in

3 this lawsuit since it was initially filed on May 6, 2013.

4

89. Plaintiff H. Robert Marquette has either filed administrative complaints with the

5 Jail in compliance with the Jail’s grievance policies and has exhausted the procedures, including

6 all appeals, for such administrative complaints, or has been denied access to forms necessary to

7 file grievances with the Jail. Defendants have been on notice about these conditions for a

8 considerable amount of time, and have been specifically on notice about the issues raised in this

9 lawsuit since it was initially filed on May 6, 2013.

10

90. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to ensure

11 compliance with the ADA and other laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals with

12 disabilities.

13

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

14

91. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all present and future

15 prisoners or detainees with mobility disabilities who are or will be held within the Shasta County

16 Jail, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

17

92. The class consists of all present and future detainees and prisoners with mobility

18 disabilities who are or will be held at the Shasta County Jail.

19

93. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege that

20 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and

21 analogous state statutes.

22

94. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege that

23 Defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and procedures to ensure

24 that the County, SCSD, and CFMG are in compliance with these statutes to ensure

25 nondiscrimination against persons with disabilities and equal access to programs, services, and

26 activities for persons with disabilities.

27

28

1062780.01

19
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 21 of 37

1

95. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege that

2 Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide SCSD officers and employees with

3 appropriate training regarding their legal obligations under relevant federal and state statutes.

4

96. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

5 that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide CFMG employees with appropriate

6 training and supervision regarding their legal obligations under relevant federal and state statutes.

7

97. The violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and related federal and

8 California State statutes set forth in detail have injured all members of the proposed class and

9 violated their rights.

10

98. The requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met with

11 regard to the proposed class in that:

12

a. The class is so numerous that it would be impractical to bring all class members

13

before the Court;

14

b. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the class;

15

c. The named Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are typical of the

16

claims of the class;

17

d. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent common class interests

18

and are represented by counsel who are very experienced in law reform class

19

actions and the disability rights issues in this case;

20

e. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to

21

the class;

22

f. The questions of law and fact which are common to the class predominate over

23

individual questions; and

24

g. A class action is superior to other available means of resolving this controversy.

25

99. The common questions of law and fact, shared by the named Plaintiffs and all

26 class members, include:

27

a. Whether Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. sections 12131,

28

et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities accessible to and

1062780.01

20
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 22 of 37

1

useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise discriminating against persons

2

with disabilities, as set forth above;

3

b. Whether Defendants are violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.

4

§ 794 et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities accessible

5

to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise discriminating against

6

people with disabilities, as set forth above.

7

c. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code Section 11135 (a),

8

which prohibits denial of benefits to persons with disabilities of any program or

9

activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from

10

the state.

11

d. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code § 51 et seq., by failing to

12

provide full and equal access to people with disabilities.

13

e. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code § 4450, et seq., by

14

failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

15

100. The class is believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is

16 impracticable. The prisoner population within the Shasta County Jail changes constantly as

17 prisoners and detainees cycle in and out of the Jail. Additionally, Plaintiffs are informed and

18 believes that in 2013 approximately eleven thousand prisoners were booked into the jail at

19 various points in time over the course of that year. If that number stayed relatively consistent

20 over the course of the following years covering applicable statutes of limitations and class period,

21 if even one percent of prisoners suffered from mobility disabilities, the number of disabled

22 persons affected would be in the hundreds. The exact figures regarding the total number of

23 persons with disabilities housed in the Jail are in the possession and control of Defendants.

24

101. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed class

25 members that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. Defendants’ records

26 may be used for assistance in the preparation of such notices. To the extent that any further

27 notices may be required, Plaintiffs contemplate the use of additional media and/or mailings.

28

1062780.01

21
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 23 of 37

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
1062780.01

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and
LSPC against Defendants SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, TOM BOSENKO, SHASTA COUNTY, and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP
102. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
103. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: “[N]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
104. Each Plaintiff is at all times relevant herein a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act because they have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.
105. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or activities that are provided to prisoners at the Shasta County Jail facility.
106. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were recipients of Federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.
107. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is charged under Executive Order 12250 with coordinating the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 28 C.F.R. § 41.1.
108. In providing any aid, benefit, or service, a recipient of federal financial assistance “may not . . . [d]eny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service,” “[a]fford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others,” “[p]rovide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective as that provided to others,” or “[o]therwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others[.]” 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (vii).
22 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 24 of 37

1

109. Defendants use criteria and methods of administration that have the purpose or

2 effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Jail’s

3 program with respect to persons with mobility disabilities and that subject persons with mobility

4 disabilities to discrimination in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4)(i), (ii).

5

110. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices exclude persons with mobility

6 disabilities from the Jail’s program and discriminate against them solely on account of their

7 disabilities, in violation of Section 504 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

8 Further, Defendants systematically fail and refuse to offer reasonable modifications and

9 accommodations for individuals with mobility disabilities.

10

111. Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices have resulted in, or threaten to

11 result in, discrimination against individuals with mobility disabilities in their unlawful exclusion

12 from participation in, and denial of benefits of, the Defendants’ programs, services, and activities.

13

112. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based thereon allege that Defendants

14 committed the acts and omissions alleged herein with intent and/or reckless disregard of the rights

15 of Plaintiffs. It is also alleged that the Defendants have violated the Act by providing substandard

16 accommodations or refusing to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable accommodations for their

17 disabilities.

18

113. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs suffered and

19 continue to suffer, hardship, injuries, and physical and mental conditions due to Defendants’

20 failures to address accommodations, modifications, services, and access required for their

21 disabilities.

22

114. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

23 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs

24 are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

25

115. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 794(a),

26 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

27

28

1062780.01

23
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 25 of 37

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
1062780.01

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.) By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and
LSPC against Defendants SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, TOM BOSENKO, SHASTA COUNTY, and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP
116. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
117. Congress enacted the ADA upon finding, among other things, that “society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities” and that such forms of discrimination continue to be a “serious and pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).
118. In response to these findings, Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA is to provide “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” and “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)-(2).
119. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
120. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were each a “public entity” within the meaning of the ADA under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).
121. The ADA defines a qualified individual with a disability as a person who suffers from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” including, but not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A), and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Plaintiffs Jewett, Everett, Ackley and Marquette are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and are substantially limited in the major life activities of walking, standing, lifting, and/or bending.
24 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 26 of 37

1

122. Congress directed the DOJ to write regulations implementing Title II’s prohibition

2 against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12134. Pursuant to this mandate, the DOJ has issued

3 regulations defining the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title II of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §§

4 35.101 et. seq.

5

123. Defendants County and SCSD are legally responsible for all violations of the ADA

6 committed by Defendant CFMG in the course of performing its duties under its contractual

7 arrangement with Defendants County and SCSD to provide medical and mental health care

8 services to prisoners in the Jail. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).

9

124. Defendants have excluded plaintiffs from participation in the services, programs

10 and activities of the Shasta County Jail facilities, and have denied them the rights and benefits

11 accorded to other prisoners, solely by reason of their disabilities in violation of the ADA. In

12 addition, the Defendants have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide Plaintiffs with

13 reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities. See generally 28

14 C.F.R. § 35.130.

15

125. Defendants are mandated to operate each program, service, or activity so that,

16 “when viewed in its entirety, [it] is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with

17 disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150(a); see also 28 C.F.R. §§35.149 & 35.151. Defendants

18 continue to violate the ADA by maintaining inaccessible facilities that deny people with

19 disabilities access to programs, services, and activities.

20

126. Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications to their policies,

21 practices, and procedures which affect prisoners with disabilities at the Jail. Defendants’ failure

22 to make such reasonable modifications has resulted in discrimination against individuals on the

23 basis of disability in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

24

127. Defendants use criteria and methods of administration that have the purpose or

25 effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Jail with

26 respect to persons with disabilities in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(ii).

27

128. In providing the aid, benefits, and services associated with the Jail, Defendants

28 deny individuals with mobility disabilities the equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from

1062780.01

25
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 27 of 37

1 the aid, benefits, or services of the Jail’s program. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(l)(i). Further,

2 Defendants provide individuals with mobility disabilities an aid, benefit, or service that is not as

3 effective in affording the same opportunity to gain the same benefit as provided to persons

4 without disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii).

5

129. Defendants similarly impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to

6 screen out individuals with mobility disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service,

7 program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the

8 program being offered. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8).

9

130. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents

10 and employees have failed and continue to fail to:

11

j. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical

12

access necessary to enable prisoners with disabilities to participate on an equal

13

basis in programs, services, and activities.

14

k. Develop and enforce procedures for the SCSD to ensure provision of necessary

15

accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access necessary to

16

enable prisoners with disabilities to participate on an equal basis in programs,

17

services, and activities.

18

l. Train and supervise the jail personnel to provide necessary accommodations,

19

modifications, services, and/or physical access necessary to enable prisoners with

20

disabilities to participate on an equal basis in programs, services, and activities.

21

131. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

22 suffered, and continue to suffer, hardship, injuries, and deteriorating physical and mental

23 conditions, due to Defendants’ failures to address accommodations, modifications, services, and

24 access required for Plaintiffs’ disabilities.

25

132. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

26 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs

27 are suffering irreparable harm and, thus, immediate relief is appropriate.

28

1062780.01

26
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 28 of 37

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
1062780.01

133. Pursuant to the remedies, procedure, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 and 12205 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq.) By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and
LSPC against Defendant CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP
134. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
135. Title III of the ADA (“Title III”) provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
136. Congress directed the Attorney General to write regulations implementing Title III’s prohibition against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b). Pursuant to this mandate, the Department of Justice has issued regulations defining the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title III of the ADA, which are contained at 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101 et. seq.
137. The ADA defines a qualified individual with a disability as a person who suffers from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” including, but not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), (2)(A); 28 C.F.R. §36.104. Plaintiffs Jewett, Everett, Ackley, and Marquette are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and are substantially limited in the major life activities of walking, standing, lifting, and/or bending.
138. Defendant CFMG is not a governmental entity or a department or other instrumentality of a State or local government and is therefore a “private entit[y]” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(6).
27 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 29 of 37

1

139. Defendant CFMG is a public accommodation that owns, leases, leases to, or

2 operates a professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment

3 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

4

140. Title III provides that it “shall be discriminatory to subject an individual on the

5 basis of a disability . . . , directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a

6 denial of the opportunity of the individual . . . to participate in or benefit from the goods, services,

7 facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.” 42 U.S.C.

8 § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).

9

141. Title III also prohibits private entities from affording an individual with a

10 disability “the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege,

11 advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals” as well as

12 from providing an individual with a disability with “a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage,

13 or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such

14 action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a[n] . . .opportunity that

15 is as effective as that provided to others.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii).

16

142. Individuals with disabilities must also be provided with goods, services, facilities,

17 advantages, and accommodations “in the most integrated setting appropriate” to the individual’s

18 needs and an individual with a disability “shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in

19 such programs or activities that are not separate or different.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(B), (C )

20

143. Discrimination under Title III of the ADA is defined to include the “failure to

21 make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are

22 necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to

23 individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications

24 would fundamentally alter the nature of the such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

25 advantages, or accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).

26

144. By its policies and practices described above, Defendant CFMG violates Title III

27 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, by discriminating against individuals with disabilities on

28

1062780.01

28
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 30 of 37

1 the basis of disability, in the full and equal enjoyment of CFMG’s goods, services, facilities,

2 privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R., Part 36.

3

145. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

4 suffered, and continue to suffer, hardship, injuries, and deteriorating physical and mental

5 conditions, due to Defendant’s failures to address accommodations, modifications, services, and

6 access required for Plaintiffs’ disabilities.

7

146. Because Defendant’s discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

8 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs

9 are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

10

147. Pursuant to the remedies, procedure, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. §§ 12133 and

11 12205 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

12

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

(California Government Code § 11135)

14

By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and LSPC against Defendants SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, TOM

15

BOSENKO, SHASTA COUNTY, and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP

16

148. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

17 foregoing paragraphs.

18

149. Section 11135(a) of the California Government Code provides in pertinent part:

19 "No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of . . . disability, be unlawfully denied full

20 and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any

21 program or activity that . . . is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance

22 from the state.”

23

150. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are all persons with disabilities within the

24 meaning of California Government Code § 11135.

25

151. Defendants receive financial assistance from the State of California to operate the

26 Jail and to pay for the programs and services provided therein.

27

152. Through their acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated and

28 continue to violate California Government Code § 11135 by unlawfully denying Plaintiffs and the

1062780.01

29
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 31 of 37

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
1062780.01

class the benefits of Defendants’ programs and activities and unlawfully subjecting them to discrimination.
153. Defendants have also discriminated on the basis of disability, in violation of California Government Code § 11135, by constructing, altering or repairing parts of the Jail in a manner that violates the accessibility requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code and California Government Code § 4450.
154. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship, injuries, and deteriorating physical and mental conditions, due to Defendants’ failures to address accommodations, modifications, services, and access required for Plaintiffs’ disabilities.
155. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Unless the relief requested herein is granted, Defendants will continue to discriminate against prisoners with disabilities by denying them access to, and the benefits of, Defendants’ facilities, programs, services, and activities. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.
156. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in filing this action.
157. Pursuant to the remedies, procedure, and rights set forth in Section 11135 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unruh Civil Rights Act
California Civil Code § 51 et seq.) By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and
LSPC against Defendant CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP
158. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
159. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated California Civil Code § 51(b) which provides in pertinent part that “All persons within the
30 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 32 of 37

1 jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their . . . disability [or] medical

2 condition . . . are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges,

3 or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

4

160. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 51(f), a violation of the ADA also constitutes a

5 violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq.

6

161. CFMG is a “business establishment” within the meaning of California Civil Code

7 §51 et seq.

8

162. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants are violating

9 California Civil Code § 51 et seq. by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to its program

10 comparable to the access that it offers to others.

11

163. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

12 suffered, and continue to suffer, hardship, injuries, and deteriorating physical and mental

13 conditions, due to Defendant CFMG’s failures to address accommodations, modifications,

14 services, and access required for Plaintiffs’ disabilities.

15

164. Because Defendant CFMG’s discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

16 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendant’s actions Plaintiffs

17 are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

18

165. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in filing this

19 action.

20

166. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 52,

21 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

22

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

(California Government Code § 4450, et seq.)

24

By Plaintiffs JEWETT, EVERETT, ACKLEY and MARQUETTE, the Plaintiff Class and LSPC against Defendants SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, TOM

25

BOSENKO, SHASTA COUNTY, and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP

26

167. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

27 foregoing paragraphs.

28

1062780.01

31
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 33 of 37

1

168. Defendants’ facilities are publicly funded and intended for use by the public within

2 the meaning of California Government Code § 4450, et seq. Defendants have constructed, altered,

3 installed, maintained and/or operated its facilities in violation of disability access requirements

4 under California Government Code § 4450, et seq., and regulations implemented pursuant

5 thereto. The aforementioned acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute a denial of equal

6 access to and use of Defendants’ facilities.

7

169. Defendants’ failure to provide full and equal access to their facilities has caused

8 Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights.

9

170. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

10 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as deteriorating

11 physical conditions, due to Defendants’ failures to address accommodations, modifications,

12 services, and access required for Plaintiffs’ disabilities.

13

171. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

14 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs

15 are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. Plaintiffs are also

16 entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in filing this action.

17

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

(Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act))

19

By Plaintiffs JEWETT against ALL DEFENDANTS

20

172. Mr. Jewett incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

21

173. Does 1–25 interfered with Mr. Jewett’s rights under the Constitution and laws of

22 the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of California, by threatening,

23 intimidating, and committing violent acts against Mr. Jewett in the course of his incarceration at

24 the Jail.

25

174. Mr. Jewett reasonably believed that if he exercised his statutory or constitutional

26 rights, Does 1–25 would in fact commit violence against him.

27

175. The conduct of Does 1–25 caused Mr. Jewett emotional and physical harm.

28

1062780.01

32
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 34 of 37

1

176. Does 1–25 acted intentionally, deliberately, spitefully, willfully, maliciously, in

2 bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Mr. Jewett’s rights.

3

177. Defendants’ above-described conduct interfered with Mr. Jewett’s exercise and

4 enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of

5 California, in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.

6

178. Defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko, and Shasta

7 County are derivatively liable for such violation of California Civil Code § 52.1(b) pursuant to

8 California Government Code § 815.2.

9

179. Accordingly, Mr. Jewett seeks compensatory (actual) and exemplary damages,

10 penalties, and injunctive relief, pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 52, in an amount

11 to be proven at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code §

12 52.1(h), against Does 1–25, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko, and Shasta

13 County.

14

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

(Additional Claims of Named Plaintiff Everett Jewett)

16

By Mr. JEWETT against Defendants SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, TOM BOSENKO, SHASTA COUNTY, and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL

17

GROUP

18

180. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

19 foregoing paragraphs.

20

181. 29 U.S.C. § 794a sets forth the remedies for a violation of the Rehabilitation Act,

21 including monetary damages. Defendants County and SCSD were on notice of the need for

22 accommodations by Mr. Jewett and were deliberately indifferent to that need as evidenced by

23 their failure to ensure that their facilities are physically accessible and failure to adopt policies

24 and procedures to ensure accommodations are provided in a timely manner to people with

25 mobility disabilities. Therefore, Mr. Jewett is entitled to monetary damages pursuant to 29

26 U.S.C. § 794a.

27

28

1062780.01

33
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 35 of 37

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
1062780.01

182. Named Mr. Jewett is additionally entitled to statutory minimum damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52 for each and every offense he has and continued to experience in violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b).
183. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, the remedies set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 794a are the remedies available for a violation of Title II of the ADA, including monetary damages. Defendants County and SCSD were on notice of the need for accommodations by Mr. Jewett and were deliberately indifferent to that need as evidenced by their failure to ensure that their facilities are physically accessible and failure to adopt policies and procedures to ensure accommodations are provided in a timely manner to people with mobility disabilities. Therefore, Mr. Jewett is entitled to monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133.
184. California Government Code § 11135 adopts the same remedies set forth in Title II of the ADA, including monetary damages. Defendants were on notice of the need for accommodations by Mr. Jewett and were deliberately indifferent to that need as evidenced by their failure to ensure that their facilities are physically accessible and failure to adopt policies and procedures to ensure accommodations are provided in a timely manner to people with mobility disabilities. Therefore, Mr. Jewett is entitled to monetary damages pursuant to California Government Code § 11135.
185. California Civil Code §52(a) provides that, “[w]hoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51…is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000)…” Pursuant to California Civil Code § 52, Mr. Jewett is entitled to at least statutory minimum damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52 for each and every offense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment as follows:
1. A judicial declaration that Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein has violated, and continues to violate, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California Code
34 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 36 of 37

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 //
1062780.01

§§ 11135 and 4450. 2. A declaration that Defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko,
and Shasta County’s conduct as alleged herein has violated, and continues to violate, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3. A declaration that Defendant California Forensic Medical Group’s conduct as alleged herein has violated, and continues to violate, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51 et seq). 4. Enjoin Defendants from violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, [and] California Code §§ 11135 and 4450. 5. Enjoin Defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko, and Shasta County from violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 6. Enjoin Defendant California Forensic Medical Group from violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51 et seq). 7. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future, absent continuing jurisdiction; 8. Award Mr. Jewett damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages; 9. Award Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by statute; and 10. Such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.
35 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 65 Filed 06/02/16 Page 37 of 37

1 Dated: May 25, 2016
2

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

3 4 5 6
Dated: May 25, 2016 7

By: /s/ Steven P. Ragland STEVEN P. RAGLAND AJAY S. KRISHNAN TAYLOR GOOCH
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

8 9 10 11 Dated: May 25, 2016 12 13 14 15 16 17

By: /s/ Kara Janssen (as authorized on May 25, 2016) KARA JANSSEN ANNA RIVERA
ATABECK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: /s/ Jon A. Atabeck (as authorized on May 25, 2016) JON A. ATABEK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1062780.01

36
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EVERETT JEWETT,

No. 2:13-cv-0882 AC P

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,
15
Defendants. 16

17

18

Plaintiff, a Shasta County inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. ECF

20 No. 4. By Order field on August 27, 2013, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed

21 with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed a

22 second amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment,

23 ECF No. 10, which will be vacated at this time as premature.

24

As plaintiff has been previously informed, the court is required to screen complaints

25 brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

26 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion

27 thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state

28 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 1

1 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

3 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

4 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

5 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

6 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

7 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

8 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

9

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

10 action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

11 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “The pleading must

12 contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a

13 legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and

14 Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-35 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual

15 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

16 566 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has

17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

19

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations

20 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96

21 S. Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve

22 all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S. Ct. 1843

23 (1969).

24

The second amended complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants

25 Shasta County, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. and Dr. Austin for violations of the ADA

26 (Americans with Disabilities Act) with respect to an alleged failure by defendants to

27 accommodate plaintiff’s well-documented physical limitations. In addition, plaintiff’s allegations

28 that he is denied access to education programs and religious services because of his disability 2

1 frame a cognizable ADA claim against defendant County of Shasta.

2

However, to the extent plaintiff seeks to make a claim under the Eighth Amendment

3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is not sufficient to simply claim he was “negligently” housed or

4 that the medical facility was overcrowded. Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, at 2-4.

5

Eighth Amendment Inadequate Medical Care Claim

6

In order to state a §1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on

7 inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence

8 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

9 To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and that

10 defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299

11 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). The requisite state of

12 mind for a medical claim is “deliberate indifference.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5

13 (1992).

14

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

15 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Indications that a

16 prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment are the following: the existence of an injury

17 that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the

18 presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the

19 existence of chronic and substantial pain. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1337-

20 41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200-01 (9th Cir. 1989).

21 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX

22 Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

23

In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court established a very

24 demanding standard for “deliberate indifference.” Negligence is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S.

25 at 835. Even civil recklessness (failure to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm

26 which is so obvious that it should be known) is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment

27 violation. Id. at 836-37. It not enough that a reasonable person would have known of the risk or

28 that a defendant should have known of the risk. Id. at 842. Rather, deliberate indifference is 3

1 established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

2 inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal

3 citation omitted) (emphasis added).

4

A physician need not fail to treat an inmate altogether in order to violate that inmate’s

5 Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). A

6 failure to competently treat a serious medical condition, even if some treatment is prescribed, may

7 constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case. Id. However, mere differences of opinion

8 concerning the appropriate treatment cannot be the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.

9 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th

10 Cir. 1981). In cases involving complex medical issues where plaintiff contests the type of

11 treatment he received, expert opinion will almost always be necessary to establish the necessary

12 level of deliberate indifference. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1988).

13

A finding that an inmate was seriously harmed by the defendant’s action or inaction tends

14 to provide additional support for a claim of deliberate indifference; however, it does not end the

15 inquiry. McGuckin, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992). In summary, “the more serious the

16 medical needs of the prisoner, and the more unwarranted the defendant’s actions in light of those

17 needs, the more likely it is that a plaintiff has established deliberate indifference on the part of the

18 defendant.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1061.

19

Plaintiff’s claim that defendants were negligent in their housing or treatment of plaintiff is

20 dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

21

Grievance Procedure

22

Plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated a state law, Cal. Pen. Code § 832.5, with regard

23 to the processing of inmate complaints (ECF No. 9 at 5) at the jail, does not state a constitutional

24 claim. Prisoners do not have a Aseparate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

25 procedure.@ Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855

26 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Even the non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to

27 properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise

28 constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d at 640. See also, Buckley v. Barlow, 997 4

1 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991). Azeez v. DeRobertis,

2 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill. 1982) (A[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it

3 does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected

4 liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment@).

5 Specifically, a failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley,

6 supra. State regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the

7 federal constitution only if those regulations pertain to Afreedom from restraint@ that Aimposes

8 atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.@ 9 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).1 Jail grievance procedures, just like prison

10 grievance procedures, do not create an enforceable substantive right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

11 Flournoy v. Fairman, 897 F.Supp. 350, 354 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Plaintiff=s due process claims

12 accordingly will be dismissed, but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

13

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

14 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

15 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

16 each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

17 is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

18 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th

19 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and

20 conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

21 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

22

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

23 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

24 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

25 1 “[W]e recognize that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are 26 protected by the Due Process Clause. . . . But these interests will be generally limited to freedom
from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give 27 rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. 28 Conner, supra (internal citations omitted).
5

1 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa

2 County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) ) (“the general rule is that an amended complaint

3 super[s]edes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect... .”) Once plaintiff files an

4 amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in

5 an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each

6 defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and due process violations against the defendants are

9 dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file a third amended complaint within

10 twenty-eight days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file a third amended

11 complaint will result in a recommendation that these claims be dismissed from this action.

12

2. Upon plaintiff’s filing a third amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed

13 therefor, the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the

14 defendants.

15

3. Plaintiff’s premature motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10), filed on October

16 15, 2013, is hereby vacated.

17 DATED: January 21, 2014

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EVERETT JEWETT, et al.,

No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC P

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC. et al.,
15
Defendants. 16

ORDER AND AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17

This action proceeds on the basis of the Fifth Amended Complaint filed June 2, 2016.

18 ECF No. 65. On March 8, 2017, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class

19 certification (ECF No. 83). Joseph Gooch, Steven Ragland, and Maronel Barajas appeared for

20 plaintiffs. Gary Brickwood appeared for defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom

21 Bosenko, and Shasta County. There was no appearance on behalf of defendants California

22 Forensic Medical Group, Inc (CFMG). All defendants had previously filed notices of non-

23 opposition to the proposed class certification. On review of the motion, the documents filed in

24 support, upon hearing the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the court finds

25 as follows:

26

I. Fifth Amended Complaint

27

A. Parties

28

Individual named plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Harold Everett, and Michael Donald Ackley

1

1 are persons with mobility disabilities who are or were housed within Shasta County Jail (“SCJ” or 2 “Jail”) facilities.1 ECF No. 65 at 4. Each named plaintiff suffers from a different disability that

3 substantially limits their ability to walk and requires use of an assistive device to walk, such as a

4 cane or crutches. Id. at 5-6. Each plaintiff has had a number of disability-related problems at the

5 Jail, including, but not limited to, denial of accommodations, physical access, and access to

6 programs at the Jail. Id.

7

Plaintiff Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC), an organizational plaintiff, is

8 a non-profit that advocates for the civil rights of incarcerated persons and their families. Id. at 6.

9 LSPC currently spends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and

10 procedures affecting individuals with disabilities who are incarcerated in California’s prisons and

11 jails, including SCJ. Id. at 6-7.

12

Defendant Shasta County is responsible for the SCJ facilities, as well as oversight of the

13 Sheriff’s Department; defendant Shasta County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for operating

14 the Jail; defendant Tom Bosenko is the Sheriff of Shasta County, named in his official capacity

15 only; defendant CFMG is a for-profit organization that provides healthcare services to prisoners

16 at the Jail pursuant to a contract with Shasta County; and defendants Does 1-25 are current or

17 former Jail or CFMG staff who participated in the decisions to deny original plaintiff Jewett his

18 assistive devices and to threaten him when he complained of defendants’ failure to reasonably

19 accommodate his mobility impairments. Id. at 7-8.

20

B. Allegations of the Fifth Amended Complaint

21

Plaintiffs allege that defendants have discriminated against and failed to accommodate

22 mobility disabled prisoners at SCJ in a number of ways. They assert that throughout SCJ,

23 significant problems exist for people with disabilities with respect to classification, housing,

24 access to programs and services, and physical access barriers. Id. at 10. Plaintiffs assert that

25 defendants systemically fail to effectively evaluate the needs of people with disabilities within the

26 Jail, and fail to meet those needs through appropriate accommodations and physical access. Id.

27 1 Harold Robert Marquette is also a named plaintiff but is not part of this class certification. See
28 ECF No. 83.
2

1 These systemic issues include, but are not limited to: inappropriate placement and/or security

2 classification of people with mobility disabilities; failure to provide appropriate mobility aids;

3 failure to accommodate the needs of people with mobility disabilities; failure to modify policies

4 and procedures for people with mobility disabilities; failure to remove multiple and pervasive

5 architectural barriers throughout the jails; failure to allow people with mobility disabilities access

6 to vocational, educational, religious, and other programs and services; failure to have an

7 emergency and/or evacuation policy for people with mobility disabilities; and failure to provide

8 an effective complaint procedure for disability related complaints. Id.

9

Plaintiffs allege that these violations result from a number of pervasive problems,

10 including, but not limited to the following:

11

 There is no comprehensive set of policies or procedures for determining appropriate

12

accommodations, modifications or services for prisoners with disabilities;

13

 People who are identified as having mobility disabilities and who require assistive devices

14

are frequently housed in segregated facilities that provide severely restricted access to the

15

programs and services available in the Jail; and

16

 Architectural barriers are pervasive throughout the Jail. These include failure to make

17

housing and programming accessible to people with mobility disabilities, as well as a

18

failure to provide emergency evacuation plans for people with mobility disabilities.

19 Id. at 11.

20

With respect to the physical barriers at the Jail, plaintiffs assert that none of the cells are

21 ADA complaint because they are not accessible to mobility disabled prisoners. Id. The Jail has

22 no cells designated for use by prisoners with mobility disabilities, and none of the cells at the Jail,

23 including those in the Medical Unit, have grab bars to allow prisoners with mobility disabilities to

24 independently and safely use the toilet. Id.

25

In addition, mobility impaired prisoners are routinely segregated solely because of their

26 assistive devices and housed in the Medical Unit, where they are kept on 23-hour lockdown (in

27 conditions comparable to solitary confinement) and denied access to programs and religious

28 services. Id. at 2-4, 11, 15-17. The Medical Unit where many mobility disabled prisoners are 3

1 housed is also deficient in that the cells do not have access features, such as clearance and knee

2 space for wheelchairs or hand bars for independent use of in-cell toilets. Id. at 3, 11. The

3 Medical Unit has only one shower with a grab bar and shower seat, which plaintiffs allege was

4 installed within the last year, well after this lawsuit was filed. Id. at 11. Even in the medical unit,

5 prisoners are routinely denied use of their assistive devices and, as a result, are often confined to

6 their beds, causing their health to deteriorate. Id. at 15-16.

7

When mobility disabled prisoners are given the option to be housed in general population,

8 they do so at their own peril: assistive devices are not permitted in general population, and there

9 are a number of physical and architectural barriers in general population housing. Id. at 14, 16-

10 17. The showers in general population do not have grab bars or shower seats, and there is a six-

11 to eight-inch lip that must be stepped over to enter the shower. Id. at 11. The thresholds of other

12 rooms have a one-inch bevel that must be stepped over. Id. at 3. The stairs between floors do not

13 have adequate handrail extensions. Id. There is no wheelchair seating in the day rooms, and no

14 place to sit in the yard. Id. at 3, 16. Also, mobility impaired prisoners in general population are

15 often assigned to upper bunks, despite their impairments, and have been injured after falling from

16 the bunks. Id. at 13, 15.

17

Mobility impaired prisoners in general population may request to use the Medical Unit

18 shower, but these requests are often denied and prisoners are forced to use the general population

19 showers, where they are at risk of injury. Id. at 11-13. Plaintiff Jewett, for example, has fallen in

20 the shower twice and will require knee replacement surgery as a result of the fall. Id. at 12-13.

21

Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered a number of injuries, often as a result of falling in

22 the shower, off a bunk, down the stairs, or being confined to their beds, as a result of the lack of

23 accommodations at SCJ. Id. at 12-13, 15. Plaintiffs contend that defendants are aware of the

24 problems but have refused to remedy the situation. Id. at Plaintiffs further allege that they have

25 been discriminated against based on their disabilities and have been denied the access to the

26 programs and services enjoyed by their non-disabled peers. Id. at 3.

27

C. Class Action Allegations

28

Plaintiffs seek to bring this action individually and on behalf of “all present and future

4

1 prisoners or detainees with mobility disabilities who are or will be held within the Shasta County

2 Jail.” Id. at 20. They allege that defendants have failed to comply with Titles II and III of the

3 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and analogous state statutes. Id.

4 Plaintiffs allege that defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and

5 procedures to ensure nondiscrimination against persons with disabilities, and equal access to

6 programs, services, and activities for persons with disabilities. Id. at 20-21.

7

Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide SCSD officers

8 and employees with appropriate training regarding their legal obligations under relevant federal

9 and state statutes. Id. at 21. They similarly allege that defendants have failed and continue to fail

10 to provide CFMG employees with appropriate training and supervision regarding their legal

11 obligations under relevant federal and state statutes. Id. Plaintiffs assert that defendants’

12 violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and related federal and state statutes have injured

13 all members of the proposed class and violated their rights. Id.

14

Plaintiffs assert that they have met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy

15 of representation requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Id. at 21-22.

16

D. Claims For Relief

17

The Fifth Amended Complaint sets forth eight overlapping causes of action. The First,

18 Second, Fourth, and Six Causes of Action claim that defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s

19 Department, Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, and CFMG violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

20 of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.), and California

21 Government Code § 11135, , et seq. and § 4450, et seq. ECF No. 65 at 23-28, 30-31, 32-33.

22

The Third and Fifth Causes of Action claim that defendant CFMG violated Title III of the

23 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et. seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.

24 ECF No. 65 at 28-30, 31-32.

25

The Seventh Cause of Action is brought only by plaintiff Jewett against all defendants for

26 violations of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.2 In the Eighth Cause of Action, plaintiff Jewett

27 2 California Civil Code § 52.1, also known as the Bane Act, serves as a state law remedy for
28 constitutional or statutory violations accomplished through intimidation, coercion, or threats. Cal.
5

1 also seeks monetary damages against defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom

2 Bosenko, Shasta County, and CFMG for violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and

3 analogous state statutes. ECF No. 65 at 33-35.

4

E. Relief Sought

5

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief on behalf of all plaintiffs, and

6 monetary damages for plaintiff Jewett. Id. at 35-36. Specifically, plaintiffs seek a declaration

7 that defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and

8 analogous California state statues, and they seek to enjoin defendants from future violations of

9 those laws. Id. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and costs, and request that the court retain

10 jurisdiction of the case until defendants have fully complied with any court orders. Id. at 36.

11

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

12

Plaintiff seeks an order certifying this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

13 The proposed class consists of “[a]ll current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County

14 Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate

15 accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal

16 and state disability laws.” ECF No. 83 at 7, 10. For purposes of this motion, plaintiffs define

17 “mobility disability” as “any impairment or medical condition that limits a person’s ability to

18 walk, ambulate, maneuver around objects and/or to ascend and/or descend steps or slopes.” Id. at

19 7, 10 n.2. Plaintiffs further explain that a “person with a mobility disability may or may not use a

20 wheelchair, scooter, crutches, walker, cane, brace, orthopedic device, or similar equipment or

21 device to assist his or her navigation.” Id. at 10 n.2.

22

As previously noted, defendants have filed notices of non-opposition to plaintiffs’ motion

23 for class certification. ECF Nos. 86, 87. The parties agree, and confirmed at the hearing, that

24 there is no need for discovery going to the propriety of class certification. Accordingly, the

25 Civ. Code § 52.1. Although analogous to § 1983, it is not tantamount to a § 1983 violation, 26 requiring more than evidence of a violation of rights. Davis v. City of San Jose, 69 F. Supp. 3d
1001, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2014); see also Austin B. v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 27 860, 883 (2007) (“The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified
improper means (i.e., “threats, intimidation or coercion”), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from 28 doing something he or she had the right to do under the law.”).
6

1 motion is appropriate for adjudication at this time.

2

A. Standards for Class Certification

3

A party seeking to certify a class must demonstrate that it has met all four requirements of

4 Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst.,

5 Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 23(a) allows a class to be certified

6

only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the

7

class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are

typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the

8

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests

of the class. 9

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In other words, the class must satisfy the requirements of numerosity,

11 commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

12

Rule 23(b) provides for three types of class actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here, plaintiff

13 seeks to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which allows for a class to be certified if “the party

14 opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

15 making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

16 class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

17

The court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the moving party’s claims to examine

18 whether the requirements are satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161

19 (1982). Generally, the court should not consider whether the party seeking class certification has

20 stated a cause of action or is likely to prevail on the merits. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417

21 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). Nevertheless, the court may consider such evidence, when applicable, even

22 if the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of the case. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

23 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992). If the court concludes that the moving party has met its

24 burden of proof, the court has broad discretion to certify the class. Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1186.

25

B. Requirements Under Rule 23(a)

26

1. Numerosity

27

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a)(1) provides that numerosity exists if “the class is so numerous

28 that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Defendants stipulate that plaintiffs have met the 7

1 numerosity requirement. ECF No. 83-3 at 3-4; ECF No. 86 at 2; ECF No. 87 at 2.

2

Plaintiff’s expert Julian Martinez reports that as many as thirty-eight prisoners with

3 mobility disabilities are in the Jail on any given day. ECF No. 83-7 at 159, 170. Furthermore,

4 Martinez estimates that between 516 to 1,200 mobility disabled detainees are processed by the

5 Jail in any given year. Id. In general, courts find the numerosity requirement satisfied when a

6 class includes at least forty members. See Rannis v. Recchia, 380 Fed. Appx. 646, 651 (9th Cir.

7 2010) (citing Gen. Tel. Co. of the N.W. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980)). Thus, the estimated

8 size of the proposed class here raises a presumption of impracticability based on numbers alone.

9 This is especially true where, as here, the class includes future, unknowable class members. See

10 Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 153 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

11

Because the class is well over forty members, and defendants have stipulated to

12 numerosity, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs meet the numerosity requirement.

13

2. Commonality

14

Defendants do not dispute that there are questions of law or fact common to the class and

15 that the commonality requirement is thus met. ECF No. 86 at 2; ECF No. 87 at 2.

16

Commonality exists when “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.

17 R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that every or all questions of fact or law be

18 common or identical. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). In a civil

19 rights suit, the commonality requirement is satisfied where the suit challenges a “system-wide

20 practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d

21 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 812 (2002), abrogated on other grounds by

22 Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005); see also Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S.

23 Ct. 2541, 2553 (2011) (reaffirming that where a system-wide policy or practice is the cause of

24 class members’ injuries, plaintiffs satisfy the commonality requirement); Stockwell v. City &

25 Cnty. of San Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107, 1111-13 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, commonality may exist

26 where there is a common legal issue with varied factual predicates. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019-20.

27

Here, plaintiffs allege that all class members have been discriminated against by

28 defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and analogous state statutes. 8

1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and

2 procedures to ensure nondiscrimination against prisoners with mobility disabilities and equal

3 access to programs, services, and activities for persons with mobility disabilities. These issues

4 require an examination of defendants’ programs, policies, practices and facilities as a whole. Of

5 course, the experiences of individual plaintiffs will likely be relevant to prove that defendants’

6 policies, procedures, and practices resulted in discrimination against mobility disabled prisoners

7 and lack of access to programs, services, and activities for prisoners with mobility disabilities.

8 However, the alleged injuries and legal theories are the same across the class.

9

In Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit affirmed certification of a class of disabled life prisoners

10 who challenged the accommodations provided by the board of prison terms at and in relation to

11 parole hearings. The court rejected the argument that the different types of disability experienced

12 by the class members – hearing impairments, visual impairments, mobility impairments,

13 developmental disabilities and learning disabilities – defeated commonality. The court reasoned

14 that differences among the individual litigants did not preclude a finding of commonality because

15 all plaintiffs challenged a single system-wide policy or practice affecting all putative class

16 members. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868.

17

In Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit affirmed class

18 certification, holding that “[t]he putative class and subclass members . . . all set forth numerous

19 common contentions whose truth or falsity can be determined in one stroke: whether the specified

20 [system-]wide policies and practices to which they are all subjected . . . expose them to a

21 substantial risk of harm.” Id. at 678 (citing Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551). Because of the nature

22 of the plaintiffs’ system-wide challenge, “either each of the policies and practices is unlawful as

23 to every inmate or it is not.” Id. Any determination of the merits would “not require [the court]

24 to determine the effect of those policies and practices upon any individual class member (or class

25 members) or to undertake any other kind of individualized determination.” Id. at 679.

26

The same analysis set forth in Armstrong and Parsons applies here. Plaintiffs are

27 challenging systemic discrimination based on failed policies, practices and procedures that result

28 in an overall failure to ensure the accessibility of the Jail for prisoners with mobility disabilities. 9

1 Either plaintiffs are housed in a facility that comports with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 2 analogous state statutes, or they are not.3 Claims of this kind – involving detailed factual and

3 legal allegations of specified systemic deficiencies in prison practices and policies that affect all

4 putative class members – have long been brought in the form of class actions lawsuits. See, e.g.

5 Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868 (differences in particular class members’ disabilities did not justify

6 requiring separate actions, since all disabled prisoners and parolees suffered similar harm from

7 board’s system-wide failure to accommodate their disabilities); Hernandez, 305 F.R.D. at 157

8 (commonality in case challenging, inter alia, system-wide, insufficient accommodations for

9 persons with disabilities); Parsons v. Ryan, 289 F.R.D. 513, 516-23 (D. Ariz. 2013)

10 (commonality in case challenging medical and mental healthcare provided to 33,000 inmates in

11 Arizona); Henderson v. Thomas, 289 F.R.D. 506, 511 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (commonality for ADA

12 claims challenging Alabama prison policy of segregating HIV positive inmates from general

13 prison population); see also Clark v. California, No. C96-1486 FMS, 1998 WL 242688, at *6,

14 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6770, at *17-19 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 1998) (refusing to decertify a class of

15 developmentally-disabled inmates seeking certain accessibility improvements in a prison system

16 pursuant, in part, to the ADA).

17

Plaintiffs have met or exceeded Wal-Mart’s requirement of proof that there are “in fact . . .

18 common questions of law or fact.” 131 S. Ct. at 2551. The materials they submitted include, but

19 are not limited to: two plaintiff-retained expert reports; the detailed allegations in the Fifth

20 Amended Complaint; the Department of Justice’s Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for

21 Accessible Design; Americans with Disabilities Act Barrier Removal Plan for County Jail; ADA

22 Self-Evaluation Report and Barriers Removal Plan to Update County’s ADA Transition Plan;

23

24 3 A public entity must take steps, including altering existing or constructing new facilities, to accommodate inmates with disabilities unless to do so would fundamentally alter a program or
25 create an undue financial or administrative burden. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150, 35.152. Whether a 26 facility was constructed prior to 1992 only determines whether the structure itself must comply
fully with the ADA’s architectural guidelines. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a) & (b). That the jail was 27 constructed before 1992 does not vitiate a defendant’s obligation to accommodate inmates with
disabilities or alter the reasonableness of an accommodation in any way. See Hernandez v. Cnty. 28 of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 158 n.162 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
10

1 various internal documents; defendants’ responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission,

2 interrogatories, and requests for production of documents; and declarations by the named

3 plaintiffs. These documents constitute more than sufficient evidence at this stage in the litigation

4 of the existence of defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and

5 analogous state statutes, which allegedly exposes all members of the putative class to inadequate

6 accommodations, inappropriate segregation from the general population, placement in 23-hour

7 lock down, exclusion from Jail programs, and multiple and pervasive physical access barriers

8 throughout the facilities, including the lack of accessible showers and toilets. These policies and

9 practices are defined with sufficient precision and specificity; they involve particular and readily

10 identifiable conduct and omissions on the part of defendants—namely, failure to provide

11 accommodations, modifications, services, and physical access to prisoners with mobility

12 disabilities in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and analogous state statutes. The

13 evidence submitted by plaintiffs adequately demonstrates the existence of systemic failure to

14 comply with federal and state disability access laws.

15

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the commonality requirement is met.

16

3. Typicality

17

Defendants do not dispute that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are

18 typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”4 ECF No. 86 at 2; ECF No. 87 at 2.

19

Typicality requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of

20 the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). As such, it substantially overlaps

21 with the test for commonality. For typicality to be met, named plaintiffs’ claims need not be

22 identical to those of the putative class members. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Instead, plaintiffs’

23 claims need only be “reasonably coextensive” with the claims of the putative class. Id. The

24 inquiry focuses on the claims themselves, not on the factual predicates from which the claims

25 arise. Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508. “The test of typicality ‘is whether other members have the same

26 4 Defendants state, however, that because plaintiff Jewett is the only plaintiff alleging Bane Act 27 violations and the only plaintiff seeking monetary damages, they are not waiving the right to
challenge plaintiff Jewett’s position as a class representative should those unique claims interfere 28 with his adequacy as a class representative. ECF No. 86 at 2; ECF No. 87 at 2.
11

1 or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named

2 plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.’”

3 Id.

4

Here, plaintiffs Jewett, Everett, and Ackley are all persons with mobility disabilities that

5 were or are detained in SCJ. Similar to members of the proposed class, the named representatives

6 have disabilities that require them to use assistive devices for mobility; have been detained or

7 incarcerated in SJC; were exposed to the same inhumane living conditions, discriminatory

8 policies, and procedures, and defendants’ refusal to remove physical barriers to ensure prisoners

9 with disabilities have equal access to programs and services; and have been and are routinely

10 denied access to the Jail’s programs, services, activities and facilities as a result of defendants’

11 system-wide policy failures and deficient policies, practices and physical barriers. See ECF Nos.

12 65, 83-4, 83-5, 83-6. They each allege that defendants have failed to make the programs,

13 services, and activities offered by SCJ accessible to persons with mobility disabilities and have

14 failed to adopt appropriate policies and procedures for housing, accommodating, and caring for

15 persons with mobility disabilities. Between the four of them, they allege injuries similar to the

16 injuries suffered by the class, including lack of mobility aids, failure to accommodate disabilities,

17 segregation into inappropriate facilities within the Jail, systemic architectural barriers within the

18 Jail, and denial of access to programs and services. All class members are subject to the same

19 alleged discrimination and inhumane living conditions based on defendants’ failure to comply

20 with state and federal disability access laws: they have been and are routinely denied access to the

21 Jail’s programs, services, activities, and facilities. All named plaintiffs seek a declaration that

22 defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and analogous

23 California state statues, and they seek to enjoin defendants from future violations of those laws.

24

With respect to organizational plaintiff LSPC, it meets the requirements set out in Sierra

25 Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732 (1972), that an organization must show a “personal stake in

26 the outcome of the controversy” to have standing to sue either in its own capacity or on behalf of

27 a class. See I.M.A.G.E. v. Bailar, 78 F.R.D. 549, 553 (N.D. Cal. 1978). “[A]n organization may

28 //// 12

1 represent its members who are injured by conduct alleged in a complaint,5 particularly if its raison

2 d’etre is to represent the class.” Id. “The Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient to establish

3 standing if an organization seeks to protect an interest of its own arguably within the zone of

4 interests to be protected or regulated by the applicable statute or constitutional guarantee.” Id.

5 (quoting United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 686-90 (1973)).

6

LSPC advocates for the civil rights of incarcerated persons and their families. It currently

7 spends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and procedures

8 affecting individuals with disabilities who are incarcerated in California’s prisons and jails,

9 including SCJ. LSPC alleges that it has been forced to divert its resources and had its

10 organizational purpose frustrated as a result of defendants’ violations of the ADA and related

11 federal and state disability laws. ECF No. 83-7 at 3, ¶ 8.

12

Because all named plaintiffs have alleged system-wide policy failures, the undersigned

13 finds that their alleged injuries are necessarily typical of those of unnamed class members.6

14

4. Adequacy of Representation

15

Defendants do not dispute that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately

16 protect the interests of the class.”7 ECF No. 86 at 2-3; ECF No. 87 at 2.

17

Adequacy of representation requires that “representative parties will fairly and adequately

18 protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In order for plaintiffs to adequately

19 represent the putative class members, they must demonstrate, first, that they do not possess any

20 conflicts of interest with the class members and, second, that both plaintiffs and their counsel will

21

5 Questions as to the adequacy of representation for the proposed class are discussed separately 22 below.

23

6 That plaintiff Jewett asserts an additional Bane Act violation claim and seeks damages does not make his interest any less aligned with, or less typical of, the interests of the class. See Kamar v.

24 Radio Shack Corp., 254 F.R.D. 387, 396 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d sub nom. Kamar v. RadioShack Corp., 375 Fed. Appx. 734 (9th Cir. 2010). The Bane Act claim, similar to the class action claims
25 (Causes of Action One through Six), arise from defendants’ failure to accommodate his mobility

impairments. ECF No. 65 at 8-9, 33-34. 26 7 Defendants state that, because plaintiff Jewett is the only class representative alleging Bane
Act violations and the only class representative seeking monetary damages, they are expressly 27 reserving the right to challenge his position as a class representative if, in the course of this
litigation, plaintiff Jewett’s unique individual claims create a conflict of interest with other class 28 members. ECF No. 86 at 2-3; ECF No. 87 at 2.

13

1 work to “prosecute the action vigorously” with respect to the entire class. Staton v. Boeing Co.,

2 327 F.3d 938, 957 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

Here, the named plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to those of the class. To the

4 contrary, as set forth above in the discussion regarding commonality and typicality requirements,

5 the named plaintiffs share the same interests of declaratory and injunctive relief as the proposed

6 class members. The named plaintiffs’ mutual goal is to have the court declare that defendants

7 have violated, and continue to violate, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, as well as analogous

8 California state statues and to enjoin defendants from future violations of those laws. ECF No.

9 83-4 at 3, ¶ 14; ECF No. 83-5 at 3, ¶ 15; ECF No. 83-6 at 3, ¶ 14; ECF No. 83-7 at 3, ¶¶ 9-10.

10 The named plaintiffs also expressly declare that they are aware that, as plaintiffs in this lawsuit,

11 they are “trying to be a representative for all incarcerated people with mobility disabilities” and

12 that their “duty as a class representative in this case is to do what is in the best interest of the

13 class.” ECF No. 83-4 at 4, ¶ 15; ECF No. 83-5 at 3, ¶ 16; ECF No. 83-6 at 3, ¶ 15; ECF No. 83-7 14 at 3, ¶ 10.8

15

The court notes that the named individual plaintiffs would not be inadequate class

16 representatives because they may be transferred to another facility. The fluidity of a prison’s

17 population is a factor that supports class certification. Stewart, 669 F.2d at 334. If a named

18 plaintiff’s release or transfer renders him an inadequate representative, the proper remedy is to

19 permit his substitution by a new class representative. Id.

20

Finally, the putative class is represented by able and experienced attorneys— Keker &

21 Van Nest LLC, Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”), and Atabek & Associates, P.C.

22 Plaintiffs’ documents confirm that these attorneys have sufficient resources to prosecute this

23 action and have extensive experience handling civil rights class action lawsuits, complex civil

24 8 The court recognizes that class representatives may seek relief different from class members
25 without rendering themselves inadequate. See Stewart v. Winter, 669 F.2d 328, 333 (5th Cir. 26 1982). The fact that plaintiff Jewett is pursuing an individual damages claim does not necessarily
disqualify him or make his interests antagonistic to those of the class. See id. at 335. With regard 27 to adequacy as well as typicality, see supra n. 6, defendants state that they expressly reserve the
right to challenge his position as a class representative if, in the course of this litigation, Jewett’s 28 unique individual claims create a conflict of interest with other class members.
14

1 litigation, and litigation involving the rights of persons with disabilities and conditions of

2 detention. See ECF Nos. 83-8, 83-9, 83-10, 83-11, 83-12. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel

3 satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(g) as they have done extensive work in identifying and

4 investigating the claims in this action. Finally, no conflicts exist between counsel, the named

5 plaintiffs, and the proposed class members that would compromise their ability to represent the

6 class. See ECF No. 83-8 at 4, ¶ 10; ECF No. 83-9 at 8, ¶ 14; ECF No. 83-12 at 3, ¶ 12.

7

For these reasons, the undersigned finds that the named plaintiffs are an adequate class

8 representative.

9

C. Requirements Under Rule 23(b)(2)

10

The analysis of Rule 23(b)(2) overlaps with the factors in Rule 23(a). Rule 23(b)(2)

11 requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply

12 generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is

13 appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Here, plaintiffs seek

14 system-wide improvements in the Jails’ programs and facilities that apply to all class members.

15 Therefore, plaintiff’s allegations satisfy this requirement. The injunctive relief sought by

16 plaintiffs would apply to the class as a whole. The claims in this suit would not entitle named or

17 unnamed class members to any form of individualized injunctive relief.

18

D. Conclusion

19

For the reasons explained above, the undersigned recommends certification of the class

20 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).

21

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations issued March 9,

22 2017 (ECF No. 89) are hereby vacated.

23

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

24

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (ECF No. 83) be granted.

25

2. The following class be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

26 Procedure: “All current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility

27 disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications,

28 services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.” 15

1

3. Keker & Van Nest LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabek & Associates,

2 P.C. be appointed class counsel.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after

5 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with

6 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

7 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be

8 filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

9 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

10 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11 DATED: March 13, 2017

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 96 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10 EVERETT JEWETT, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC
14 MEDICALGROUP, INC. et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC P ORDER

16

17

Plaintiffs have filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

19 Local Rule 302.

20

On March 13, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. ECF No. 90. Neither

23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

26 ORDERED that:

27 ////

28 ///

1

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 96 Filed 04/05/17 Page 2 of 2

1

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 13, 2017 (ECF No. 90), are

2 ADOPTED IN FULL.

3

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (ECF No. 83) is GRANTED.

4

3. The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

5 Procedure: “All current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility

6 disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications,

7 services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.”

8

4. Keker & Van Nest LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabek & Associates,

9 P.C. are appointed class counsel.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: April 4, 2017

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 34

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@keker.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@keker.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@keker.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044
11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org ANNA RIVERA - # 239601
12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 736 1031
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL
16 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

19 FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

20 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of

21 themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

v.

23 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their

27 individual capacities,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Allison Claire
Date Filed: May 6, 2013
Trial Date:

28

Defendants.

1183967.01

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 34

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 34

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 34

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 5 of 34
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 6 of 34

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@kvn.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@kvn.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@kvn.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044
11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org ANNA RIVERA - # 239601
12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 736 1031
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL
16 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

19 FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

20 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of

21 themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

v.

23 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their

27 individual capacities,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Dept.: Judge:

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Hon. Allison Claire

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date:

28

Defendants.

1144699

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 7 of 34

1 I. RECITALS

2

1. This Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”)

3 is made and entered into among: (i) Shasta County (“County”), Shasta County Sheriff’s

4 Department (“Sheriff’s Department”), (ii) Tom Bosenko as Sheriff of the Shasta County

5 (together, the “County Defendants”); (iii) the California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”)

6 (collectively, “Defendants”); and (iv) Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

7 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, individually and on behalf of themselves

8 and a class of persons similarly situated (the “Settlement Class,” as defined below) and Harold

9 Robert Marquette, individually (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs and the Defendants will be

10 referred to in this Settlement Agreement individually as a “Party” and collectively as the

11 “Parties.”

12

2. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff Everett Jewett commenced a civil action in pro per in

13 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:13-cv-00882-

14 MCE-AC (the “Complaint”), against Shasta County Jail, California Medical Group, and

15 California Medical Group medical directors alleging, inter alia, that Defendants discriminated

16 against him because of his disability.

17

3. The Complaint was subsequently amended, concluding with the Fifth Amended

18 Complaint (“the Lawsuit”) to include additional Plaintiffs Legal Services for Prisoners with

19 Children, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Harold Robert Marquette. The

20 Lawsuit alleged claims solely against Defendants. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged claims,

21 inter alia, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.);

22 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.); and California

23 Government Code § 11135, et seq. on the grounds that Defendants failed to provide meaningful

24 access to prisoners with Mobility Disabilities in the Shasta County Jail (“Jail”).

25

4. On January 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

26

5. On April 4, 2017, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class

27 certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District

28 Court certified the following class of persons for declaratory and injunctive relief only: “All

1144699

1
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 8 of 34

1 current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who,

2 because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and

3 and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.”

4

6. The Parties now seek to resolve their differences and disputes in the Lawsuit by

5 settling such claims, disputes and controversies under the terms set forth in this Settlement

6 Agreement.

7 II. 8

DEFINITIONS As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning

9 ascribed to them in this Section and in the Recitals. Except to the extent clearly required to the

10 contrary by the context of its usage in this Settlement Agreement, any term not expressly defined

11 in this section or elsewhere in the Settlement Agreement that has an expressly defined meaning in

12 the ADA and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall have the meaning ascribed to it by the

13 ADA and its implementing regulations. All other terms shall be interpreted according to their

14 plain and ordinary meaning.

15

1. Settlement Agreement

16

“Settlement Agreement” means and refers to this document and any exhibits incorporated

17 herein.

18

2. Accessibility Laws

19

“Accessibility Laws” means all state, and federal laws and regulations requiring,

20 promoting, and/or encouraging equal or improved access to persons with disabilities (including,

21 without limitation, the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§

22 12101, et seq. and all of its implementing regulations and design standards; the Rehabilitation Act

23 of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 790, et seq. and all of its implementing regulations and design standards;

24 the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq.; the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et

25 seq.; California Government Code §§ 4450, et seq.; California Government Code §§ 4450, et

26 seq.; California Government Code §§ 11135, et seq.; California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955,

27 et seq.; and the regulations codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

28

1144699

2
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 9 of 34

1

3. Accessibility Standards

2

“Accessibility Standards” means federal and state Accessibility Laws, including the

3 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”), and Title 24 of the

4 California Building Code (“Title 24”).

5

4. ADA Coordinator

6

“ADA Coordinator” means the individual or individuals retained or designated by the

7 County Defendants pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of Section III.7.

8

5. Class Counsel

9

“Class Counsel” means collectively the Disability Rights Legal Center, Atabek &

10 Associates, P.C., and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

11

6. Mobility Disability

12

“Mobility Disability” means any impairment or medical condition that substantially limits

13 a person’s ability to walk, ambulate, maneuver around objects and/or to ascend and/or descend

14 steps or slopes as defined by Federal and state law. A person with a Mobility Disability may or

15 may not use a wheelchair, scooter, crutches, walker, cane, brace, orthopedic device, or similar

16 equipment or device to assist his or her navigation.

17

7. Settlement Class

18

“Settlement Class” means the class of all current and future detainees and prisoners with a

19 Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who, because of their

20 disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical

21 access at Shasta County Jail (“Jail”).

22

8. Class Members

23

“Class Members” shall mean individuals who meet the definition of the Settlement Class.

24

9. Dispute or Disputes

25

“Dispute” or “Disputes” means any dispute relating to any violation of or failure to

26 perform any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement and/or disputes between the Parties

27 concerning the interpretation, implementation, monitoring, compliance, and or modification of

28 the Settlement Agreement. All Disputes will be resolved using the Dispute Resolution Procedure

1144699

3
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 10 of 34

1 outlined in Section III.13.

2

10. Fairness Hearing

3

Fairness Hearing means the hearing to be held by the District Court, pursuant to Rule

4 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine whether the settlement set forth in this

5 Settlement Agreement should be approved.

6

11. Final

7

“Final,” as applied to the term “Judgment” (as defined below), means that (i) the time for

8 appeal or writ has expired and no appeal or petition for review has been taken, or (ii) if an appeal

9 or petition for review is taken and the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement has been

10 affirmed in full, the time period during which any further appeal or review can be sought

11 (including through any appeal, petition for review, writ of certiorari or otherwise) has expired and

12 no such further appeal or review has been sought. In the event that no objections to this

13 Settlement Agreement are raised prior to or at the Fairness Hearing, that any objections that have

14 been raised have been fully and formally withdrawn, or that no viable objections otherwise exist

15 at the time of the Fairness Hearing, the Judgment will become “Final” as of the District Court’s

16 issuance of the Judgment. If the Judgment is set aside, materially modified, disapproved or

17 overturned by any court, and is not fully reinstated on further appeal or review, the Judgment will

18 not become or be “Final.”

19

12. Final Approval

20

“Final Approval” means the order by the District Court, after notice and the holding of the

21 Fairness Hearing, granting approval of this Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(a) of the Federal

22 Rules of Civil Procedure. The hearing at which such Final Approval is considered or granted,

23 should a hearing be held, will be called the “Final Approval Hearing.”

24

13. Judgment

25

“Judgment” means a judgment entered by the District Court in this Lawsuit, substantially

26 in the form attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A that, among other things, fully

27 approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement and retains the District Court’s jurisdiction to

28 enforce the Settlement Agreement throughout the Term.

1144699

4
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 11 of 34

1

14. Effective Date.

2

“Effective Date” of the Settlement Agreement is the date on which the District Court

3 issues an Order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement. If objections are filed to the

4 settlement, the Effective Date is the date of the final resolution of any appeal of the Final

5 Approval of this Settlement Agreement, or, if no such appeal is filed, the expiration of the

6 deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal.

7

15. Jail

8

“Jail” means the Shasta County Jail facility/ies in which class members are housed.

9

16. Class Representatives

10

“Class Representatives” means Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

11 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

12

17. Notice of Settlement

13

“Notice of Settlement” means the notice substantially in the form attached to this

14 Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B, to be provided to the Settlement Class as set forth in Section

15 III.2.3.

16

18. Parties

17

“Parties” refers to the Defendants, Named Plaintiffs, and Settlement Class Members

18 together.

19

19. Plaintiffs

20

“Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold

21 Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Harold Robert Marquette and Settlement Class Members

22 together.

23

20. Released Claims

24

“Released Claims” refers to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims in

25 the Lawsuit.

26

21. Preliminary Approval

27

“Preliminary Approval” means the preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement by

28 the District Court as described in Section III.2.2.

1144699

5
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 12 of 34

1

22. Related Entities

2

“Related Entities” means any and all departments, divisions, agencies, bureaus,

3 commissions, offices, corporations, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, representatives,

4 board members, officials, assigns, assignors, attorneys, affiliates, predecessors, successors,

5 employee welfare benefit plans, pensions, or deferred compensation plans (and their trustees,

6 administrators, and other fiduciaries) of the County and any other person or entity acting or

7 purporting to act by, through, under, in concert with or on behalf of the County, or any of them,

8 with respect to the matters described in this Settlement Agreement.

9

23. Self-Evaluation

10

“Self-Evaluation” means the self-assessment required of public entities under Title II of

11 the Americans with Disabilities Act.

12

24. Term

13

“Term” means the term of this Settlement Agreement which begins with the Final

14 Approval and will expire two (2) years after the removal and/or remediation of all physical

15 barriers in the jail as identified and recommended by the Joint Accessibility Expert.

16

25. Days

17

“Days,” as used in this Settlement Agreement and all Exhibits, means calendar days,

18 unless otherwise noted.

19 III. AGREEMENT

20

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of

21 which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

22

1. Recitals

23

The recitals set forth above are incorporated by reference in this Section and made part of

24 this Settlement Agreement.

25

2. Settlement Approval Process

26

2.1. Court Approval

27

This Settlement Agreement will be subject to approval by the District Court. However,

28 nothing in this Settlement Agreement will be deemed to authorize the District Court to change or

1144699

6
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 13 of 34

1 modify any of its terms. The Parties agree that any change, modification or rejection of any of

2 the provisions of this Settlement Agreement by the District Court or any other court without the

3 consent of all parties will constitute a material modification of this Settlement Agreement, will

4 prevent the Judgment from becoming Final, and will give any Party the right to terminate this

5 Settlement Agreement in its entirety.

6

2.2. Preliminary Approval by the District Court

7

Within thirty (30) days of circulating the fully executed Settlement Agreement, the

8 Plaintiffs and the County will jointly submit a request to the District Court for Preliminary

9 Approval of this Settlement Agreement in this Lawsuit, along with a request for an order from the

10 District Court (substantially in the form attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A) (the

11 “Preliminary Approval Order”): (i) preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement; (ii)

12 directing notice to the Settlement Class as provided in this Settlement Agreement; (iii) setting

13 forth procedures and deadlines for comments and objections as provided in this Settlement

14 Agreement; (iv) scheduling a Fairness Hearing; and (v) enjoining Settlement Class members from

15 asserting or maintaining any claims to be released by this Settlement Agreement pending the

16 Fairness Hearing.

17

2.3. Notice to Class of Settlement Pursuant to Rule 23(e)

18

The Parties will jointly request approval by the District Court of notice pursuant Federal

19 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) as attached hereto as Exhibit B. To the extent the Court

20 determines that any modifications to the Notice are required, the Parties will make such

21 modifications prior to distribution. Following the District Court’s issuance of the Preliminary

22 Approval Order, the Parties will provide notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement, advising

23 members of the Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and their

24 right to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This notice will be published as follows:

25

2.3.1. Within seven (7) business days after the District Court has issued

26 Preliminary Approval Order, the notice will be posted by the Parties, at minimum: (1) on the

27 website of each firm making up Class Counsel; (2) On the County’s official website

28 (http://www.co.shasta.ca.us); and (3) in all Jail facilities operated by Defendants, including (but

1144699

7
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 14 of 34

1 not limited to) in all day rooms, the out-patient medical pod, all visitation rooms, and the visitor

2 waiting room. The County will pay the costs for the publication of the notice in this Section with

3 exception of posting on the website of each firm making up Class Counsel. Class Counsel will

4 pay the reasonable costs for the publication of the Notice of Settlement on its websites, but Class

5 Counsel will be entitled to seek reimbursement for all such reasonably incurred costs as part of

6 their motion for reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action. The notice

7 shall remain posted for thirty (30) days.

8

2.3.2. As set forth in the Notice to Class, any Class Member may object to

9 the proposed Settlement Agreement by submitting their objection to Class Counsel in writing, via

10 regular or electronic mail, or by contacting Class Counsel via a toll-free number that Class

11 Counsel will establish (“Objections”) no later than a date set by the Court in this case after

12 preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement. All Objections will be provided to

13 Defendants’ Counsel and filed with the Court. Only Class Members that have properly submitted

14 objections to this Settlement Agreement will have the right, if they seek it in their Objections, to

15 present objections at the Fairness Hearing.

16

2.3.3. The County shall provide notice as required by the Class Action

17 Fairness Act.

18

2.4. Fairness Hearing

19

The Parties will jointly request that the District Court schedule and conduct a Fairness

20 Hearing to decide whether Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement will be granted. At the

21 Fairness Hearing, the Parties will jointly move for entry of the Judgment (substantially in the

22 form as attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A), providing for: (i) Final Approval of

23 this Settlement Agreement as fair, adequate, and reasonable; (ii) final approval of the form and

24 method of notice of the Judgment to the Settlement Class; (iii) final approval of the release of the

25 Defendants from the Released Claims; and (iv) the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction over

26 the Parties to enforce the terms of the Judgment throughout the Term of this Settlement

27 Agreement.

28

1144699

8
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 15 of 34

1

2.5. Additional Steps

2

The Parties will take all procedural steps regarding the Fairness Hearing that may be

3 requested by the District Court and will otherwise use their respective best efforts to consummate

4 the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement, and to obtain approval of this Settlement

5 Agreement, and entry of the Judgment.

6

2.6. Effect of Final Approval

7

This Settlement Agreement, upon Final Approval, will be binding upon the Defendants,

8 Plaintiffs, and all Settlement Class members and, to the extent specifically set forth in this

9 Settlement Agreement, upon Class Counsel, will extinguish all Released Claims and will

10 constitute the final and complete resolution of all issues addressed herein. This Settlement

11 Agreement is the complete and final disposition and settlement of any and all Released Claims, as

12 detailed in Section III.3.

13

2.7. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

14

The District Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement

15 throughout the Term, including to resolve any Dispute regarding compliance with this Settlement

16 Agreement that cannot be resolved through the process described in Section III.13, and to rule on

17 Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as described in Section III.15. Nothing

18 in this Section will bar either Party from moving for an extension of the Term to enforce any

19 obligations herein or bar an extension pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).

20

The Defendants will not assert, after the Judgment has become Final, that the District

21 Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement, or raise any

22 jurisdictional defense to any enforcement proceedings permitted under the terms of this

23 Settlement Agreement.

24

3. Release of Claims

25

3.1. Release of Claims through Term

26

Subject to the entry of Judgment by the District Court, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class

27 members (and their respective heirs, assigns, successors, executors, administrators, agents and

28 representatives) (“Releasing Parties”), in consideration of the relief set forth herein, do fully and

1144699

9
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 16 of 34

1 finally release, acquit and discharge Shasta County and California Forensic Medical Group and

2 their respective Related Entities from any and all claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints,

3 actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,

4 accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief only, relating to allegations that

5 prisoners with Mobility Disabilities are being denied access to, excluded from participation in, or

6 denied the benefits of the Shasta County Jail’s Facilities starting on May 6, 2013 through the

7 Term. This release of claims will not apply to claims based on accessibility barriers in the Jail’s

8 Facilities that remain in existence after the expiration of the Term. The release of claims in this

9 Section will apply and be binding upon the members of the Settlement Class throughout the

10 Term.

11

This Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims is in compromise of disputed claims

12 and therefore the Settlement Agreement and Release shall not constitute in any manner an

13 admission of liability or responsibility by the parties to this Settlement Agreement and Release of

14 Claims. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this paragraph, Defendants agree that Plaintiffs

15 are the prevailing parties for purposes of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

16

The Released Claims will not include any claims to enforce the terms of this Settlement

17 Agreement.

18

Except as otherwise provided for in this Settlement Agreement, nothing in this Settlement

19 Agreement releases any damages claims to which Class Members may be entitled.

20

To avoid any doubt, Mr. Everett Jewett’s individual claims are not hereby released except

21 as they relate to purely injunctive relief.

22

3.2. Known or Unknown Claims

23

With respect to the release of claims as provided in Section III.3.1, Plaintiffs and the

24 Settlement Class agree that the Settlement Agreement will cover all claims for injunctive or

25 declaratory relief of every nature and kind whatsoever, known, or unknown, suspected or

26 unsuspected, past or present, which they may have against the County related to the accessibility

27 of the Jail facilities for persons with Mobility Disabilities, despite the fact that California Civil

28 Code Section 1542 (“Section 1542”) may provide otherwise. Releasing Parties expressly waive

1144699

10
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 17 of 34

1 any right or benefit available to them in any capacity regarding claims for injunctive or

2 declaratory relief concerning the accessibility of the Jail Facilities, except for those that remain in

3 existence after the expiration of the Term, under the provisions of Section 1542, which provides:

4 “A general release does not extend to the claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to

5 exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must

6 have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

7

4. California Forensic Medical Group, or its Successor

8

If CFMG ever ceases being the medical contractor for the Jail it shall be released of

9 further prospective relief under the terms of this Settlement Agreement. It shall not be released

10 from any liability for attorney fees and costs for which it is responsible under the terms of this

11 Settlement Agreement or for any fees and costs that arise because of enforcing the fees and costs

12 provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

13

The County agrees that during the term of this Settlement Agreement, any contract with

14 CFMG’s successor shall contain all of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The contract shall

15 include an express agreement by the medical contractor to be subject to the terms of this

16 Settlement Agreement and to the Court’s jurisdiction. The County further agrees that any such

17 contract will be submitted to Class Counsel for review before execution by CFMG’s successor.

18

5. Period for Self-Evaluation of Jail Facilities

19

5.1. Joint Accessibility Expert

20

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County will make diligent, good faith

21 efforts to contract with a joint accessibility expert, Sabot Consulting (“Joint Accessibility

22 Expert”), to conduct a full site inspection and assessment of the Jail facilities and prepare a

23 written report of their findings in order to identify those areas that do not comply with the

24 Accessibility Standards in effect at the time of the expert review.

25

Within ninety (90) days of contracting with the County, subject to availability of the Joint

26 Accessibility Expert, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall perform a full assessment and draft a

27 written report, of all inmate-facing areas of the Jail, including areas under the control of CFMG,

28 or its successor, in order to identify Jail facilities that do not comply with the Accessibility

1144699

11
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 18 of 34

1 Standards. The written report shall detail all physical access barriers in the Jail and

2 recommendations for removal and/or remediation of such barriers, including the modification of

3 jail policies and procedures. The remediation recommendation shall meet the Accessibility

4 Standards in effect at the time of the assessment. For purposes of both evaluation and subsequent

5 remediation, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall be authorized to interact with and interview staff

6 for the County, CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, and any inmate. The Joint Accessibility Expert

7 may consider the nature and services of the programs offered at the Jail.

8

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide written notice to Class Counsel at least two

9 weeks prior to any site visit. Upon three days written notice to the County, Class Counsel may

10 accompany the Joint Accessibility Expert.

11

The County agrees to make all of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s recommendations for

12 removal and/or remediation of physical barriers in the Jail facilities as soon as possible, with

13 speed and diligence, and not later than three (3) years after receiving the Joint Accessibility

14 Expert’s written report. Within one (1) year after receiving the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

15 written report, the County agrees to replace combination toilet room fixtures with newer fixtures

16 that provide required clearances per Accessibility Laws, to install or relocate grab bars such that

17 they are in compliance with Accessibility Laws, install toilet seats to raise the seat height to the

18 accessible range, to replace telephone cords with accessible cords, and to install accessible

19 benches in the yards.

20

5.2. Applicable Accessibility Standards

21

To the extent any of the regulations making up the Accessibility Standards have

22 conflicting technical specifications for the Jail, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall use the

23 implementing regulation or policy that provides for the greatest level of accessibility and benefit

24 to the Class. The Expert has discretion to recommend a less restrictive or accessible regulation or

25 policy if a competing regulation or policy is not possible to implement, as long as that regulation

26 or policy is in compliance with the Accessibility Standards.

27

5.3. Prioritization for Installation, Repair or Replacement

28

The County and Class Counsel will meet and confer in good faith regarding barrier

1144699

12
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 19 of 34

1 removal priorities. The County agrees that it will prioritize the installation of grab bars around

2 toilets and in showers, the installation of shower seats in the showers, removal of barriers to enter

3 the shower by Class Members, and the installation of benches in all yards. The installation of

4 grab bars, shower seats, and benches in all yards will occur within one year of Final Approval.

5

6. Programmatic Access

6

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County will make diligent, good faith

7 efforts to contract with the Joint Accessibility Expert, subject to the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

8 availability, to conduct a full assessment of all County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor’s,

9 policies and procedures related to the Jail in order to ensure that all Settlement Class Members

10 have and will continue to have access to all programming that non-mobility disabled inmates

11 have in Jail facilities. The Joint Accessibility Expert shall be authorized to interact with and

12 interview any staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, or any inmate.

13

Within ninety (90) days of contracting with the County, the Joint Accessibility Expert

14 shall prepare a written report detailing his or her findings and recommendations for

15 modifications, if any, to County and CFMG, and its predecessor’s, policies and procedures.

16

6.1. Policies and Procedures

17

Within 30 days of the completion of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s evaluation in Section

18 III.6 Defendants and Class Counsel shall meet and confer to discuss the Joint Accessibility

19 Expert’s recommendations and implementation.

20

Defendants and class counsel will confer and attempt to agree on priorities pertaining to

21 implementation of the expert’s recommendations regarding policies and procedures of the jail and

22 CFMG, or its successor, relating to isolation of prisoners with mobility disabilities, access to

23 grievance forms, and activities of daily living.

24

6.2. Jail Inmate Programs

25

Defendants agree:

26

6.2.1. That Settlement Class Members shall have access to all programs

27 that non-mobility disabled inmates have in Jail facilities, including inmate work programs;

28

6.2.2. That Mobility Disabilities will not serve to disqualify Settlement

1144699

13
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 20 of 34

1 Class Members from participating in programs in which they are otherwise eligible to participate;

2

6.2.3. That all programs, services, and activities shall be offered in

3 Accessible locations, including inmate work programs;

4

6.2.4. That Settlement Class Members shall be treated as “inmate

5 workers” for purposes of program access. This includes, but is not limited to:

6

• That Settlement Class members who state a willingness to work, but are unable to do

7

so because of that inmate’s mobility disability given the limited work assignments

8

available at the jail, that inmate will be awarded the same work-related sentence

9

reduction provided to inmate workers.

10

• That Settlement Class members who state a willingness to work, but are unable to do

11

so because of that inmate’s mobility disability are provided the same privileges as

12

inmate workers. These privileges include an increase in the number of visitations

13

permitted and the length of the visit.

14

• The County will provide reasonable accommodations and modifications to Class

15

Members to enable them to work as required by law.

16

6.2.5. That Settlement Class Members will be escorted, to the extent

17 necessary, to any program in which they are otherwise eligible to participate in, provided that

18 program is available in the Jail in which the inmate is housed;

19

6.2.6. To notify Settlement Class Members of the programs available to

20 them in either paper or electronic format, or both.

21

7. ADA Coordinator

22

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County shall employ an ADA Coordinator

23 who will oversee the Jail’s compliance with Accessibility Laws.

24

The duties of the ADA Coordinator shall include:

25

• Interfacing with staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, to ensure

26

that Settlement Class Members receive reasonable accommodations as

27

appropriate;

28

• Reviewing, investigating, and interfacing with staff for the County, CFMG, or

1144699

14
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 21 of 34

1

CFMG’s successor, to attempt to resolve inmate mobility disability related

2

requests and grievances;

3

• Monitoring and responding to Mobility Disability-related issues that otherwise

4

come to the ADA Coordinator’s attention;

5

• Ensuring compliance with Settlement Agreement; and

6

• Ensuring the County’s compliance with Accessibility Laws at the Jail.

7

The ADA Coordinator shall have the authority to make recommendations regarding the

8 provision of reasonable accommodations to Settlement Class Members including, when

9 necessary, the authority to bring issues to the attention of County Officials (including, without

10 limitation, the Jail Commander and Sheriff) for resolution, and to bring any and all issues to the

11 attention of Class Counsel during the Term.

12

8. Accommodations

13

Settlement Class Members shall receive reasonable accommodations when they request

14 them and/or as prescribed by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals.

15

Accommodations may include, but are not limited to: assignment to lower bunks;

16 assignment to cells on lower tiers; changes of clothing; extra blankets; shower benches; mobility

17 equipment; and assignment to a cell with accessible features.

18

Information reflecting orders by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals for

19 accommodations for Settlement Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they

20 may be implemented in housing areas.

21

9. Grievance Process

22

9.1. Grievance Form

23

The County shall amend its existing grievance form to include a checkbox or similar

24 means to identify that the request and/or grievance is Mobility Disability-related.

25

9.2. ADA Grievances

26

All grievances in which an inmate indicates that the grievance is a Mobility Disability

27 related pursuant to Section III.9.1 or that involves mobility assistive devices and/or physical

28 accessibility of the Jail shall be designated “ADA” grievances even if the inmate who filed the

1144699

15
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 22 of 34

1 grievance did not check the “ADA” box. The issue of whether or not a grievance is an ADA

2 Grievance is itself an ADA Grievance.

3

9.3. ADA Grievance Process

4

The Jail’s grievance process shall be amended such that during the Term of the Settlement

5 Agreement, if an ADA grievance is denied at the second level of the grievance process, the

6 grievance will be submitted to the ADA Coordinator for review and the ADA Coordinator will

7 submit the grievance and the denial of the grievance to class counsel within fourteen (14) days.

8 At Class Counsel’s sole discretion, Class Counsel may meet with or confer with the ADA

9 Coordinator regarding the ADA grievance. The ADA Coordinator and the Jail shall make

10 reasonable efforts at Class Counsel’s request to make the inmate available to confer with Class

11 Counsel over the telephone or for an in person visit at the Jail at Class Counsel’s sole discretion.

12 The ADA Coordinator will furnish Class Counsel with all documents related to the ADA

13 grievance on request.

14

During the Term of the Settlement Agreement, any ADA grievance that is denied at the

15 first level review will be automatically appealed to the second level of the grievance process.

16 Also during the Term of the Settlement Agreement, any ADA grievance that is denied at the

17 second level review, will be automatically appealed to the ADA Coordinator.

18

9.4. Response Time

19

The response time for ADA grievances will be no more than that allowed for under the

20 standard grievance policy.

21

9.5. Grievance Document Retention

22

Defendants will keep copies of all ADA grievances for purposes of monitoring in this

23 matter.

24

9.6. ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet

25

Within 90 days of the effective date, and in consultation Joint Accessibility Expert, the

26 County shall create and distribute a leaflet (“ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet”) to be available at the

27 Jail to advise Class Members of their rights under the Accessibility Laws. Upon request of the

28 County, Class Counsel shall work with the Joint Accessibility Expert to provide a draft leaflet

1144699

16
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 23 of 34

1 within 30 days. This leaflet is to be provided to all current inmates and any future inmate in

2 paper form. Additionally, it shall be posted in all day rooms, the Jail’s visitor waiting room, and

3 made available to inmates in the same location and manner as grievance forms. This leaflet shall,

4 at a minimum, contain a summary of class members’ rights under the Accessibility Laws, the

5 grievance process as it relates to ADA grievances, the appeal process for ADA grievances, and

6 how to contact the ADA coordinator.

7

10. Identification and Tracking of Inmates with Disabilities

8

In consultation with the Joint Accessibility Expert, Defendants shall design and

9 implement a system for identifying and tracking all inmates who are qualified individuals with

10 Mobility Disabilities within six (6) months of the Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement.

11 The County will also track the reasonable accommodations necessary for qualified inmates with

12 Mobility Disabilities to participate in the programs, services, and activities offered by Defendants

13 at the Jail.

14

11. Training

15

Within sixty (60) days of Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement Defendants shall

16 provide a comprehensive training to all current staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s

17 successor, at the Jail regarding the rights of inmates with mobility disabilities under Accessibility

18 Laws and Jail policies pertaining to treatment of inmates with disabilities.

19

Defendants will provide comprehensive training to all newly hired staff for the County or

20 CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, within thirty (30) days of their start date.

21

Defendants will also provide updated training regarding the rights of inmates with

22 disabilities under Accessibility Laws and Jail policies pertaining to inmates with mobility

23 disabilities on an annual basis.

24

Defendants will provide Class Counsel with a copy of training materials used for these

25 purposes within 30 days of creation. Class Counsel will provide input within thirty days of

26 receipt. The County agrees to consider Class Counsel’s input in good faith.

27

28

1144699

17
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 24 of 34

1

12. Reporting of Progress

2

12.1. Joint Accessibility Expert to Report on Progress

3

The County shall retain the services of the Joint Accessibility Expert to monitor the

4 County’s compliance with the barrier removal and policy changes identified in the Joint

5 Accessibility Expert’s written report.

6

The Joint Accessibility Expert shall be retained until the completion of the barrier removal

7 identified in the Joint Accessibility Expert’s written report.

8

12.2. Review of Plans

9

The County will provide copies of architectural drawings (“plans”) for construction or

10 physical alterations within the Jail to the Joint Accessibility Expert on request to review (either

11 onsite or via electronic mail/mail) for compliance with the Settlement Agreement as follows:

12

12.2.1. Work Performed by County Staff: the County will provide the Joint

13 Accessibility Expert with plans to review at least sixty (60) days prior to implementation by the

14 County.

15

12.2.2. Job Order Contracts: The County will provide to the Joint

16 Accessibility Expert plans and specifications to be included in a job bid package sixty (60) days

17 prior to the time that the County schedules to accept bids.

18

12.2.3. If during the Term of this Agreement the County uses any method

19 other than Job Order Contracts to hire none County Staff to perform physical alterations to the

20 Jail, the County shall promptly inform Class Counsel and provide the Joint Accessibility Expert

21 notice analogous to the notice required for Job Order Contracts as defined in Section III.12.2.2.

22

The Joint Accessibility Expert will have 21 days from receipt of the plans to provide

23 comments to the County. Additional time will be provided to the Joint Accessibility Expert if

24 reasonable. If the County agrees with the Joint Accessibility Expert’s comments for changes to

25 the plans, the County will incorporate the agreed upon changes into the plans. If the County

26 disagrees with the Joint Accessibility Expert’s comments for changes to the plans, the County

27 will notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel of the disagreement, provide copies of the Joint Accessibility

28 Expert’s comments and any materials referenced to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Parties will

1144699

18
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 25 of 34

1 engage in a meet and confer process to see if any disputes can be resolved.

2

If the meet and confer process does not resolve a dispute, it will be subject to the overall

3 dispute resolution provision of Section III.13 of the Settlement Agreement.

4

12.3. On-Site Inspection of Completed Construction

5

Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing, the Joint Accessibility Expert will

6 conduct site inspections at least every four months to review completed work. If at the Joint

7 Accessibility Expert’s discretion, additional site inspections are required, those inspections will

8 occur. The Expert shall confirm that work in progress and completed work complies with

9 accessible design standards under state and federal law and the agreed upon terms of the

10 Settlement Agreement.

11

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide written notice to Class Counsel two weeks

12 prior to any site visit. Upon three days written notice to the County, Class Counsel may

13 accompany the Joint Accessibility Expert. Class counsel will not be limited in the number of

14 attorneys that attend any site visit; however, the Defendants shall pay for no more than two Class

15 Counsel to be present at any site visit. For purposes of these site inspection Class Counsel will

16 bill at a blended rate $500 per hour for each attorney. Defendants shall also pay for travel and

17 costs.

18

12.4. Reports

19

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide a written report to the Parties regarding the

20 County’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement every four (4) months. The first

21 report shall be issued four (4) months from the completion of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

22 Report. Upon meeting and conferring, the parties may jointly agree in writing to accelerate or

23 retard the issuance of any individual Joint Accessibility Expert Report.

24

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide the Parties a draft of the report at least

25 fourteen (14) days before issuing the report. The Parties will have the opportunity to comment on

26 the proposed report, and may agree to allow the Joint Accessibility Expert an additional seven (7)

27 days to finalize a report after he/she receives comments from the Parties.

28

1144699

19
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 26 of 34

1

12.5. Reporting by the County

2

The County will provide a written report to the Joint Accessibility Expert, with a copy to

3 Plaintiffs’ counsel, on a semi-annual basis, during the performance of remediation work. The

4 initial report by the County will be due six (6) months from Final Approval of the Settlement

5 Agreement. The reports will include the following:

6

• A list and description of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement

7

planned for the next six (6) months;

8

• A summary of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement

9

completed during the previous six (6) months;

10

• A summary of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement in

11

progress including any estimated dates of completion and

12

• A statement confirming that it has incorporated the agreed upon policy changes-

13

in Section III.6 of the Settlement Agreement into the training it provides Jail

14

staff.

15

12.5.1. Defendants do not currently have the ability to run searches and

16 provide statistics about assistive devices usage/grievances to Class Counsel, number of inmates

17 with Mobility Disabilities but will have this ability once the identification and tracking system

18 referenced in Section III.10 is developed and implemented. Defendants agree to provide Class

19 Counsel with such statistics six (6) months after the system is operational and thereafter on an

20 annual basis during the Term of this Settlement Agreement.

21

12.5.2. Plaintiffs will provide comments on the County reports (if any)

22 within thirty (30) days of receiving the report.

23

13. Dispute Resolution

24

13.1. The Parties will negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute relating to

25 the interpretation or implementation of this Settlement Agreement.

26

13.2. In the event Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are not in compliance with

27 the terms of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will notify the Defendants in writing of the

28 alleged noncompliance.

1144699

20
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 27 of 34

1

13.3. Defendants will have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the

2 notification to respond to Plaintiffs concerning the alleged violations or noncompliance.

3

13.4. Following Plaintiffs’ receipt of Defendants’ response, if any, to any alleged

4 violations or noncompliance, the Parties will negotiate in good faith for at least fourteen (14) days

5 to resolve their difference.

6

13.5. Plaintiffs agree not to file any motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement

7 until this dispute resolution process has been completed and then only if the alleged violations or

8 noncompliance have not been corrected as a result of the dispute resolution effort by the Parties.

9 Any motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement will be brought in the court in which this action

10 is currently pending.

11

13.6. In the event that a dispute is submitted to the District Court for decision

12 pursuant to Section III.13.5 the District Court shall have discretion to award all reasonable and

13 necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable law.

14

13.7. Notices to the Parties will be sent to the following individuals and

15 locations:

16

For Plaintiffs:

Director of Litigation

17

Disability Rights Legal Center

18

350 S. Grand Ave, Suite 1520

Los Angeles, CA 90071

19

Telephone: (626) 389-8277

Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

20

Steven Ragland, Esq.

21

Keker and Van Nest

22

633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

23

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

24

Jon A. Atabek, Esq.

Atabek & Associates, P.C.

25

16330 Bake Parkway

26

Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (213) 394-5943

27

28

1144699

21
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 28 of 34

1

For Defendants:

Jim Ross, Assistant County Counsel

2

Shasta County Counsel’s Office

3

1450 Court Street, Rm. 332

Redding, CA 96001

4

Jerome M. Varanini, Esq.

5

CFMG

6

Law Office of Jerome M. Varanini 641 Fulton Ave. STE. 200

7

P.O. Box 590

Sacramento, CA 95812-0590

8

9

13.8. The Parties understand, recognize, and agree that the inmate grievance

10 process is an important step in the operation of the Jail and the protection and providing of

11 services to inmates. Accordingly, during the Term of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties

12 agree that all individual ADA-related inmate grievances shall first be submitted to the Defendants

13 via established inmate grievance process as modified by Section III.13 of this agreement. Once

14 the administrative review process for an inmate grievance is exhausted, should the individual

15 inmate contend that the grievance process procedures failed to adequately address an ADA-

16 related complaint within the purview of the Settlement Agreement in this Litigation, only at that

17 time may Class Counsel invoke the dispute resolution process set out in this Section. Nothing in

18 this Settlement Agreement is intended to preempt and/or violate any existing requirement of the

19 Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) or the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”).

20 Additionally, nothing in this Settlement Agreement is intended to interfere with the grievance

21 process(es) and/or reporting process(es) under the PLRA and/or PREA.

22

14. Plaintiffs are Prevailing Parties

23 Defendants agree that, conditioned upon the District Court granting Final Approval of this

24 Settlement Agreement, and the Judgement becoming Final, Plaintiffs are prevailing parties for

25 purposes of awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

26

15. Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs

27

15.1. Plaintiffs will move or apply for approval by the District Court of the

28 reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred by Class Counsel.

1144699

22
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 29 of 34

1

15.2. The County and CFMG will pay the amounts awarded by the District Court

2 after: (i) the District Court has issued a written order granting Final Approval of this Settlement

3 Agreement; (ii) The Judgement has become Final and (iii) the District Court has approved an

4 award of reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs. Both Parties reserve the right to appeal

5 the District Court’s order on attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

6

15.3. The County and CFMG’s payment of the amounts awarded by the District

7 Court for reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs is in full and complete satisfaction of any

8 and all claims for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in

9 the Class Action, and Plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class) and Class

10 Counsel expressly waive any right to recover any additional attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs

11 of any in connection with the Class Action or this Settlement Agreement, except for attorneys’

12 fees, expenses, and costs recoverable by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel as expressly provided in this

13 Settlement Agreement.

14

15.4. The Defendants’ liability will be joint and several. The Defendants will

15 enter into a separate private agreement with respect to apportionment. The Defendants’ failure to

16 reach such an agreement will not serve as a basis for contesting the finality or enforceability of

17 this Settlement Agreement.

18

16. Monitoring Fees, Expenses and Costs

19 The Parties acknowledge that Class Counsel will incur attorneys’ fees and costs and will be

20 entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs during the Term of this agreement for

21 Monitoring the agreement after the period for attorneys’ fees and costs covered under the Section

22 III.15. The parties agree that Class Counsel shall submit, on a semi-annual basis, applications for

23 attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendants to cover their reasonable fees and costs spent Monitoring

24 the Settlement Agreement and the parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to resolve the

25 issue. Time spent on these applications will also be recoverable. In the event that the parties are

26 unable to agree on the issue, Plaintiffs’ counsel may bring an action before the District Court

27 through a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and the District Court shall award all reasonable

28 and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable

1144699

23
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 30 of 34

1 law.

2

17. Governing Law

3

This Settlement Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the

4 laws of the State of California with respect to principles of common law contract interpretation.

5

18. Continuing Jurisdiction

6

The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over the lawsuit, including jurisdiction to enforce the

7 terms of this Settlement Agreement and to otherwise oversee compliance with the terms of this

8 Settlement Agreement for the duration of the Term and for such additional time as may be

9 necessary to resolve any disputes still pending at the end of the Term. The Parties and their

10 counsel will have standing to seek enforcement of this Settlement Agreement. Nothing in this

11 Settlement Agreement shall preclude the Parties from seeking to reduce, or the Court reducing the

12 duration of this agreement.

13

19. Duration of the Agreement

14

This Settlement Agreement, including all of its obligations will be in effect for the Term,

15 as defined in Section II.24, after which time its provisions will automatically terminate unless the

16 Court determines that, based on applicable law and specific findings of fact, that it is necessary to

17 extend the duration of this Agreement. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the

18 Parties from seeking to extend, or the Court extending, the duration of this agreement.

19

20. Dismissal

20

Within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Class

21 Counsel shall provide to counsel for Defendants a signed form for request for dismissal of the

22 First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claim for Relief in the Lawsuit. The dismissal will

23 expressly incorporate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Court will expressly retain

24 jurisdiction for purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement as stated above. Claims seven

25 and eight will not be dismissed.

26

27

21. Entire Agreement

28

This Settlement Agreement expresses and constitutes the complete and final

1144699

24
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 31 of 34

1 understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement. The

2 parties hereto understand and agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement supersede any

3 prior discussions, understandings, or agreements, whether orally or in writing, between them

4 related to the subject matter hereof.

5

22. Computing Time

6

When the period is stated in days:

7

22.1. Exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

8

22.2. Count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

9

holidays; and

10

22.2.1. include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday,

11 Sunday, or holiday for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the

12 period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday

13 for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

14

23. Counterparts

15

This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be

16 considered an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same

17 instrument.

18

24. Interpretation

19

The language of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its

20 fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. The headings in this Settlement

21 Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation. Where

22 required by context, the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural, and the

23 terms “and” and “or” shall mean “and/or.” This Settlement Agreement is the product of

24 negotiation and joint drafting so that any ambiguity shall not be construed against any party.

25

25. Severability

26

In the event any portion of this Settlement Agreement is deemed to be unenforceable, or is

27 in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Settlement Agreement will be enforced and

28 will remain in full force and effect. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to

1144699

25
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 32 of 34

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
1144699

require the Defendants to act contrary to state or federal laws, regulations or guidelines. 26. Additional Documents To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to
effectuate this Settlement Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
27. Authority to Bind Each signatory to this Settlement Agreement certifies that it, he or she is fully authorized by the party it, he or she represents to enter into the Settlement Agreement, to execute it on behalf of the party represented, and to legally bind that party thereto.

Dated: ___________, 2017

Plaintiff EVERETT JEWETT on behalf of himself and the Class

Dated: ___________, 2017

Plaintiff GLEN HAROLD EVERETT on behalf of himself and the Class

Dated: ___________, 2017

Plaintiff MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY on behalf of himself and the Class

Dated: ___________, 2017

Plaintiff LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN on behalf of himself and the Class

//
//
//
//
26 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 33 of 34

1 APPROVED AS TO FORM

2 For Plaintiffs and the Class
3 Dated:
4

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

5 6 7 8 9 Dated:

By: STEVEN P. RAGLAND
AJAY KRISHNAN
TAYLOR GOOCH
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

10 11 12 13 Dated: 14 15 16 17 18 19

By: MARONEL BARAJAS
ANA RIVERA
ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: JON A. ATABEK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1144699

27
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 34 of 34

1

2

3

4

For Defendants:

5 Dated:
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dated:

LAW OFFICES OF JEROME M. VARANINI
By: JEROME MARTIN VARANINI
Attorneys for Defendants CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DR., JEREMY AUSTIN, MARY BARNES, AND JAMES ROEMMICH
BRICKWOOD LAW OFFICE

14

By:

15

GARY CHARLES BRICKWOOD

16

Attorneys for Defendant SHASTA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 17

I hereby attest that I have on file all holographic signatures corresponding to any

18

signatures indicated by a conformed signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1144699

28
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 6

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 30 31
1285944.01
32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, A PUBLIC ENTITY; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their individual capacities,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) CLASS ACTION ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Assigned to the Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Complaint filed: May 6, 2013

FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 2 of 6

1

Having considered the arguments of the parties and the record in its entirety, the Court has

2 determined whether the Settlement in this action by Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Glen Harold

3 Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Defendants

4 Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko as Sheriff of the Shasta

5 County (collectively the “County Defendants”) and the California Forensic Medical Group

6 (“CFMG”), as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement

7 Agreement”) (ECF No. 119-3), is fair, reasonable and adequate, such that an Order of final

8 approval should be issued and a final judgement upon said Settlement Agreement should be

9 entered by the Court;

10

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Plaintiffs,

11 the Defendants, and the Settlement Agreement; and

12

WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered the Parties’ Joint Motion for

13 Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the points and authorities and declarations submitted

14 therewith, the proposed Settlement Agreement, and all of the supporting documents; and finds the

15 Settlement Agreement to be fair, reasonable and adequate:

16

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

17

1. The Court, for purposes of this Judgement, adopts the terms and definitions set

18 forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and all terms of the Settlement

19 Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.

20

2. The Court has and reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject

21 matter of this action, the Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, the Settlement Agreement, the County

22 Defendants and CFMG.

23

3. The Court finds that the notice to the Settlement Class of the pendency of this

24 action and the proposed Settlement was disseminated by each of the means required under the

25 Settlement Agreement and the Order of this Court dated March 21, 2018, and was otherwise fully

26 implemented.

27

4. The Court finds that such notice to the Settlement Class, as ordered and

28 implemented, was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class

30
31
1285944.01
32

1
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 3 of 6

1 Members of the pendency of this action, all material elements of the proposed Settlement

2 Agreement, and their opportunity (a) to submit written objections to or comments on the

3 Settlement Agreement, and (b) to appear at the Fairness Hearing to object to or comment on the

4 Settlement Agreement. The Notice of Settlement was reasonable and the best notice practicable to

5 all Settlement Class Members and complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due

6 process, and all other applicable laws and rules. A full and fair opportunity has been afforded to

7 the members of the Settlement Class to participate at a Fairness Hearing, and all other persons

8 wishing to be heard have been heard. Accordingly, the Court determines that all members of the

9 Settlement Class, as set forth below, are bound by this Order.

10

5. On April 5, 2017, this Court appointed Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Glen Harold

11 Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children as Class

12 Representatives of the Settlement Class, and appointed the following counsel as Class Counsel to

13 represent the Settlement Class: (i) Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (ii) Disability Rights Legal

14 Center; and (iii) Atabek & Associates, P.C.

15

6. On March 21, 2018, this Court provisionally certified the following Settlement

16 Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement: “all current and future detainees and prisoners

17 with a Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who, because of

18 their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical

19 access at Shasta County Jail (“Jail”).” See Dkt. No. 132; Settlement Agreement II.7. The Court

20 certified the Settlement Class based on the findings in the Order of the same date (Dkt. No. 132),

21 as well as the Order and Amended Findings and Recommendations in the Court’s March 13, 2017

22 Order (Dkt. No. 90), and the Court’s April 5, 2017 Order certifying this case as a class action

23 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 96). This Court finds

24 that the Settlement Class continues to meet the requirements for class certification under the

25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all other applicable laws and rules.

26

7. In particular, the Court finds that: (a) the Settlement Class is ascertainable; (b) the

27 members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder would be impracticable; (c) there is

28 a commonality of interest among the members of the Settlement Class; (d) there are questions of

30
31
1285944.01
32

2
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 4 of 6

1 law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class; (e) Plaintiffs claims are typical of the

2 claims of the Settlement Class that they seek to represent for purposes of settlement; (f) the

3 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in this action; (g) injunctive relief with respect to the Settlement

4 Class as a whole is appropriate; (h) Plaintiffs have and will continue to fairly and adequately

5 represent the interests of the Settlement Class; (i) Class Representatives and the Settlement Class

6 are represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting

7 class actions, including those involving the sort of practices alleged in the Complaint; and (j)

8 class treatment is superior to any alternative means of resolving this matter.

9

8. Class certification is therefore an appropriate method for protecting the interests of

10 the Settlement Class and resolving the common issues of fact and law arising out of the Plaintiffs’

11 claims while also eliminating the risk of duplicative litigation. Accordingly, the Court hereby

12 makes final its earlier provisional certification of the Settlement Class and further confirms the

13 appointment of the Class Representatives and Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class, as

14 set forth above.

15

9. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and finds that it is

16 fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class as a whole.

17 Accordingly, the Settlement shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions

18 of the Settlement Agreement.

19

10. No objections were made to the Settlement Agreement.

20

11. The Class Representatives and all Settlement Class members (and their respective

21 heirs, assigns, successors, executors, administrators, agents and representatives) are conclusively

22 deemed to have released and forever discharged the County Defendants and CFMG and their

23 Related Entities from all Released Claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All members

24 of the Settlement Class are bound by this Order.

25

12. All Settlement Class members are conclusively deemed to have acknowledged that

26 the Released Claims may include claims, rights, demands, causes of action, liabilities, or suits that

27 are not known or suspected to exist as of the date of the Settlement Agreement and shall have

28 released all such Released Claims against the County Defendants, CFMG, and their Related

30
31
1285944.01
32

3
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 5 of 6

1 Entities, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Further, in accordance with the Settlement

2 Agreement, all Settlement Class members are deemed to have waived their protections under

3 California Civil Code § 1542 as it applies to any and all claims for injunctive or declaratory relief

4 concerning the accessibility of the Jail Facilities, except for those that remain in existence after

5 the expiration of the Term. The release does not include any claims for money damages.

6

13. The benefits described in the Settlement Agreement are the only consideration,

7 fees, costs and expenses that the County Defendants and CFMG shall be obligated to give to any

8 party or entity, including without limitation the Class Representatives, Settlement Class members,

9 and Class Counsel in connection with the claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint, the

10 Settlement Agreement and/or the payment of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in this action.

11 Mr. Everett Jewett’s individual claims are not released except as they relate to purely injunctive

12 relief.

13

14. Pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs have filed a separate

14 Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses incurred through May 5, 2017.

15 (ECF Nos. 135-136, 138, 145-146). On May 21, 2018, the Court took the matter under

16 submission. (ECF No. 151).

17

15. All members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Order. Throughout the

18 Term of the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members are enjoined from asserting or

19 prosecuting any claims that are released by the Settlement Agreement.

20

16. The Settlement Agreement and this Order are not admissions of liability or fault by

21 the County Defendants, CFMG or their Related Entities, or a finding of the validity of any claims

22 in this action or of any wrongdoing or violation of law by the County, CFMG or their Related

23 Entities. The Settlement Agreement is not a concession by the Parties and, to the fullest extent

24 permitted by law, neither this Order, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of the

25 negotiations connected with it, shall be offered as evidence or received in evidence in any

26 pending or future civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding to establish any liability

27 of, or admission by the County Defendants, CFMG or their Related Entities, or any of them.

28 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to prohibit the use of

30
31
1285944.01
32

4
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 161 Filed 08/07/18 Page 6 of 6

1 this Order to consummate or enforce the Settlement Agreement or Order, or to defend against the

2 assertion of Released Claims in any other proceeding, or as otherwise required by law.

3

17. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is attached

4 hereto as Exhibit A, the Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, the

5 Settlement Class members, the County Defendants, CFMG and the Settlement Agreement

6 throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement, for the sole purpose of supervising the

7 implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and

8 this Order. In that regard, any challenges to the Settlement Agreement’s terms or implementation,

9 whether under state or federal law, shall be subject to the exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of

10 this Court.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: August 6, 2018 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30
31
1285944.01
32

5
FINAL ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 170 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES 10 FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN,

GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL 11 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD

ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of 12 themselves and all others similarly

situated, 13

Plaintiffs,

v. 14
SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

15 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

16 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

17 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their

18 individual capacities,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)
CLASS ACTION:
ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFFS’ FEES AND EXPENSES IN CLASS ACTION
Assigned to the Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Complaint filed: May 6, 2013

Defendants. 19
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2018, this Court approved the Class Action Settlement 20
Agreement finding it to be fair, reasonable and adequate (ECF No. 161); 21
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement, on April 11, 2018, 22
Plaintiffs’ filed their Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Motion”) 23
(ECF No. 135); 24
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2018, the Parties reached an agreement to fully resolve 25
Plaintiffs’ Motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Class Action from the 26
inception of this matter through the date that the Settlement Agreement’s term becomes effective 27
in the amount of $850,000.00 with payment due by January 31, 2019; 28

30

1

Jewett et al v Shasta County et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

31

Order Approving Plaintiffs’ Fees and Expenses in Class Action

32

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 170 Filed 01/02/19 Page 2 of 3

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Motion remains submitted without oral argument before

2 Honorable Magistrate Judge Claire (ECF No. 156);

3

WHEREAS, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Plaintiffs

4 Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold Everett, and Michael

5 Donald Ackley (“Plaintiffs”), Defendants Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, a public entity,

6 Tom Bosenko, as Sheriff of the Shasta County, Shasta County, a public entity (“Shasta County”)

7 and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (“CFMG”) (collectively “the Parties”), and the Class

8 Action Settlement Agreement;

9

WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered the Parties’ Joint Stipulation Resolving

10 Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; Plaintiffs’ Motion

11 and all supporting and related documents; and finds an award of $850,000.00, to be paid by

12 January 31, 2019, in attorney fees and costs is reasonable to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion:

13

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14

1. The Court approves the Parties’ settlement regarding attorneys’ fees and expenses,

15

finding that an award of $850,000.00 to be paid by January 31, 2019, for Plaintiffs’

16

attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred from the inception of this matter through the

17

date of final approval of this settlement term is reasonable and well supported by the

18

points and authorities and evidence submitted in support of, and opposition to,

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorney Fees and Expenses.

20

2. Payment in the amount of $850,000.00 is due to Plaintiffs’ counsel by January 31,

21

2019.

22

3. The Court further finds that this amount is exclusive of fees provided for in the Class

23

Action Settlement Agreement, including fees for monitoring that was previously

24

approved by the Court (ECF No. 161) or attorneys’ fees and costs as part of any

25

resolution associated with Mr. Everett Jewett’s individual claims.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

30

2

Jewett et al v Shasta County et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

31

Order Approving Plaintiffs’ Fees and Expenses in Class Action

32

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 170 Filed 01/02/19 Page 3 of 3

1

4. All members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Order.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: December 29, 2018

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

30

3

Jewett et al v Shasta County et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

31

Order Approving Plaintiffs’ Fees and Expenses in Class Action

32

 
 Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 2

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@keker.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@keker.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@keker.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044

11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org

ANNA RIVERA - # 239601

12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org

MALLORY L. SEPLER-KING – #298262

13 mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org

350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520

14 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: 213 736 1031

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

17 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN,

20

GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD

21

ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

22 situated,

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM
BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta 25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public
entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC 26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity;
and DOES 1 through 25, in their 27 individual capacities,

28

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS; AND (4) SETTING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

Date:

February 22, 2018

Time:

2:00 p.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 7, 14th Floor

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date: Not Set

1210045

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119 Filed 11/28/17 Page 2 of 2

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 22, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the matter

3 may be heard before the Honorable Judge England, Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Legal Services for

4 Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold Everett, and Michael Donald Ackley and Defendants Shasta

5 County Sheriff’s Department, Tom Bosenko, as Sheriff of the Shasta County, and California

6 Forensic Medical Group will and hereby do move this Court for an order Granting Preliminary

7 Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Granting Certification Of Settlement Class (3) Directing

8 Notice to the Class; and (4) Setting date for Fairness Hearing. This motion is based on Rule 26(e)

9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is supported by this Notice of Motion and Motion,

10 the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the Declaration of Taylor Gooch filed

11 herewith and the exhibit attached thereto, the papers and pleadings on file in this action, and such

12 other oral and documentary evidence as may come before the Court upon the hearing of this

13 matter.

14 Dated: November 28, 2017
15
16

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

17

By: /s/ Steven P. Ragland

18

STEVEN P. RAGLAND

AJAY S. KRISHNAN

19

TAYLOR GOOCH

20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

21

FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN,

GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

22

DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT

MARQUETTE

23

24

25

26

27

28

1210045

1
JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 22

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@keker.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@keker.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@keker.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044

11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org

ANNA RIVERA - # 239601

12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org

MALLORY L. SEPLER-KING – #298262

13 mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org

350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520

14 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: 213 736 1031

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

17 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN,

20

GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD

21

ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

22 situated,

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM
BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta 25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public
entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC 26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity;
and DOES 1 through 25, in their 27 individual capacities,

28

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS; AND (4) SETTING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

Date:

February 22, 2018

Time:

2:00 p.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 7, 14th Floor

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date: Not Set

1127519

MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 2 of 22

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
1127519

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT...................................................................3
A. Certification of the Settlement Class .......................................................................3 B. Injunctive Relief.......................................................................................................3
1. Accessibility Expert Assessment of Physical Access Barriers ....................3 2. Timeline for Removal and/or Remediation .................................................4 3. Expert Assessment of Policies and Procedures ...........................................4 4. Jail Inmate Programs....................................................................................4 5. ADA Coordinator.........................................................................................5 6. Accommodations .........................................................................................5 7. Grievance Process ........................................................................................5 8. ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet..........................................................................6 9. Identification and Tracking of Inmates with Disabilities ............................6 10. Training of County and CFMG Personnel...................................................6 11. Reporting of Progress by the Joint Accessibility Expert .............................6 12. Reporting of Progress by the County...........................................................7 C. Monitoring ...............................................................................................................8 D. Dispute Resolution...................................................................................................8 E. Attorneys’ Fees ........................................................................................................8 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................8 A. Class Certification has Already Been Granted and Remains Appropriate ..............8 1. The Court Should Appoint the Class Representatives to Represent
the Settlement Class .....................................................................................9 2. The Court Should Appoint Class Counsel to Represent the
Settlement Class.........................................................................................10 3. The Proposed Settlement Agreement is Fair and Reasonable and
Should be Granted Preliminary Approval..................................................10
i MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 3 of 22

1

4. The Settlement Is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness ...........................11

2

5. The Settlement is Fair Given the Benefits to the Class and the Risks

Associated with Continued Litigation .......................................................13

3

a. The Settlement Will Result in Substantial Benefits to the

4

Class ...............................................................................................13

5

b. The Litigation Risks Support Preliminary Approval .....................14

6

B. The Proposed Notice Satisfies Due Process and Should Be Approved.................14

7
8 V.
9

C. The Court Should Approve the Scheduling Order Including Setting a Date for the Fairness Hearing.........................................................................................15
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................16

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1127519

ii
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 4 of 22

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
1127519

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Carter v. Anderson Merchs., LP Nos. EDCV 08-00025-VAP (OPx), EDCV 09-0216-VAP (OPx), 2010 WL 144067 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) ........................................................................................................... 11
Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................. 10, 14
Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC No. CV 06-04149 MMM, 2008 WL 8150856 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) ............................... 12
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 9, 11
In re Heritage Bond Litig. No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ..................................... 13
In re Syncor ERISA Litig. 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 10
In re Tableware Antitrust Litig. 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................... 11
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)................................................................................................................. 14
Nat’l Rural Telecomm’s Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc. 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ....................................................................................... 12, 13
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Commn of City & Cty. of San Francisco 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................. 13, 15
Schaffer v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP No. CV 05-07673 MMM, 2012 WL 10274679 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) ............................ 14
Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp. 314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal 2016) .............................................................................................. 15
True v. Am. Honda Motor Co. 749 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................. 11, 12
Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. 529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................... 10
Federal Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1715............................................................................................................................ 16
29 U.S.C. § 794................................................................................................................................ 2
42 U.S.C. § 12131............................................................................................................................ 2
iii MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 5 of 22

1 State Statutes

2 Cal. Gov. Code § 11135................................................................................................................... 2

3 Federal Rules

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.................................................................................................................... passim

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1127519

iv
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 6 of 22

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
1127519

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children (collectively, “Class Representatives”), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class1 (together, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Shasta County
(“County”), Shasta County Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”), Tom Bosenko as
Sheriff of the Shasta County (together, the “County Defendants”) and the California Forensic
Medical Group (“CFMG”) (collectively, “Defendants”) have reached a proposed Settlement Agreement2 (“Settlement Agreement”) that provides extensive injunctive relief to a class of
people with mobility disabilities who are now or will be held at Shasta County Jail.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the County must contract with a Joint Accessibility
Expert to conduct a full inspection and assessment of the Shasta County Jail (“Jail”) facilities,
including those areas controlled by CFMG, and identify all areas not in compliance with
Accessibility Standards regarding mobility disabilities. The County will then make all of the Joint
Accessibility Expert’s recommendations for barrier removal and/or remediation. The Joint
Accessibility Expert will also evaluate all of the County and CFMG’s policies and procedures
regarding mobility disabled inmates at the Jail. The Parties will then confer to discuss those
recommendations and implementation of them. In addition, the Settlement Agreement calls for
the hiring of an ADA coordinator who will oversee the Jail’s compliance with Accessibility Laws
regarding mobility disabled inmates. And requires the County to change its existing grievance
form to better identify requests that are related to a mobility disability. As a result of these
provisions, the Parties expect that, within three years from the date of final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, all of the barrier removals and/or remediation at the Jail will be complete,
1 Unless defined herein, all capitalized terms have the definition given to them in the Settlement Agreement, including that Parties refers to the defendants, class representatives, and the settlement class and Mobility Disabilities means any impairment or medical condition that substantially limits a person’s ability to walk, ambulate, maneuver around objects and/or to ascend and/or descend steps or slopes as defined by Federal and state law. A person with a Mobility Disability may or may not use a wheelchair, scooter, crutches, walker, cane, brace, orthopedic device, or similar equipment or device to assist his or her navigation. 2 The Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Taylor Gooch in Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlements (“Gooch Decl.”).
1 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 7 of 22

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
1127519

and all policies and procedures will be fully implemented. The proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable. It satisfies all of the
criteria for preliminary settlement approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Parties ask the Court to: (i) preliminarily approve the settlement; (ii) certify the proposed Settlement Class and appoint the Class Representatives as Settlement Class Representatives and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel; (iii) approve the proposed form of the class notice and distribution plan; and (iv) set a fairness hearing.
II. BACKGROUND On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff Everett Jewett commenced a civil action in pro per in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:13-cv-00882-MCEAC against Shasta County Jail, California Forensic Medical Group, and California Forensic Medical Group medical director Dr. Austin, alleging, inter alia, that Defendants discriminated against him because of his disability. Dkt. No. 01.
On June 2, 2016, the complaint was subsequently amended to include Plaintiffs Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Harold Robert Marquette. Dkt. No. 65. The operative Fifth Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.), and California Government Code § 11135, et seq. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have not and do not provide meaningful access to people with mobility disabilities detained in the Jail.3 (Id.).
On April 4, 2017, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the following class:
All current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and [sic] and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws. (Dkt. No. 96). The Parties have engaged in discovery regarding the policies and practices of Defendants,
3 The complaint also contains individual claims for damages by Plaintiff Jewett which are not resolved by the Settlement Agreement.
2 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 8 of 22

1 the accessibility of the Jail, and the efforts of Defendants to comply with the ADA, Section 504,

2 and California Government Code Section 11135. Gooch Decl. ¶ 3.

3

The Settlement Agreement was reached through extensive good faith settlement

4 negotiations, under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. In total, the Parties

5 engaged in two in-person settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on May

6 18, 2017 and August 10, 2017, multiple telephonic negotiation meetings, and multiple rounds of

7 written negotiations. Id., ¶ 4.

8 III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

9

The proposed Settlement Agreement, attached in full as Exhibit A to the Declaration of

10 Gooch, includes the following negotiated and agreed-upon terms.

11

A. Certification of the Settlement Class

12

The Parties stipulate to a Settlement Class for injunctive relief under Rules 23(a) and

13 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as “all current and future detainees and

14 prisoners with a Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who,

15 because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or

16 physical access at Shasta County Jail.” See Settlement Agreement, Part II.7. This definition does

17 not expand the class membership or legal claims that this Court has previously certified, but

18 rather clarifies the class definition to match the term of the Settlement Agreement. Because the

19 Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no Class Member may opt out of any provisions of the

20 Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement at III.3.1.

21

B. Injunctive Relief

22

1. Accessibility Expert Assessment of Physical Access Barriers

23

Under the Settlement Agreement, the County will contract with Sabot Consulting, a Joint

24 Accessibility Expert, to conduct a full site inspection and assessment of Jail facilities to identify

25 areas that do not comply with the federal or state standards. See Settlement Agreement at III.5.1.

26 The Joint Accessibility Expert will prepare a written report of their findings, detailing all physical

27 access barriers in the Jail regarding mobility disabled inmates as well as recommendations for

28 removal and/or remediation of all identified barriers. Id.

1127519

3
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 9 of 22

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
1127519

2. Timeline for Removal and/or Remediation The County agrees to make all of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s recommendations for removal and/or remediation of physical barriers in the Jail facilities with speed and diligence, and not later than three (3) years after receiving the Joint Accessibility Expert’s written report. See Settlement Agreement, Part III.5.1. Within one (1) year after receiving the Joint Accessibility Expert’s written report, the County agrees to replace combination toilet room fixtures with fixtures that provide required clearances per Accessibility Laws, install or relocate grab bars such that they are in compliance with Accessibility Laws, to install toilet seats to raise the seat height to the accessible range, replace telephone cords with accessible cords, and install accessible benches in the yards. Id.
3. Expert Assessment of Policies and Procedures Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the County will contract with the Joint Accessibility Expert to conduct a full assessment of all Defendants’ policies and procedures to ensure that all Settlement Class Members have and will continue to have access to all programming that non-mobility disabled inmates have in jail facilities. See Settlement Agreement at III.6. The Joint Accessibility Expert will detail its findings, including recommendations for modifications, if any, in a written report. Id. Defendants and Class Counsel shall meet and confer to discuss the Joint Accessibility Expert’s recommendations and implementation. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.1.
4. Jail Inmate Programs In addition to implementation of changes to policies and/or procedures pursuant to the report of the Joint Accessibility Expert, Settlement Class Members shall have access to all programs that non-mobility disabled inmates have in Jail facilities, including inmate work programs. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.2.1. Mobility Disabilities will not disqualify Settlement Class Members from participating in programs in which they are otherwise eligible to participate. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.2.2. Defendants agree that all programs, services and activities shall be offered in Accessible locations, including inmate work programs. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.2.3. Defendants agree that Settlement Class Members shall be treated as “inmate workers” for the purposes of program access. See Settlement Agreement at
4 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 10 of 22

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
1127519

III.6.2.4. Defendants agree that Settlement Class Members will be escorted, to the extent necessary, to any program in which they are otherwise eligible to participate, provided that program is available in the Jail in which the inmate is housed. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.2.5. Defendants further agree to notify Class Settlement Members of the programs available to them in writing. See Settlement Agreement at III.6.2.6.
5. ADA Coordinator The County shall employ an ADA coordinator who will oversee the Jail’s compliance with Accessibility Laws. See Settlement Agreement at III.7. The duties of the ADA Coordinator will include interfacing with staff to ensure accommodation of Class Members, review and investigation related to inmates’ accommodation-related requests and grievances, monitoring of Mobility-Disability-related issues, and ensuring compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Accessibility Laws. Id.
6. Accommodations Settlement Class Members shall receive reasonable accommodations when requested and/or when prescribed by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals. See Settlement Agreement at III.8. Information reflecting orders by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals for accommodations for Settlement Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they may be implemented in housing areas. Id.
7. Grievance Process The County shall change its existing grievance form to better identify requests that are related to a Mobility Disability. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.1. All such grievances shall be designated “ADA” grievances and receive additional review and monitoring. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.2. Specifically, the Jail’s grievance process shall be amended such that if an ADA grievance is rejected at the second level of the grievance process, the grievance will be submitted to the ADA coordinator for review and the ADA coordinator will submit the grievance and denial of the grievance to Class Counsel within fourteen (14) days. Class Counsel may meet and confer with the ADA coordinator regarding the ADA grievance. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.3. During the term of the Settlement Agreement, any ADA grievance that is denied at the first level of review will be automatically appealed to the second level of the grievance process.
5 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 11 of 22

1 Id. ADA grievances will receive a response on the same timeline as required in the standard

2 grievance policy. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.4. Defendants will retain copies of all ADA

3 grievances for monitoring purposes. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.5.

4

8. ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet

5

The County, in consultation with the Joint Accessibility Expert, will create an ADA Bill

6 of Rights Leaflet to be available at the Jail and accessible by Class Members, informing Class

7 Members of their rights under Accessibility Laws. See Settlement Agreement at III.9.6.

9. Identification and Tracking of Inmates with Disabilities

8

In consultation with the Joint Accessibility Expert, Defendants shall design and

9

implement a system for identifying and tracking all inmates who are qualified individuals with

10

Mobility Disabilities. The County will also track the reasonable accommodations necessary for

11

qualified inmates with Mobility Disabilities to participate in the programs, services and activities

12

at the Jail. See Settlement Agreement at III.10.

13

10. Training of County and CFMG Personnel

14

Defendants shall provide a comprehensive training to all current staff for the County,

15 CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, regarding the rights of inmates with mobility disabilities under

16 Accessibility Laws and Jail policies pertaining to treatment of inmates with disabilities. See

17 Settlement Agreement at III.11. All newly hired staff for the County, CFMG or CFMG’s

18 successor will receive comprehensive training within thirty (30) days of their start date. Id.

19 Defendants will also provide updated training to employees on the rights of individuals with

20 disabilities on an annual basis. Id. Defendants will provide Class Counsel a copy of training

21 materials; Class Counsel will provide input on these materials which the County agrees to

22 consider in good faith. Id.

23

11. Reporting of Progress by the Joint Accessibility Expert

24

The County shall retain the Joint Accessibility Expert to monitor the County’s ongoing

25 compliance with the barrier removal and policy changes identified in the Joint Accessibility

26 Expert’s report. See Settlement Agreement at III.12.1. The Joint Accessibility Expert will remain

27 retained until the completion of all barrier removals identified in their report. Id. The Joint

28 Accessibility Expert will additionally review all plans for construction or physical alterations to

1127519

6
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 12 of 22

1 the Jail for compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Id. at III.12.2. The Joint Accessibility

2 Expert will receive for review all plans for work performed by County staff at least sixty (60)

3 days prior to implementation, and all plans to be included in a job bid package at least sixty (60)

4 days prior to the time bids are accepted. Id. at III.12.2.2-12.2.3. After receiving plans from the

5 County, the Joint Accessibility Expert will have twenty-one (21) days to provide comments on

6 the plans, which the County may then accept and incorporate, or notify Class Counsel of the

7 disagreement for a meet and confer. Id. at III.12.2.3.

8

The Joint Accessibility Expert will additionally conduct site inspections at least every four

9 months to review completed work, notifying Class Counsel of his intent to inspect so that Class

10 Counsel may accompany the Joint Accessibility Expert on these visits. Id. at III.12.3 The Joint

11 Accessibility Expert will provide a written report on progress and compliance to the Parties every

12 four (4) months. Id. at III.12.4.

13

12. Reporting of Progress by the County

14

The County will provide a written report to the Joint Accessibility Expert and Class Counsel

15 every six (6) months through the term of the remediation work. Id. at III.12.5. The reports will

16 include the following: a list and description of remediation work required by the Settlement

17 Agreement planned for the next six (6) months; a summary of remediation work required by the

18 Settlement Agreement completed during the previous six (6) months; a summary of remediation

19 work required by the Settlement Agreement in progress including any estimated dates of

20 completion; and a statement confirming that it has incorporated the agreed upon policy changes

21 into the training it provides Jail staff. Once the identification and tracking system referenced in

22 Section III.10 is developed and implemented, Defendants will have the ability to run searches and

23 provide statistics about assistive devices usage/grievances and number of inmates with Mobility

24 Disabilities. Defendants agree to provide Class Counsel with such statistics six (6) months after

25 the system is operational and thereafter on an annual basis. See Settlement Agreement at

26 III.12.5.1.

27

28

1127519

7
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 13 of 22

1

C. Monitoring

2

In addition, Class Counsel shall, on a semi-annual basis, submit applications for attorney

3 fees and costs to Defendants to cover reasonable fees and costs spent monitoring the

4 implementation of the Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement at III.16. The Parties

5 will attempt to negotiate a resolution to any dispute on these applications before filing any motion

6 in District Court. Id. In the event that the Parties are unable to agree on the issue, Plaintiffs’

7 counsel may bring an action before the District Court through a motion for attorneys’ fees and

8 costs and the District Court shall award all reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs

9 incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable law. Id.

10

D. Dispute Resolution

11

The Parties will negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute relating to the Settlement

12 Agreement. See Settlement Agreement at III.13.1. Class Counsel will notify Defendants in

13 writing of any believed non-compliance by Defendants; Defendants will then have fourteen (14)

14 days to respond. Id. at III.13.2-13.3. The Parties will then negotiate in good faith for at least

15 fourteen (14) days before filing any motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Id. at III.13.4-

16 13.5. In the event that a dispute is submitted to the District Court for decision pursuant to Section

17 III.13.5, the District Court shall have discretion to award all reasonable and necessary attorneys’

18 fees and cost incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable law. Id. at III.13.6.

19

E. Attorneys’ Fees

20

Defendants agree that upon the District Court's granting preliminary and final approval of

21 the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will be the prevailing parties for purposes of awarding

22 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Settlement Agreement at III.14. Plaintiffs will move

23 separately for attorney fees, expenses and costs incurred by Class Counsel. Id. at III.14; 15.1-

24 15.4.

25 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT

26

A. Class Certification has Already Been Granted and Remains Appropriate

27

Under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class is appropriate for

28 certification if it meets four requirements: (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4)

1127519

8
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 14 of 22

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
1127519

adequacy of representation. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Hanlon”), as amended (July 24, 1998). The Court previously certified a class in its March 13, 2017 order consisting of “[a]ll current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or [sic] physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.” Dkt. No. 90 at 15
The class definition set forth in the Settlement Agreement has not changed in any way that would impact the satisfaction of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) requirements. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as all current and future detainees and prisoners with a Mobility Disability who, at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access at Shasta County Jail.
The proposed Settlement Class continues to meet the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The definition of the class has been changed only for purposes of clarity. As reflected in the initial class certification, this class is suited for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court certify the class for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(2).
1. The Court Should Appoint the Class Representatives to Represent the Settlement Class
Rule 23 requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To satisfy this element, Class Representatives must establish that they do not have a conflict of interest with the Settlement Class. Hanlon, 150 F. 3d at 1021. Here, there is no conflict of interest between the Class Representatives and the proposed Settlement Class. Plaintiff Jewett, while maintaining his individual causes of action beyond this Settlement Agreement, releases his claims as they relate to injunctive relief pursuant to the proposed Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement at III.3.1. Furthermore, the Class Representatives have ably prosecuted the interests of the class since the commencement of this action in 2013. See Gooch Decl. at ¶ 5. As this Court previously found in its ruling on Class Certification, the Class Representatives satisfy the adequacy requirement. (Dkt. No. 90 at 15.)
9 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 15 of 22

1

2. The Court Should Appoint Class Counsel to Represent the Settlement

Class

2 Class Counsel meets the adequacy requirement under Rule 23. (EFC 90 at 14.) Class

3 Counsel have diligently investigated, evaluated, litigated and negotiated the claims asserted in

4 this case. Class Counsel have extensive experience in disability class actions and understand the

5 law applicable to this case. Class Counsel have also invested substantial resources in this case to

6 protect the interests of this class. See generally Dkt. 83-8, Declaration of Steven P. Ragland in

7 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; Dkt. 83-9, Declaration of Anna Rivera in

8 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; Dkt. 83-12, Declaration of Jon A. Atabek in

9 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; Dkt. No. 90 at 14. Thus, the Court should

10 appoint Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

11

3. The Proposed Settlement Agreement is Fair and Reasonable and

12

Should be Granted Preliminary Approval

13

Judicial approval of a class action settlement under Rule 23 generally involves three steps.

14 First, at the preliminary approval hearing, the Parties “submit the proposed terms of settlement

15 and the judge makes a preliminary fairness evaluation.” Federal Judicial Center, Manual for

16 Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2017) § 21.632 (“Manual”). Second, if preliminary approval is

17 granted, the class representatives must disseminate notice of the proposed settlement to affected

18 class members. Id. at § 21.633. Third, the court conducts a final approval hearing, at which class

19 members may be heard regarding the settlement, and at which evidence and argument concerning

20 fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement are presented. Id. at § 21.634. This

21 procedure safeguards class members’ procedural due process rights and enables the court to fulfill

22 its role as guardian of class interests. See Newberg on Class Actions, § 13.39 (5th ed. 2016)

23 (“Newberg”).

24

The law favors compromise and settlement of class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Churchill

25 Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit recognizes the

26 “overriding public interest in settling and quieting litigation… particularly… in class action suits

27 …” Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1976); see also In re Syncor

28 ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]here is a strong judicial policy that favors

1127519

10
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 16 of 22

1 settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.”).

2

“[T]he decision to approve or reject a settlement is committed to the sound discretion of

3 the trial judge because he is exposed to the litigants and their strategies, positions and proof.”

4 Hanlon, 150 F. 3d at 1026 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This determination

5 involves a balancing of several factors, including: the strength of the plaintiffs’ claims; the likely

6 risks and expenses involved in further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status

7 throughout trial; the value offered in settlement; the extent of discovery and other litigation

8 completed; the experience and views of counsel; and the views of class members towards the

9 settlement. See True v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

10 (citing Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1291).

11

At the preliminary approval stage, the Court need only find that the proposed settlement is

12 within the “range of reasonableness” such that it is appropriate to disseminate notice to the class

13 and schedule a fairness hearing. 5 Newberg § 13.15; see also True, 749 F. Supp. 2d at 1063;

14 Carter v. Anderson Merchs., LP, Nos. EDCV 08-00025-VAP (OPx), EDCV 09-0216-VAP

15 (OPx), 2010 WL 144067, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010); In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F.

16 Supp. 2d 1078, 1078-80 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Preliminary approval of a proposed class action

17 settlement is appropriate where the settlement “appears to be the product of serious, informed,

18 non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, [and] does not improperly grant

19 preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class…” In re Tableware

20 Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079-80 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

21 also Manual § 21.62 (preliminary approval involves an initial evaluation of the reasonableness

22 and adequacy of the settlement; reasonableness turns on “analysis of the class allegations and

23 claims and the responsiveness of the settlement to those claims,” while adequacy involves a

24 “comparison of the relief granted to what class members might have obtained without using the

25 class action process.”).

26

4. The Settlement Is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness

27

Where a settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations conducted by experienced

28 class counsel, the Court begins its analysis with a presumption that the settlement is fair and

1127519

11
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 17 of 22

1 reasonable. See 5 Newberg § 13.45; Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC, No. CV 06-04149

2 MMM (SHx), 2008 WL 8150856, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008); Nat’l Rural Telecomm’s Coop.

3 v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Thus, at this stage, so long as the

4 settlement falls into the range of possible approval – giving deference to the results of the Parties’

5 arms-length negotiations and the judgement of experienced counsel following sufficient

6 investigation and discovery – the presumption applies and the settlement should be preliminarily

7 approved.

8

First, the Parties reached the Settlement Agreement after two joint settlement mediations

9 with Magistrate Judge Allison Claire and extensive written and telephonic negotiations among

10 counsel. Gooch Decl. ¶ 4.

11

Second, Class Counsel has extensive experience litigating and settling disability rights

12 class actions and other complex matters. See Dkt. Nos. 83-7, 83-8, 83-9, 83-12. They have

13 investigated the factual and legal issues raised in this action and diligently litigated Plaintiffs’

14 claims for over two years. Gooch Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 7. As noted above, extensive discovery and

15 motion practice have allowed the Parties to assess the strength and weaknesses of the claims

16 herein and the benefits of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Gooch Decl. at ¶ 3. Prior to

17 reaching an agreement, Plaintiffs were prepared to go to trial on their claims. Gooch Decl. at ¶ 7.

18 However, a complete trial would require substantial documentary evidence and expert testimony.

19 Such a trial is unnecessary where County Defendants have agreed to modify the Jail and Jail

20 policies and procedures to comply with the ADA regarding mobility disabled inmates. Gooch

21 Decl. at ¶ 7. The Parties thus recognized that there was much more to be gained through

22 reasonable settlement discussions than through continued litigation and trial. Gooch Decl. at ¶ 7.

23 And Class Counsel are confident that the relief achieved by the proposed settlement is sufficient

24 to address all of the Class’ concerns identified in the Fifth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 65),

25 thereby eliminating the need to engage in the time, expense, and added risk of a trial. Gooch Decl.

26 at ¶ 7. Thus, the fact that qualified, well-informed counsel endorse the settlement agreement as

27 being fair, reasonable, and adequate weighs in favor of the preliminary approval. See True, 749 F.

28 Supp. 2d at 1078-79; Nat’l Rural Telecomm’s Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 528.

1127519

12
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 18 of 22

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
1127519

5. The Settlement is Fair Given the Benefits to the Class and the Risks Associated with Continued Litigation
The significant benefits that the Settlement Class will enjoy under the Settlement Agreement, considered in light of the risks of litigation, support preliminary approval.
a. The Settlement Will Result in Substantial Benefits to the Class The Settlement Agreement requires a thorough assessment of Defendants’ architectural and program barriers by a mutually agreed-upon third party expert, an aggressive schedule for remediation of physical barriers, as well as extensive policy improvements. What is more, the Joint Expert must use the implementing regulation or policy that provides for the greatest level of accessibility and benefit to the Class. See Settlement Agreement at III.5.2. As a result of provisions detailed above, the Parties expect that within three years from the date of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class will have meaningful access to the Jail’s services, programs, and activities. Class Counsel are confident that the remediation and alterations required by the Settlement Agreement and the processes put in place to monitor and ensure the completeness of these remediation and alterations will serve to adequately remedy the issues identified in the Fifth Amended Complaint. See Gooch Decl. at ¶ 7. Thus, the proposed Settlement Agreement will provide injunctive relief that is reasonably calculated to effectuate the changes necessary to make Shasta County Jail accessible to inmates with mobility disabilities. This is an excellent result for the Settlement Class, and it is unlikely that this Court would order greater relief. Gooch Decl. at ¶ 7. In comparison, courts routinely approve class action settlements in which the value of class relief is much less that what could have been obtained at trial. See, e.g., In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (a proposed settlement should not “‘be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved.’”) (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Commn of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982)); Nat’l Rural Telecomm’s Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 527 (“[I]t is well-settled law that a proposed settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a fraction of the potential recovery that might be available to the class members at trial.”). Accordingly, the substantial benefits to the Settlement Class weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.
13 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 19 of 22

1

b. The Litigation Risks Support Preliminary Approval

2

The potential risks attending further litigation support preliminary approval of the

3 Settlement Agreement. “Estimates of what constitutes a fair settlement figure are tempered by

4 factors such as the risk of losing at trial, the expense of litigating the case, and the expected delay

5 in recovery (often measured in years).” Schaffer v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CV 05-07673

6 MMM (JCx), 2012 WL 10274679, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012). Here, proceeding with trial,

7 along with possible appeals, could delay resolution of this matter by many years. Gooch Decl. at

8 ¶ 8. By contrast, under the Settlement Agreement, changes to policy and procedures will be

9 implemented immediately after the Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and

10 physical remediations are expected to be completed within three years after final approval of the

11 Settlement Agreement. Given the importance of the accessibility of Jail facilities and programs to

12 class members’ lives, the difference between the possibly long delay involved in continued

13 litigation and the immediate improvements promised by the Settlement Agreement is a crucial

14 consideration. The risks and the inherent delay that would be involved of continued litigation

15 therefore weigh heavily in favor of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

16

B. The Proposed Notice Satisfies Due Process and Should Be Approved

17

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “notice of the proposed

18 dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in a manner that the court

19 directs.” Due process requires that interested parties be provided with notice reasonably

20 calculated under the circumstances to apprise them of the pendency of the action and afford them

21 an opportunity to present their objections. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339

22 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Notice is satisfactory “if it generally describes the terms of the settlement

23 in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and

24 be heard.” Churchill Vill., 361 F.3d at 575 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

25 Additionally, notice must be reasonably calculated to reach interested parties. Mullane, 339 U.S.

26 at 318.

27

The notice standard is easily satisfied here. First, the proposed notice informs members of

28 the Settlement Class of the relevant aspects of the litigation and the settlement, including: (i) a

1127519

14
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 20 of 22

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
1127519

brief statement of this action, the settlement embodied and the claims released by the Settlement Class; (ii) the date and time of the hearing on final approval; (iii) the deadline and process for submitting objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement; and (iv) the web page and mailing addresses that may be used to obtain a copy of the notice of settlement in English, Spanish, or in alternative accessible formats for individuals with visual impairments. See Settlement Agreement, Exhibit A. (note: Exhibit A is not attached to Docket 116)
Additionally, the Parties have agreed to the following distribution plan, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement:
1. Within three (3) business days after Preliminary Approval, the notice will be posted by the Parties, at minimum: (i) on the website of each firm making up Class Counsel; (ii) on the County’s official website (http://www.co.shasta.ca.us); and (iii) in all Jail facilities operated by Defendants, including all day rooms, the out-patient medical pod, all visitation rooms, and the visitor waiting room. See Settlement Agreement at III.2.3.1
2. The notice shall remain posted for thirty (30) days. Id. The Parties have developed this proposed distribution plan taking into account the sources most available to members of the Settlement Class. The Parties agree that this method of distribution will ensure that the notice reaches the maximum number of members of the Settlement Class in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This method of distribution will fairly apprise members of the Settlement Class of the settlement and their options with respect thereto, and fully satisfy due process requirements for a Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class with no opt-out rights. The Court should approve the proposed notice and direct that it be distributed.
C. The Court Should Approve the Scheduling Order Including Setting a Date for the Fairness Hearing
Once a court grants preliminary approval and notice is provided, the court conducts a fairness hearing, at which all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard. At such a hearing, the court conducts a substantive evaluation of the proposed settlement to determine whether it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” See Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 314 F.R.D. 312, 319 (C.D. Cal 2016).
15 MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 21 of 22

1

The Parties propose the following schedule:

2

February 22, 2018: Hearing re Preliminary Approval of Settlement;

3

February 26, 2018: Deadline to complete posting of Class (within three (3) working days

4 of order granting preliminary approval OR a date set by the Court);

5

March 14, 2018: Class Representative to file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (14 days before

6 the last day for Class Members to object OR a date set by the Court);

7

March 28, 2018: Last day for Class Members to object to the settlement (30 days after the

8 date of posting of Class Notice OR a date set by the Court);

9

April 3, 2018: Defendants to file opposition or response to Class Representatives’ Motion

10 for Attorneys’ Fees (20 days after the filing of Class Representatives’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

11 OR a date set by the Court);

12

April 13, 2018: Class Representatives to file a Reply in Support of their Motion for

13 Attorneys’ Fees (10 days after the filing of Defendants opposition to Class Representatives’

14 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees OR a date set by the Court).

15

April 17, 2018: Parties to file a Summary of Objections and Responses with the Court. (50

16 days after the date of the posting of Class Notice OR a date set by the Court OR a date set by the

17 Court)

18

April 17, 2018: Parties to file a Joint Motion for Final Approval;

19

April 19, 2018: Fairness Hearing (at least 100 days after Parties present the motion for

20 preliminary approval to the Court per 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d))

21 V. 22

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that this Court: (1) grant

23 preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims; (2) certify the

24 proposed Settlement Class and appoint Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

25 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and their counsel as proper

26 representatives of the Settlement Class; (3) approve and direct the publication of the class notice

27 proposed by the parties; and (4) schedule a fairness hearing for final approval of the Settlement

28 Agreement.

1127519

16
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-1 Filed 11/28/17 Page 22 of 22

1 Dated: November 28, 2017
2
3

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: November 28, 2017 12

By: /s/ Steven P. Ragland STEVEN P. RAGLAND AJAY S. KRISHNAN TAYLOR GOOCH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE
LAW OFFICES OF JEROME M. VARANINI

13 14 15 16 17 Dated: November 28, 2017

By: /s/ Jerome Martin Varanini JEROME MARTIN VARANINI
Attorneys for Defendants CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,
BRICKWOOD LAW OFFICE

18 By: /s/ Gary Charles Brickwood

19

GARY CHARLES BRICKWOOD

20

Attorneys for Defendant SHASTA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1127519

17
MPA IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-2 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 3

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@keker.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@keker.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@keker.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044

11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org

ANNA RIVERA - # 239601

12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org

MALLORY L. SEPLER-KING – #298262

13 mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org

350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520

14 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: 213 736 1031

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

17 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN,

20

GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD

21

ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

22 situated,

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM
BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta 25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public
entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC 26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity;
and DOES 1 through 25, in their 27 individual capacities,

28

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) CLASS ACTION

DECLARATION OF TAYLOR GOOCH IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS; AND (4) SETTING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

Date:

February 22, 2018

Time:

2:00 p.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 7, 14th Floor

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date: None set

1209526

GOOCH DECL. ISO JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-2 Filed 11/28/17 Page 2 of 3

1

I, Taylor Gooch, declare as follows:

2

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and an associate

3 of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Legal Services For

4 Prisoners With Children, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, Harold Robert Marquette

5 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and,

6 if called upon, could and would testify competently thereto.

7

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a fully executed Class Action

8 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims in the matter of Jewett v. Shasta County Sheriff’s

9 Department et al., a Public Entity, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) (“The Settlement”).

10

3. The Parties propounded various requests for admission, requests for the production

11 of documents, and interrogatories regarding the policies and practices of Shasta County Sheriff’s

12 Department, a public entity; Tom Bosenko, as Sheriff of the Shasta County; Shasta County, a

13 public entity; and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (“Defendants”), the accessibility of the

14 Jail, and the efforts of Defendants to comply with the ADA, Section 504, and Section 11135.

15

4. The parties attended two in-person settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge

16 Allison Claire on May 18, 2017 and August 10, 2017. The parties also negotiated the details of

17 the Settlement by phone and through written communications.

18

5. The Class Representatives Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

19 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children have remained involved at each stage of

20 the litigation and have directed and advised Class Counsel regarding the appropriateness of the

21 Settlement.

22

6. Jon Atabek with Atabek & Associates noticed his appearance on this matter on

23 May 14, 2015. Anna M. Rivera with Disability Rights Legal Center noticed her appearance on

24 this case on June 8, 2015. Later Kara J. Janssen, Maronel Barajas, and Mallory L. Sepler-King,

25 each with Disability Rights Legal Center, noticed their appearances. Steven P. Ragland, Ajay S.

26 Krishnan, and Joseph “Taylor” Gooch each, from Keker, Van Nest & Peters, noticed their

27 appearances on May 6, 2016. Each of the aforementioned attorneys has worked diligently in

28 prosecuting this case since at least the date on which they noticed their appearances.

1209526

1
GOOCH DECL. ISO JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-2 Filed 11/28/17 Page 3 of 3

1

7. Until the Parties reached a settlement in this matter, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel

2 were willing and able to prosecute this case to a trial verdict and had the necessary resources with

3 which to do so. However, such a trial is now unnecessary where Defendants have agreed to a

4 Settlement that resolves each and every demand made by Plaintiffs and their Class Counsel and

5 addresses all issues raised in the Fifth Amended Complaint in this matter. Furthermore, Class

6 Counsel have been unable to locate an ADA settlement agreement with greater protections for a

7 mobility, disabled class or stricter remedial requirements. Thus, the proposed Settlement

8 eliminates the need to engage in the time, expense, and added risk of trial for all Parties.

9

8. According to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s website if this matter

10 was appealed after trial, it would take between twelve and twenty months from the notice of

11 appeal to oral arguments. United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, Frequently Asked

12 Questions, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/faq.php (last visited Nov. 20, 2017). The Ninth

13 Circuit’s website further states that it takes an additional three months to a year for a decision 14 after oral arguments. Id.

15

16

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

17 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 28th day of November,

18 2017 in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

19

20

21

22

23

TAYLOR GOOCH

24

25

26

27

28

1209526

2
GOOCH DECL. ISO JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 42
EXHIBIT A

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee62oof f3442

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@kvn.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@kvn.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@kvn.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 16330 Bake Parkway Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044
11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org ANNA RIVERA - # 239601
12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 736 1031
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL
16 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

19 FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

20 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of

21 themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

v.

23 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their

27 individual capacities,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Dept.: Judge:

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Hon. Allison Claire

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date:

28

Defendants.

1144699

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee73oof f3442

1 I. RECITALS

2

1. This Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”)

3 is made and entered into among: (i) Shasta County (“County”), Shasta County Sheriff’s

4 Department (“Sheriff’s Department”), (ii) Tom Bosenko as Sheriff of the Shasta County

5 (together, the “County Defendants”); (iii) the California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”)

6 (collectively, “Defendants”); and (iv) Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

7 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, individually and on behalf of themselves

8 and a class of persons similarly situated (the “Settlement Class,” as defined below) and Harold

9 Robert Marquette, individually (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs and the Defendants will be

10 referred to in this Settlement Agreement individually as a “Party” and collectively as the

11 “Parties.”

12

2. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff Everett Jewett commenced a civil action in pro per in

13 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:13-cv-00882-

14 MCE-AC (the “Complaint”), against Shasta County Jail, California Medical Group, and

15 California Medical Group medical directors alleging, inter alia, that Defendants discriminated

16 against him because of his disability.

17

3. The Complaint was subsequently amended, concluding with the Fifth Amended

18 Complaint (“the Lawsuit”) to include additional Plaintiffs Legal Services for Prisoners with

19 Children, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Harold Robert Marquette. The

20 Lawsuit alleged claims solely against Defendants. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged claims,

21 inter alia, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.);

22 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.); and California

23 Government Code § 11135, et seq. on the grounds that Defendants failed to provide meaningful

24 access to prisoners with Mobility Disabilities in the Shasta County Jail (“Jail”).

25

4. On January 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

26

5. On April 4, 2017, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class

27 certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District

28 Court certified the following class of persons for declaratory and injunctive relief only: “All

1144699

1
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee84oof f3442

1 current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who,

2 because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and

3 and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.”

4

6. The Parties now seek to resolve their differences and disputes in the Lawsuit by

5 settling such claims, disputes and controversies under the terms set forth in this Settlement

6 Agreement.

7 II. 8

DEFINITIONS As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning

9 ascribed to them in this Section and in the Recitals. Except to the extent clearly required to the

10 contrary by the context of its usage in this Settlement Agreement, any term not expressly defined

11 in this section or elsewhere in the Settlement Agreement that has an expressly defined meaning in

12 the ADA and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall have the meaning ascribed to it by the

13 ADA and its implementing regulations. All other terms shall be interpreted according to their

14 plain and ordinary meaning.

15

1. Settlement Agreement

16

“Settlement Agreement” means and refers to this document and any exhibits incorporated

17 herein.

18

2. Accessibility Laws

19

“Accessibility Laws” means all state, and federal laws and regulations requiring,

20 promoting, and/or encouraging equal or improved access to persons with disabilities (including,

21 without limitation, the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§

22 12101, et seq. and all of its implementing regulations and design standards; the Rehabilitation Act

23 of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 790, et seq. and all of its implementing regulations and design standards;

24 the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq.; the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et

25 seq.; California Government Code §§ 4450, et seq.; California Government Code §§ 4450, et

26 seq.; California Government Code §§ 11135, et seq.; California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955,

27 et seq.; and the regulations codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

28

1144699

2
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee95oof f3442

1

3. Accessibility Standards

2

“Accessibility Standards” means federal and state Accessibility Laws, including the

3 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”), and Title 24 of the

4 California Building Code (“Title 24”).

5

4. ADA Coordinator

6

“ADA Coordinator” means the individual or individuals retained or designated by the

7 County Defendants pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of Section III.7.

8

5. Class Counsel

9

“Class Counsel” means collectively the Disability Rights Legal Center, Atabek &

10 Associates, P.C., and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

11

6. Mobility Disability

12

“Mobility Disability” means any impairment or medical condition that substantially limits

13 a person’s ability to walk, ambulate, maneuver around objects and/or to ascend and/or descend

14 steps or slopes as defined by Federal and state law. A person with a Mobility Disability may or

15 may not use a wheelchair, scooter, crutches, walker, cane, brace, orthopedic device, or similar

16 equipment or device to assist his or her navigation.

17

7. Settlement Class

18

“Settlement Class” means the class of all current and future detainees and prisoners with a

19 Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who, because of their

20 disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical

21 access at Shasta County Jail (“Jail”).

22

8. Class Members

23

“Class Members” shall mean individuals who meet the definition of the Settlement Class.

24

9. Dispute or Disputes

25

“Dispute” or “Disputes” means any dispute relating to any violation of or failure to

26 perform any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement and/or disputes between the Parties

27 concerning the interpretation, implementation, monitoring, compliance, and or modification of

28 the Settlement Agreement. All Disputes will be resolved using the Dispute Resolution Procedure

1144699

3
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee 22::1133--ccvv--0000888822--MMCCEE--AACC DDooccuummeenntt 111196-3 FiFleilded081/11/12/81/717 PaPgaege106 ooff 3442

1 outlined in Section III.13.

2

10. Fairness Hearing

3

Fairness Hearing means the hearing to be held by the District Court, pursuant to Rule

4 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine whether the settlement set forth in this

5 Settlement Agreement should be approved.

6

11. Final

7

“Final,” as applied to the term “Judgment” (as defined below), means that (i) the time for

8 appeal or writ has expired and no appeal or petition for review has been taken, or (ii) if an appeal

9 or petition for review is taken and the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement has been

10 affirmed in full, the time period during which any further appeal or review can be sought

11 (including through any appeal, petition for review, writ of certiorari or otherwise) has expired and

12 no such further appeal or review has been sought. In the event that no objections to this

13 Settlement Agreement are raised prior to or at the Fairness Hearing, that any objections that have

14 been raised have been fully and formally withdrawn, or that no viable objections otherwise exist

15 at the time of the Fairness Hearing, the Judgment will become “Final” as of the District Court’s

16 issuance of the Judgment. If the Judgment is set aside, materially modified, disapproved or

17 overturned by any court, and is not fully reinstated on further appeal or review, the Judgment will

18 not become or be “Final.”

19

12. Final Approval

20

“Final Approval” means the order by the District Court, after notice and the holding of the

21 Fairness Hearing, granting approval of this Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(a) of the Federal

22 Rules of Civil Procedure. The hearing at which such Final Approval is considered or granted,

23 should a hearing be held, will be called the “Final Approval Hearing.”

24

13. Judgment

25

“Judgment” means a judgment entered by the District Court in this Lawsuit, substantially

26 in the form attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A that, among other things, fully

27 approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement and retains the District Court’s jurisdiction to

28 enforce the Settlement Agreement throughout the Term.

1144699

4
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee 22::1133--ccvv--0000888822--MMCCEE--AACC DDooccuummeenntt 111196-3 FiFleilded081/11/12/81/717 PaPgaege117 ooff 3442

1

14. Effective Date.

2

“Effective Date” of the Settlement Agreement is the date on which the District Court

3 issues an Order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement. If objections are filed to the

4 settlement, the Effective Date is the date of the final resolution of any appeal of the Final

5 Approval of this Settlement Agreement, or, if no such appeal is filed, the expiration of the

6 deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal.

7

15. Jail

8

“Jail” means the Shasta County Jail facility/ies in which class members are housed.

9

16. Class Representatives

10

“Class Representatives” means Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald

11 Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

12

17. Notice of Settlement

13

“Notice of Settlement” means the notice substantially in the form attached to this

14 Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B, to be provided to the Settlement Class as set forth in Section

15 III.2.3.

16

18. Parties

17

“Parties” refers to the Defendants, Named Plaintiffs, and Settlement Class Members

18 together.

19

19. Plaintiffs

20

“Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold

21 Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Harold Robert Marquette and Settlement Class Members

22 together.

23

20. Released Claims

24

“Released Claims” refers to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims in

25 the Lawsuit.

26

21. Preliminary Approval

27

“Preliminary Approval” means the preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement by

28 the District Court as described in Section III.2.2.

1144699

5
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee 22::1133--ccvv--0000888822--MMCCEE--AACC DDooccuummeenntt 111196-3 FiFleilded081/11/12/81/717 PaPgaege128 ooff 3442

1

22. Related Entities

2

“Related Entities” means any and all departments, divisions, agencies, bureaus,

3 commissions, offices, corporations, commissioners, officers, employees, agents, representatives,

4 board members, officials, assigns, assignors, attorneys, affiliates, predecessors, successors,

5 employee welfare benefit plans, pensions, or deferred compensation plans (and their trustees,

6 administrators, and other fiduciaries) of the County and any other person or entity acting or

7 purporting to act by, through, under, in concert with or on behalf of the County, or any of them,

8 with respect to the matters described in this Settlement Agreement.

9

23. Self-Evaluation

10

“Self-Evaluation” means the self-assessment required of public entities under Title II of

11 the Americans with Disabilities Act.

12

24. Term

13

“Term” means the term of this Settlement Agreement which begins with the Final

14 Approval and will expire two (2) years after the removal and/or remediation of all physical

15 barriers in the jail as identified and recommended by the Joint Accessibility Expert.

16

25. Days

17

“Days,” as used in this Settlement Agreement and all Exhibits, means calendar days,

18 unless otherwise noted.

19 III. AGREEMENT

20

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of

21 which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

22

1. Recitals

23

The recitals set forth above are incorporated by reference in this Section and made part of

24 this Settlement Agreement.

25

2. Settlement Approval Process

26

2.1. Court Approval

27

This Settlement Agreement will be subject to approval by the District Court. However,

28 nothing in this Settlement Agreement will be deemed to authorize the District Court to change or

1144699

6
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee 22::1133--ccvv--0000888822--MMCCEE--AACC DDooccuummeenntt 111196-3 FiFleilded081/11/12/81/717 PaPgaege139 ooff 3442

1 modify any of its terms. The Parties agree that any change, modification or rejection of any of

2 the provisions of this Settlement Agreement by the District Court or any other court without the

3 consent of all parties will constitute a material modification of this Settlement Agreement, will

4 prevent the Judgment from becoming Final, and will give any Party the right to terminate this

5 Settlement Agreement in its entirety.

6

2.2. Preliminary Approval by the District Court

7

Within thirty (30) days of circulating the fully executed Settlement Agreement, the

8 Plaintiffs and the County will jointly submit a request to the District Court for Preliminary

9 Approval of this Settlement Agreement in this Lawsuit, along with a request for an order from the

10 District Court (substantially in the form attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A) (the

11 “Preliminary Approval Order”): (i) preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement; (ii)

12 directing notice to the Settlement Class as provided in this Settlement Agreement; (iii) setting

13 forth procedures and deadlines for comments and objections as provided in this Settlement

14 Agreement; (iv) scheduling a Fairness Hearing; and (v) enjoining Settlement Class members from

15 asserting or maintaining any claims to be released by this Settlement Agreement pending the

16 Fairness Hearing.

17

2.3. Notice to Class of Settlement Pursuant to Rule 23(e)

18

The Parties will jointly request approval by the District Court of notice pursuant Federal

19 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) as attached hereto as Exhibit B. To the extent the Court

20 determines that any modifications to the Notice are required, the Parties will make such

21 modifications prior to distribution. Following the District Court’s issuance of the Preliminary

22 Approval Order, the Parties will provide notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement, advising

23 members of the Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and their

24 right to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This notice will be published as follows:

25

2.3.1. Within seven (7) business days after the District Court has issued

26 Preliminary Approval Order, the notice will be posted by the Parties, at minimum: (1) on the

27 website of each firm making up Class Counsel; (2) On the County’s official website

28 (http://www.co.shasta.ca.us); and (3) in all Jail facilities operated by Defendants, including (but

1144699

7
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1140oof f3442

1 not limited to) in all day rooms, the out-patient medical pod, all visitation rooms, and the visitor

2 waiting room. The County will pay the costs for the publication of the notice in this Section with

3 exception of posting on the website of each firm making up Class Counsel. Class Counsel will

4 pay the reasonable costs for the publication of the Notice of Settlement on its websites, but Class

5 Counsel will be entitled to seek reimbursement for all such reasonably incurred costs as part of

6 their motion for reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action. The notice

7 shall remain posted for thirty (30) days.

8

2.3.2. As set forth in the Notice to Class, any Class Member may object to

9 the proposed Settlement Agreement by submitting their objection to Class Counsel in writing, via

10 regular or electronic mail, or by contacting Class Counsel via a toll-free number that Class

11 Counsel will establish (“Objections”) no later than a date set by the Court in this case after

12 preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement. All Objections will be provided to

13 Defendants’ Counsel and filed with the Court. Only Class Members that have properly submitted

14 objections to this Settlement Agreement will have the right, if they seek it in their Objections, to

15 present objections at the Fairness Hearing.

16

2.3.3. The County shall provide notice as required by the Class Action

17 Fairness Act.

18

2.4. Fairness Hearing

19

The Parties will jointly request that the District Court schedule and conduct a Fairness

20 Hearing to decide whether Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement will be granted. At the

21 Fairness Hearing, the Parties will jointly move for entry of the Judgment (substantially in the

22 form as attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A), providing for: (i) Final Approval of

23 this Settlement Agreement as fair, adequate, and reasonable; (ii) final approval of the form and

24 method of notice of the Judgment to the Settlement Class; (iii) final approval of the release of the

25 Defendants from the Released Claims; and (iv) the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction over

26 the Parties to enforce the terms of the Judgment throughout the Term of this Settlement

27 Agreement.

28

1144699

8
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1151oof f3442

1

2.5. Additional Steps

2

The Parties will take all procedural steps regarding the Fairness Hearing that may be

3 requested by the District Court and will otherwise use their respective best efforts to consummate

4 the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement, and to obtain approval of this Settlement

5 Agreement, and entry of the Judgment.

6

2.6. Effect of Final Approval

7

This Settlement Agreement, upon Final Approval, will be binding upon the Defendants,

8 Plaintiffs, and all Settlement Class members and, to the extent specifically set forth in this

9 Settlement Agreement, upon Class Counsel, will extinguish all Released Claims and will

10 constitute the final and complete resolution of all issues addressed herein. This Settlement

11 Agreement is the complete and final disposition and settlement of any and all Released Claims, as

12 detailed in Section III.3.

13

2.7. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

14

The District Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement

15 throughout the Term, including to resolve any Dispute regarding compliance with this Settlement

16 Agreement that cannot be resolved through the process described in Section III.13, and to rule on

17 Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as described in Section III.15. Nothing

18 in this Section will bar either Party from moving for an extension of the Term to enforce any

19 obligations herein or bar an extension pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).

20

The Defendants will not assert, after the Judgment has become Final, that the District

21 Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement, or raise any

22 jurisdictional defense to any enforcement proceedings permitted under the terms of this

23 Settlement Agreement.

24

3. Release of Claims

25

3.1. Release of Claims through Term

26

Subject to the entry of Judgment by the District Court, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class

27 members (and their respective heirs, assigns, successors, executors, administrators, agents and

28 representatives) (“Releasing Parties”), in consideration of the relief set forth herein, do fully and

1144699

9
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1162oof f3442

1 finally release, acquit and discharge Shasta County and California Forensic Medical Group and

2 their respective Related Entities from any and all claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints,

3 actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,

4 accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief only, relating to allegations that

5 prisoners with Mobility Disabilities are being denied access to, excluded from participation in, or

6 denied the benefits of the Shasta County Jail’s Facilities starting on May 6, 2013 through the

7 Term. This release of claims will not apply to claims based on accessibility barriers in the Jail’s

8 Facilities that remain in existence after the expiration of the Term. The release of claims in this

9 Section will apply and be binding upon the members of the Settlement Class throughout the

10 Term.

11

This Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims is in compromise of disputed claims

12 and therefore the Settlement Agreement and Release shall not constitute in any manner an

13 admission of liability or responsibility by the parties to this Settlement Agreement and Release of

14 Claims. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this paragraph, Defendants agree that Plaintiffs

15 are the prevailing parties for purposes of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

16

The Released Claims will not include any claims to enforce the terms of this Settlement

17 Agreement.

18

Except as otherwise provided for in this Settlement Agreement, nothing in this Settlement

19 Agreement releases any damages claims to which Class Members may be entitled.

20

To avoid any doubt, Mr. Everett Jewett’s individual claims are not hereby released except

21 as they relate to purely injunctive relief.

22

3.2. Known or Unknown Claims

23

With respect to the release of claims as provided in Section III.3.1, Plaintiffs and the

24 Settlement Class agree that the Settlement Agreement will cover all claims for injunctive or

25 declaratory relief of every nature and kind whatsoever, known, or unknown, suspected or

26 unsuspected, past or present, which they may have against the County related to the accessibility

27 of the Jail facilities for persons with Mobility Disabilities, despite the fact that California Civil

28 Code Section 1542 (“Section 1542”) may provide otherwise. Releasing Parties expressly waive

1144699

10
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1173oof f3442

1 any right or benefit available to them in any capacity regarding claims for injunctive or

2 declaratory relief concerning the accessibility of the Jail Facilities, except for those that remain in

3 existence after the expiration of the Term, under the provisions of Section 1542, which provides:

4 “A general release does not extend to the claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to

5 exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must

6 have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

7

4. California Forensic Medical Group, or its Successor

8

If CFMG ever ceases being the medical contractor for the Jail it shall be released of

9 further prospective relief under the terms of this Settlement Agreement. It shall not be released

10 from any liability for attorney fees and costs for which it is responsible under the terms of this

11 Settlement Agreement or for any fees and costs that arise because of enforcing the fees and costs

12 provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

13

The County agrees that during the term of this Settlement Agreement, any contract with

14 CFMG’s successor shall contain all of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The contract shall

15 include an express agreement by the medical contractor to be subject to the terms of this

16 Settlement Agreement and to the Court’s jurisdiction. The County further agrees that any such

17 contract will be submitted to Class Counsel for review before execution by CFMG’s successor.

18

5. Period for Self-Evaluation of Jail Facilities

19

5.1. Joint Accessibility Expert

20

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County will make diligent, good faith

21 efforts to contract with a joint accessibility expert, Sabot Consulting (“Joint Accessibility

22 Expert”), to conduct a full site inspection and assessment of the Jail facilities and prepare a

23 written report of their findings in order to identify those areas that do not comply with the

24 Accessibility Standards in effect at the time of the expert review.

25

Within ninety (90) days of contracting with the County, subject to availability of the Joint

26 Accessibility Expert, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall perform a full assessment and draft a

27 written report, of all inmate-facing areas of the Jail, including areas under the control of CFMG,

28 or its successor, in order to identify Jail facilities that do not comply with the Accessibility

1144699

11
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1184oof f3442

1 Standards. The written report shall detail all physical access barriers in the Jail and

2 recommendations for removal and/or remediation of such barriers, including the modification of

3 jail policies and procedures. The remediation recommendation shall meet the Accessibility

4 Standards in effect at the time of the assessment. For purposes of both evaluation and subsequent

5 remediation, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall be authorized to interact with and interview staff

6 for the County, CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, and any inmate. The Joint Accessibility Expert

7 may consider the nature and services of the programs offered at the Jail.

8

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide written notice to Class Counsel at least two

9 weeks prior to any site visit. Upon three days written notice to the County, Class Counsel may

10 accompany the Joint Accessibility Expert.

11

The County agrees to make all of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s recommendations for

12 removal and/or remediation of physical barriers in the Jail facilities as soon as possible, with

13 speed and diligence, and not later than three (3) years after receiving the Joint Accessibility

14 Expert’s written report. Within one (1) year after receiving the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

15 written report, the County agrees to replace combination toilet room fixtures with newer fixtures

16 that provide required clearances per Accessibility Laws, to install or relocate grab bars such that

17 they are in compliance with Accessibility Laws, install toilet seats to raise the seat height to the

18 accessible range, to replace telephone cords with accessible cords, and to install accessible

19 benches in the yards.

20

5.2. Applicable Accessibility Standards

21

To the extent any of the regulations making up the Accessibility Standards have

22 conflicting technical specifications for the Jail, the Joint Accessibility Expert shall use the

23 implementing regulation or policy that provides for the greatest level of accessibility and benefit

24 to the Class. The Expert has discretion to recommend a less restrictive or accessible regulation or

25 policy if a competing regulation or policy is not possible to implement, as long as that regulation

26 or policy is in compliance with the Accessibility Standards.

27

5.3. Prioritization for Installation, Repair or Replacement

28

The County and Class Counsel will meet and confer in good faith regarding barrier

1144699

12
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee1195oof f3442

1 removal priorities. The County agrees that it will prioritize the installation of grab bars around

2 toilets and in showers, the installation of shower seats in the showers, removal of barriers to enter

3 the shower by Class Members, and the installation of benches in all yards. The installation of

4 grab bars, shower seats, and benches in all yards will occur within one year of Final Approval.

5

6. Programmatic Access

6

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County will make diligent, good faith

7 efforts to contract with the Joint Accessibility Expert, subject to the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

8 availability, to conduct a full assessment of all County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor’s,

9 policies and procedures related to the Jail in order to ensure that all Settlement Class Members

10 have and will continue to have access to all programming that non-mobility disabled inmates

11 have in Jail facilities. The Joint Accessibility Expert shall be authorized to interact with and

12 interview any staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, or any inmate.

13

Within ninety (90) days of contracting with the County, the Joint Accessibility Expert

14 shall prepare a written report detailing his or her findings and recommendations for

15 modifications, if any, to County and CFMG, and its predecessor’s, policies and procedures.

16

6.1. Policies and Procedures

17

Within 30 days of the completion of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s evaluation in Section

18 III.6 Defendants and Class Counsel shall meet and confer to discuss the Joint Accessibility

19 Expert’s recommendations and implementation.

20

Defendants and class counsel will confer and attempt to agree on priorities pertaining to

21 implementation of the expert’s recommendations regarding policies and procedures of the jail and

22 CFMG, or its successor, relating to isolation of prisoners with mobility disabilities, access to

23 grievance forms, and activities of daily living.

24

6.2. Jail Inmate Programs

25

Defendants agree:

26

6.2.1. That Settlement Class Members shall have access to all programs

27 that non-mobility disabled inmates have in Jail facilities, including inmate work programs;

28

6.2.2. That Mobility Disabilities will not serve to disqualify Settlement

1144699

13
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2106oof f3442

1 Class Members from participating in programs in which they are otherwise eligible to participate;

2

6.2.3. That all programs, services, and activities shall be offered in

3 Accessible locations, including inmate work programs;

4

6.2.4. That Settlement Class Members shall be treated as “inmate

5 workers” for purposes of program access. This includes, but is not limited to:

6

• That Settlement Class members who state a willingness to work, but are unable to do

7

so because of that inmate’s mobility disability given the limited work assignments

8

available at the jail, that inmate will be awarded the same work-related sentence

9

reduction provided to inmate workers.

10

• That Settlement Class members who state a willingness to work, but are unable to do

11

so because of that inmate’s mobility disability are provided the same privileges as

12

inmate workers. These privileges include an increase in the number of visitations

13

permitted and the length of the visit.

14

• The County will provide reasonable accommodations and modifications to Class

15

Members to enable them to work as required by law.

16

6.2.5. That Settlement Class Members will be escorted, to the extent

17 necessary, to any program in which they are otherwise eligible to participate in, provided that

18 program is available in the Jail in which the inmate is housed;

19

6.2.6. To notify Settlement Class Members of the programs available to

20 them in either paper or electronic format, or both.

21

7. ADA Coordinator

22

Within thirty (30) days of Final Approval, the County shall employ an ADA Coordinator

23 who will oversee the Jail’s compliance with Accessibility Laws.

24

The duties of the ADA Coordinator shall include:

25

• Interfacing with staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, to ensure

26

that Settlement Class Members receive reasonable accommodations as

27

appropriate;

28

• Reviewing, investigating, and interfacing with staff for the County, CFMG, or

1144699

14
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2117oof f3442

1

CFMG’s successor, to attempt to resolve inmate mobility disability related

2

requests and grievances;

3

• Monitoring and responding to Mobility Disability-related issues that otherwise

4

come to the ADA Coordinator’s attention;

5

• Ensuring compliance with Settlement Agreement; and

6

• Ensuring the County’s compliance with Accessibility Laws at the Jail.

7

The ADA Coordinator shall have the authority to make recommendations regarding the

8 provision of reasonable accommodations to Settlement Class Members including, when

9 necessary, the authority to bring issues to the attention of County Officials (including, without

10 limitation, the Jail Commander and Sheriff) for resolution, and to bring any and all issues to the

11 attention of Class Counsel during the Term.

12

8. Accommodations

13

Settlement Class Members shall receive reasonable accommodations when they request

14 them and/or as prescribed by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals.

15

Accommodations may include, but are not limited to: assignment to lower bunks;

16 assignment to cells on lower tiers; changes of clothing; extra blankets; shower benches; mobility

17 equipment; and assignment to a cell with accessible features.

18

Information reflecting orders by CFMG, or its successor’s, medical professionals for

19 accommodations for Settlement Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they

20 may be implemented in housing areas.

21

9. Grievance Process

22

9.1. Grievance Form

23

The County shall amend its existing grievance form to include a checkbox or similar

24 means to identify that the request and/or grievance is Mobility Disability-related.

25

9.2. ADA Grievances

26

All grievances in which an inmate indicates that the grievance is a Mobility Disability

27 related pursuant to Section III.9.1 or that involves mobility assistive devices and/or physical

28 accessibility of the Jail shall be designated “ADA” grievances even if the inmate who filed the

1144699

15
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2128oof f3442

1 grievance did not check the “ADA” box. The issue of whether or not a grievance is an ADA

2 Grievance is itself an ADA Grievance.

3

9.3. ADA Grievance Process

4

The Jail’s grievance process shall be amended such that during the Term of the Settlement

5 Agreement, if an ADA grievance is denied at the second level of the grievance process, the

6 grievance will be submitted to the ADA Coordinator for review and the ADA Coordinator will

7 submit the grievance and the denial of the grievance to class counsel within fourteen (14) days.

8 At Class Counsel’s sole discretion, Class Counsel may meet with or confer with the ADA

9 Coordinator regarding the ADA grievance. The ADA Coordinator and the Jail shall make

10 reasonable efforts at Class Counsel’s request to make the inmate available to confer with Class

11 Counsel over the telephone or for an in person visit at the Jail at Class Counsel’s sole discretion.

12 The ADA Coordinator will furnish Class Counsel with all documents related to the ADA

13 grievance on request.

14

During the Term of the Settlement Agreement, any ADA grievance that is denied at the

15 first level review will be automatically appealed to the second level of the grievance process.

16 Also during the Term of the Settlement Agreement, any ADA grievance that is denied at the

17 second level review, will be automatically appealed to the ADA Coordinator.

18

9.4. Response Time

19

The response time for ADA grievances will be no more than that allowed for under the

20 standard grievance policy.

21

9.5. Grievance Document Retention

22

Defendants will keep copies of all ADA grievances for purposes of monitoring in this

23 matter.

24

9.6. ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet

25

Within 90 days of the effective date, and in consultation Joint Accessibility Expert, the

26 County shall create and distribute a leaflet (“ADA Bill of Rights Leaflet”) to be available at the

27 Jail to advise Class Members of their rights under the Accessibility Laws. Upon request of the

28 County, Class Counsel shall work with the Joint Accessibility Expert to provide a draft leaflet

1144699

16
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2139oof f3442

1 within 30 days. This leaflet is to be provided to all current inmates and any future inmate in

2 paper form. Additionally, it shall be posted in all day rooms, the Jail’s visitor waiting room, and

3 made available to inmates in the same location and manner as grievance forms. This leaflet shall,

4 at a minimum, contain a summary of class members’ rights under the Accessibility Laws, the

5 grievance process as it relates to ADA grievances, the appeal process for ADA grievances, and

6 how to contact the ADA coordinator.

7

10. Identification and Tracking of Inmates with Disabilities

8

In consultation with the Joint Accessibility Expert, Defendants shall design and

9 implement a system for identifying and tracking all inmates who are qualified individuals with

10 Mobility Disabilities within six (6) months of the Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement.

11 The County will also track the reasonable accommodations necessary for qualified inmates with

12 Mobility Disabilities to participate in the programs, services, and activities offered by Defendants

13 at the Jail.

14

11. Training

15

Within sixty (60) days of Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement Defendants shall

16 provide a comprehensive training to all current staff for the County or CFMG, or CFMG’s

17 successor, at the Jail regarding the rights of inmates with mobility disabilities under Accessibility

18 Laws and Jail policies pertaining to treatment of inmates with disabilities.

19

Defendants will provide comprehensive training to all newly hired staff for the County or

20 CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, within thirty (30) days of their start date.

21

Defendants will also provide updated training regarding the rights of inmates with

22 disabilities under Accessibility Laws and Jail policies pertaining to inmates with mobility

23 disabilities on an annual basis.

24

Defendants will provide Class Counsel with a copy of training materials used for these

25 purposes within 30 days of creation. Class Counsel will provide input within thirty days of

26 receipt. The County agrees to consider Class Counsel’s input in good faith.

27

28

1144699

17
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2240oof f3442

1

12. Reporting of Progress

2

12.1. Joint Accessibility Expert to Report on Progress

3

The County shall retain the services of the Joint Accessibility Expert to monitor the

4 County’s compliance with the barrier removal and policy changes identified in the Joint

5 Accessibility Expert’s written report.

6

The Joint Accessibility Expert shall be retained until the completion of the barrier removal

7 identified in the Joint Accessibility Expert’s written report.

8

12.2. Review of Plans

9

The County will provide copies of architectural drawings (“plans”) for construction or

10 physical alterations within the Jail to the Joint Accessibility Expert on request to review (either

11 onsite or via electronic mail/mail) for compliance with the Settlement Agreement as follows:

12

12.2.1. Work Performed by County Staff: the County will provide the Joint

13 Accessibility Expert with plans to review at least sixty (60) days prior to implementation by the

14 County.

15

12.2.2. Job Order Contracts: The County will provide to the Joint

16 Accessibility Expert plans and specifications to be included in a job bid package sixty (60) days

17 prior to the time that the County schedules to accept bids.

18

12.2.3. If during the Term of this Agreement the County uses any method

19 other than Job Order Contracts to hire none County Staff to perform physical alterations to the

20 Jail, the County shall promptly inform Class Counsel and provide the Joint Accessibility Expert

21 notice analogous to the notice required for Job Order Contracts as defined in Section III.12.2.2.

22

The Joint Accessibility Expert will have 21 days from receipt of the plans to provide

23 comments to the County. Additional time will be provided to the Joint Accessibility Expert if

24 reasonable. If the County agrees with the Joint Accessibility Expert’s comments for changes to

25 the plans, the County will incorporate the agreed upon changes into the plans. If the County

26 disagrees with the Joint Accessibility Expert’s comments for changes to the plans, the County

27 will notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel of the disagreement, provide copies of the Joint Accessibility

28 Expert’s comments and any materials referenced to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Parties will

1144699

18
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2251oof f3442

1 engage in a meet and confer process to see if any disputes can be resolved.

2

If the meet and confer process does not resolve a dispute, it will be subject to the overall

3 dispute resolution provision of Section III.13 of the Settlement Agreement.

4

12.3. On-Site Inspection of Completed Construction

5

Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing, the Joint Accessibility Expert will

6 conduct site inspections at least every four months to review completed work. If at the Joint

7 Accessibility Expert’s discretion, additional site inspections are required, those inspections will

8 occur. The Expert shall confirm that work in progress and completed work complies with

9 accessible design standards under state and federal law and the agreed upon terms of the

10 Settlement Agreement.

11

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide written notice to Class Counsel two weeks

12 prior to any site visit. Upon three days written notice to the County, Class Counsel may

13 accompany the Joint Accessibility Expert. Class counsel will not be limited in the number of

14 attorneys that attend any site visit; however, the Defendants shall pay for no more than two Class

15 Counsel to be present at any site visit. For purposes of these site inspection Class Counsel will

16 bill at a blended rate $500 per hour for each attorney. Defendants shall also pay for travel and

17 costs.

18

12.4. Reports

19

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide a written report to the Parties regarding the

20 County’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement every four (4) months. The first

21 report shall be issued four (4) months from the completion of the Joint Accessibility Expert’s

22 Report. Upon meeting and conferring, the parties may jointly agree in writing to accelerate or

23 retard the issuance of any individual Joint Accessibility Expert Report.

24

The Joint Accessibility Expert will provide the Parties a draft of the report at least

25 fourteen (14) days before issuing the report. The Parties will have the opportunity to comment on

26 the proposed report, and may agree to allow the Joint Accessibility Expert an additional seven (7)

27 days to finalize a report after he/she receives comments from the Parties.

28

1144699

19
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2262oof f3442

1

12.5. Reporting by the County

2

The County will provide a written report to the Joint Accessibility Expert, with a copy to

3 Plaintiffs’ counsel, on a semi-annual basis, during the performance of remediation work. The

4 initial report by the County will be due six (6) months from Final Approval of the Settlement

5 Agreement. The reports will include the following:

6

• A list and description of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement

7

planned for the next six (6) months;

8

• A summary of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement

9

completed during the previous six (6) months;

10

• A summary of remediation work required by the Settlement Agreement in

11

progress including any estimated dates of completion and

12

• A statement confirming that it has incorporated the agreed upon policy changes-

13

in Section III.6 of the Settlement Agreement into the training it provides Jail

14

staff.

15

12.5.1. Defendants do not currently have the ability to run searches and

16 provide statistics about assistive devices usage/grievances to Class Counsel, number of inmates

17 with Mobility Disabilities but will have this ability once the identification and tracking system

18 referenced in Section III.10 is developed and implemented. Defendants agree to provide Class

19 Counsel with such statistics six (6) months after the system is operational and thereafter on an

20 annual basis during the Term of this Settlement Agreement.

21

12.5.2. Plaintiffs will provide comments on the County reports (if any)

22 within thirty (30) days of receiving the report.

23

13. Dispute Resolution

24

13.1. The Parties will negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute relating to

25 the interpretation or implementation of this Settlement Agreement.

26

13.2. In the event Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are not in compliance with

27 the terms of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will notify the Defendants in writing of the

28 alleged noncompliance.

1144699

20
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2273oof f3442

1

13.3. Defendants will have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the

2 notification to respond to Plaintiffs concerning the alleged violations or noncompliance.

3

13.4. Following Plaintiffs’ receipt of Defendants’ response, if any, to any alleged

4 violations or noncompliance, the Parties will negotiate in good faith for at least fourteen (14) days

5 to resolve their difference.

6

13.5. Plaintiffs agree not to file any motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement

7 until this dispute resolution process has been completed and then only if the alleged violations or

8 noncompliance have not been corrected as a result of the dispute resolution effort by the Parties.

9 Any motion to enforce this Settlement Agreement will be brought in the court in which this action

10 is currently pending.

11

13.6. In the event that a dispute is submitted to the District Court for decision

12 pursuant to Section III.13.5 the District Court shall have discretion to award all reasonable and

13 necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable law.

14

13.7. Notices to the Parties will be sent to the following individuals and

15 locations:

16

For Plaintiffs:

Director of Litigation

17

Disability Rights Legal Center

18

350 S. Grand Ave, Suite 1520

Los Angeles, CA 90071

19

Telephone: (626) 389-8277

Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

20

Steven Ragland, Esq.

21

Keker and Van Nest

22

633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

23

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

24

Jon A. Atabek, Esq.

Atabek & Associates, P.C.

25

16330 Bake Parkway

26

Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (213) 394-5943

27

28

1144699

21
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2284oof f3442

1

For Defendants:

Jim Ross, Assistant County Counsel

2

Shasta County Counsel’s Office

3

1450 Court Street, Rm. 332

Redding, CA 96001

4

Jerome M. Varanini, Esq.

5

CFMG

6

Law Office of Jerome M. Varanini 641 Fulton Ave. STE. 200

7

P.O. Box 590

Sacramento, CA 95812-0590

8

9

13.8. The Parties understand, recognize, and agree that the inmate grievance

10 process is an important step in the operation of the Jail and the protection and providing of

11 services to inmates. Accordingly, during the Term of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties

12 agree that all individual ADA-related inmate grievances shall first be submitted to the Defendants

13 via established inmate grievance process as modified by Section III.13 of this agreement. Once

14 the administrative review process for an inmate grievance is exhausted, should the individual

15 inmate contend that the grievance process procedures failed to adequately address an ADA-

16 related complaint within the purview of the Settlement Agreement in this Litigation, only at that

17 time may Class Counsel invoke the dispute resolution process set out in this Section. Nothing in

18 this Settlement Agreement is intended to preempt and/or violate any existing requirement of the

19 Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) or the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”).

20 Additionally, nothing in this Settlement Agreement is intended to interfere with the grievance

21 process(es) and/or reporting process(es) under the PLRA and/or PREA.

22

14. Plaintiffs are Prevailing Parties

23 Defendants agree that, conditioned upon the District Court granting Final Approval of this

24 Settlement Agreement, and the Judgement becoming Final, Plaintiffs are prevailing parties for

25 purposes of awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

26

15. Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs

27

15.1. Plaintiffs will move or apply for approval by the District Court of the

28 reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred by Class Counsel.

1144699

22
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee2295oof f3442

1

15.2. The County and CFMG will pay the amounts awarded by the District Court

2 after: (i) the District Court has issued a written order granting Final Approval of this Settlement

3 Agreement; (ii) The Judgement has become Final and (iii) the District Court has approved an

4 award of reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs. Both Parties reserve the right to appeal

5 the District Court’s order on attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

6

15.3. The County and CFMG’s payment of the amounts awarded by the District

7 Court for reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs is in full and complete satisfaction of any

8 and all claims for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in

9 the Class Action, and Plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class) and Class

10 Counsel expressly waive any right to recover any additional attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs

11 of any in connection with the Class Action or this Settlement Agreement, except for attorneys’

12 fees, expenses, and costs recoverable by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel as expressly provided in this

13 Settlement Agreement.

14

15.4. The Defendants’ liability will be joint and several. The Defendants will

15 enter into a separate private agreement with respect to apportionment. The Defendants’ failure to

16 reach such an agreement will not serve as a basis for contesting the finality or enforceability of

17 this Settlement Agreement.

18

16. Monitoring Fees, Expenses and Costs

19 The Parties acknowledge that Class Counsel will incur attorneys’ fees and costs and will be

20 entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs during the Term of this agreement for

21 Monitoring the agreement after the period for attorneys’ fees and costs covered under the Section

22 III.15. The parties agree that Class Counsel shall submit, on a semi-annual basis, applications for

23 attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendants to cover their reasonable fees and costs spent Monitoring

24 the Settlement Agreement and the parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to resolve the

25 issue. Time spent on these applications will also be recoverable. In the event that the parties are

26 unable to agree on the issue, Plaintiffs’ counsel may bring an action before the District Court

27 through a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and the District Court shall award all reasonable

28 and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Class Counsel in accordance with applicable

1144699

23
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee3206oof f3442

1 law.

2

17. Governing Law

3

This Settlement Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the

4 laws of the State of California with respect to principles of common law contract interpretation.

5

18. Continuing Jurisdiction

6

The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over the lawsuit, including jurisdiction to enforce the

7 terms of this Settlement Agreement and to otherwise oversee compliance with the terms of this

8 Settlement Agreement for the duration of the Term and for such additional time as may be

9 necessary to resolve any disputes still pending at the end of the Term. The Parties and their

10 counsel will have standing to seek enforcement of this Settlement Agreement. Nothing in this

11 Settlement Agreement shall preclude the Parties from seeking to reduce, or the Court reducing the

12 duration of this agreement.

13

19. Duration of the Agreement

14

This Settlement Agreement, including all of its obligations will be in effect for the Term,

15 as defined in Section II.24, after which time its provisions will automatically terminate unless the

16 Court determines that, based on applicable law and specific findings of fact, that it is necessary to

17 extend the duration of this Agreement. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the

18 Parties from seeking to extend, or the Court extending, the duration of this agreement.

19

20. Dismissal

20

Within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Class

21 Counsel shall provide to counsel for Defendants a signed form for request for dismissal of the

22 First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claim for Relief in the Lawsuit. The dismissal will

23 expressly incorporate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Court will expressly retain

24 jurisdiction for purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement as stated above. Claims seven

25 and eight will not be dismissed.

26

27

21. Entire Agreement

28

This Settlement Agreement expresses and constitutes the complete and final

1144699

24
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee3217oof f3442

1 understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement. The

2 parties hereto understand and agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement supersede any

3 prior discussions, understandings, or agreements, whether orally or in writing, between them

4 related to the subject matter hereof.

5

22. Computing Time

6

When the period is stated in days:

7

22.1. Exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

8

22.2. Count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

9

holidays; and

10

22.2.1. include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday,

11 Sunday, or holiday for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the

12 period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday

13 for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

14

23. Counterparts

15

This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be

16 considered an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same

17 instrument.

18

24. Interpretation

19

The language of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its

20 fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. The headings in this Settlement

21 Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation. Where

22 required by context, the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural, and the

23 terms “and” and “or” shall mean “and/or.” This Settlement Agreement is the product of

24 negotiation and joint drafting so that any ambiguity shall not be construed against any party.

25

25. Severability

26

In the event any portion of this Settlement Agreement is deemed to be unenforceable, or is

27 in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Settlement Agreement will be enforced and

28 will remain in full force and effect. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to

1144699

25
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 28 of 42

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 29 of 42 ase 2:13—Cv-00882—MCE-AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 32 of 34
require the Defendants to act contrary to state or federal laws, regulations or guidelines. Additional Documents
To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Settlement Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Authoritv to Bind Each signatory to this Settlement Agreement certiﬁes that it, he or she is fully authorized by the party it, he or she represents to enter into the Settlement Agreement, to execute it on behalf of the party represented. and to legally bind that party thereto.

11

12 Dated:
13
14

,2017

Plaintiff EVERETT JEWETT on behalf ofhimself and the Class

15
Dated: 01' 15’ 2017
16
17

M!

Plainti f

N HA L EVERE

of himself and the Class

on behalf

18 Dated:
19
20

,2017

Plaintiff MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY on behalfof himself and the Class

21 Dated:
22
23
24

,2017

Plaintiff LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN on behalf of himself and the Class

25 // 26

27 // 28 //

1144699

26
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13—cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 30 of 42 ase 2:13-cv—00882—MCE—AC Document 116 Filed 08/11/17 Page 32 of 34

require the Defendants to act contrary to state or federal laws, regulations or guidelines.

26. Additional Documents

To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to

effectuate this Settlement Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and

further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

27. __§'___AutothBoinrdi

Each signatory to this Settlement Agreement certiﬁes that it, he or she is fully authorized

by the party it, he or she represents to enter into the Settlement Agreement, to execute it on behalf

\DOO\]O\

of the party represented, and to legally bind that party thereto.

10

11

12 Dated:
13
14

,2017

Plaintiff EVERETT JEWETT on behalf of himself and the Class

15
Dated:
16
17

,2017

Plaintiff GLEN HAROLD EVERETT on behalf of himself and the Class

18
ﬁ— DonW ald/7] ‘ u

19

Plaintiff MICHAEL DONALD ACKLE on

behalf of himself and the Class 20

21 Dated:
22
23
24

,2017

Plaintiff LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN on behalf of himself and the Class

25 // 26

27 // 28 //

26
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)
V 144699 II

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 31 of 42

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 32 of 42

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 33 of 42

CCaassee22:1:133-c-cvv-0-000888822-M-MCCEE-A-ACC DDooccuummeennt t111196-3 FFileiledd0181/1/218/1/177 PPaaggee3334oof f3442

1 APPROVED AS TO FORM

2 For Plaintiffs and the Class
3 Dated:
4

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

5 6 7 8 9 Dated:

By: STEVEN P. RAGLAND
AJAY KRISHNAN
TAYLOR GOOCH
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

10 11 12 13 Dated: October 11, 2017 14 15 16 17 18 19

By: MARONEL BARAJAS
ANA RIVERA
ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: JON A. ATABEK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1144699

27
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 35 of 42

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 36 of 42
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 37 of 42
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT REGARDING MOBILITY IMPAIRED INMATES IN SHASTA COUNTY JAILS
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED. This Notice is about a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against the Shasta
County Sheriff’s Department and California Forensic Medical Group involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The lawsuit is called Jewett et al. v. Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC).
The District Court has scheduling a hearing to consider the settlement on April 19, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, Courtroom 7, 14th Floor, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. This hearing is referred to as the Fairness Hearing.
ABOUT OF THE LAWSUIT
Several inmates of the Shasta County Jail and an organization, called Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County and California Forensic Medical Group under the ADA and other laws claiming that inmates with mobility impairments were being denied equal access to programs, services and facilities available to inmates without mobility impairments, and that they were not provided with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that jail staff did not give inmates with mobility impairments, who need mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, walkers or crutches the same access to jail programs, services, and activities that they offered to inmates without mobility impairments. The lawsuit also alleged that the jail facilities had physical barriers that denied inmates with mobility disabilities access. The Sheriff, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County and California Forensic Medical Group (together, “Defendants”) deny any liability or wrongdoing.
This is a class action. In a class action, one or more people or organizations, called Class Representatives (in this case Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (“Plaintiffs”)), sue on behalf of people who have
1
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 38 of 42
similar legal claims. All of these people are a Class or Class Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members. United States
District Judge Morrison C. England is in charge of this class action. The parties have reached a settlement and this notice provides details of that settlement.
The District Court appointed Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabeck & Associates to serve as the attorneys to the class in this lawsuit (“Class Counsel”).
The Court did not decide in favor of either Plaintiffs or the Defendants in this case. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost, delay, and uncertainty of a trial, and settlement benefits go to the Class Members. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel (the attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Class) think the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Class Members taking into account the benefits of the settlement, the risks of continued litigation, and the delay in obtaining relief for the Class if the litigation continues. By agreeing to the terms of settlement, Defendants are not admitting wrongdoing or liability.
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
The settlement class includes all current and future detainees and prisoners with a Mobility Disability, at any time from May 6, 2011 through the term of the settlement agreement who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical access at Shasta County Jail.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The following is only a summary of the terms and benefits of the settlement. The written agreement between the parties has the full terms of the proposed settlement. There are instructions below if you want more information regarding this settlement.
The settlement requires Defendants to make various changes and improvements to Shasta
2
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 39 of 42
County jail facilities that house or process inmates with mobility impairments. The settlement is for injunctive relief only and does not provide for any cash payment to members of the class, but it also does not limit your right to bring a claim for damages if you have one.
The Defendants have agreed to do the following: 1. Hire an expert who will inspect the jail and identify all areas that do not comply with the
ADA and remove and/or remediate all of the physical barriers identified in the expert’s report. The expert will also monitor construction by reviewing construction plans, conducting site inspections of completed work and providing written reports to Class Counsel. The expert will use the policy or regulation that gives the greatest level of accessibility to the class. Hire an expert who will review all of the jail-related policies and recommend changes that will be implemented. 2. Hire an ADA Coordinator who will oversee the Jail’s compliance with laws relating to accessibility. The ADA Coordinator will also work with jail and CFMG staff to ensure inmates with disabilities receive appropriate accommodations, review any investigation related to inmates’ accommodation-related requests and grievances, and monitor mobility-disability-related issues. 3. Amend the Jail grievance form to identify mobility-disability related requests. The grievance process will also be amended such that if a grievance that is designated an ADA grievance is rejected at the second level of the grievance process, the grievance will be submitted to the ADA coordinator for review and the ADA coordinator will submit the grievance and any denial of the grievance to Class Counsel within fourteen (14) days. 4. Provide inmates with mobility impairments equal access to programs and services such as educational and vocational programs, educational and religious activities, and notify inmates with mobility impairments of the programs available to them 5. Implement a system for identifying and tracking all inmates who have mobility disabilities as well as track the reasonable accommodations necessary for inmates with mobility disabilities to participate in the programs, services and activities in the Jail.
3
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 40 of 42
6. Provide comprehensive training to all current and future Jail staff for the County, CFMG, or CFMG’s successor, regarding the rights of inmates with mobility disabilities under federal and state disability laws and Jail policies pertaining to treatment of inmates with disabilities.
7. Defendants agree to pay Class Counsel’s attorney fees and costs. The Court will decide the amount.
8. Defendants also agree to pay Class Counsel’s reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement and with dispute resolution.
9. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement for at least 3 years. 10. The Class Representatives release and settle all of their claims against Defendants for
injunctive relief only. Class Members release class claims for injunctive relief, but do not release any future claims or claims for damages.
OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT
The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, and has scheduled a Fairness Hearing before the Honorable Morrison C. England for April 19, 2018 in Courtroom 7, 14th Floor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should be finally approved. Although you are not required to attend, as a Class Member, you have the right to attend and be heard at this hearing. This hearing date may be changed by the Court without further notice to the entire Class.
Class Members have a right to object to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. To be considered by the District Court, Class Member objections can be made via phone or in writing. All objections must be postmarked or submitted to Class Counsel by not later than March 28, 2018 at the contact information listed below:
4
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 41 of 42
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 350 S. Grand Ave, Suite 1520 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (866) 752-6679 Email: DRLCenter@drlcenter.org Objections must include all of the following information:
(1) The objector’s contact information (full name and address. And, if available, phone number and email, and inmate number);
(2) An explanation of the basis for your objection to the Settlement Agreement; (3) A statement that you are a member of the Class alleged herein; and (4) A statement whether you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing. All information submitted to Class Counsel will be provided to the attorneys for the Sheriff, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County and California Forensic Medical Group and the District Court. Only Class Members who submitted timely written or telephonic objections in the manner described above will have the right, if they seek it in their objections, to present objections at the Fairness Hearing. Any Class Member who fails to timely submit an objection may not be granted the right to appear before the Court at the hearing to make objections to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Objectors may withdraw their objections at any time. IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE SETTLEMENT, YOU DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR OR SUBMIT ANYTHING IN WRITING OR TELEPHONICALLY.
5
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-3 Filed 11/28/17 Page 42 of 42 HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION
This is a summary of the Settlement Agreement. You can go to the Court any time during regular business hours to look at the pleadings in this case and the Settlement Agreement. The Court is the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, Courtroom 7, 14th Floor, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. You can also contact Class Counsel for more information as follows:
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 350 S. Grand Ave, Suite 1520 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (866) 752-6679 Email: DRLCenter@drlcenter.org DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT REGARDING THIS CASE
6
1210395

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 7

1 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP STEVEN P. RAGLAND - # 221076
2 sragland@kvn.com AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
3 akrishnan@kvn.com TAYLOR GOOCH - # 294282
4 tgooch@kvn.com 633 Battery Street
5 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400
6 ATABEK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
7 JON A. ATABEK, ESQ. - # 269497 jatabek@atabeklaw.com
8 300 Spectrum Center Dr., Ste.400 Irvine, CA 92618
9 Telephone: 213 394 5943

10 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER MARONEL BARAJAS - #242044
11 maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org ANNA RIVERA - # 239601
12 anna.rivera@drlcenter.org 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1520
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 736 1031
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL
16 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES

19 FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL

20 DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of

21 themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

v.

23 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

24 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta

25 County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

26 MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their

27 individual capacities,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER (1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS; AND (4) SETTING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING

Date:

February 22, 2018

Time:

2:00 p.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 7, 14th Floor

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Date Filed: May 6, 2013

Trial Date: None set

28

Defendants.

1199887

[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 2 of 7

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
1199887

ORDER The Parties have applied to the Court for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this action in accord with the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), which sets forth the terms and conditions of a proposed settlement and dismissal of the class action with prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement throughout its term. Having read the papers submitted and carefully considered the arguments and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. On April 4, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, certifying a class for declaratory and injunctive relief. Nothing in the class definition set forth in the Settlement Agreement has materially changed the certified class in any significant way that would impact the satisfaction of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) requirements. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, and conditioned upon the entry of this Order and the Final Judgment and Order Approving Settlement, that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met by the Settlement Class: (a) joinder of all Settlement Class Members in a single proceeding would be impracticable, if not impossible, because of their numbers and dispersion; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class that they seek to represent for purposes of settlement; (d) Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so; (e) Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting class actions, including those involving the sort of practices alleged in the Fifth Amended Complaint; and (f) Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds that apply to the Settlement Class, so that final declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate to the Settlement
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 3 of 7

1 Class. Accordingly, the Court hereby certifies the proposed settlement class pursuant to Federal
2 Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and appoints Class Representatives Everett Jewett, Glen 3
Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and their 4
counsel as representatives of the Settlement Class. 5
2. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement. The Court 6
7 finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable to all
8 potential Class Members. It further appears that extensive evaluation of the merits has been

9 conducted such that Counsel for the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective
10 positions. It also appears to the Court that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional 11
costs to all Parties, as well as avoid the delay and the risks presented by further prosecution of 12
issues either in the current or separate litigation proceedings which are addressed by the 13 14 Agreement. It further appears that the Agreement has been reached as the result of good faith,
15 prolonged, serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations, including several mediation

16 sessions supervised by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire.

17

3. The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice, attached

18 as Exhibit A to the Agreement. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice in the manner
19 and form set forth in the Agreement meets the requirements of due process and Federal Rules of
20 Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e). This Notice is the best practicable under the circumstances,
21
22 and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Parties shall

23 submit declarations to the Court as part of their Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action

24 Settlement confirming compliance with the notice provisions of the Agreement.

25

4. A hearing on final approval of the Agreement shall be held before the Court on a

26 date to be set by the Court to determine all necessary matters concerning the Agreement,
27 including whether the proposed Settlement Agreement’s terms and conditions are fair, adequate,
28

1199887

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 4 of 7

1 and reasonable, and whether the Settlement Agreement should receive final approval by the
2 Court, as well as to rule on Class Counsel’s motion requesting an award of reasonable attorneys’ 3
fees, costs and expenses. 4
Objections by Class Members may be submitted to Class Counsel no later than thirty (30) 5
calendar days after notice has begun. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the 6
7 proposed Settlement Agreement may serve on Class Counsel a written statement or telephonic
8 statement of objection no later than thirty (30) calendar days after notice has begun (the

9 “Objection Deadline”). Such statement should include: (a) the objector’s contact information (full

10 name and address. And, if available, phone number, email, and inmate number); (b) a statement

11 of the Class Member’s objections; (c) a statement of his or her membership in the Settlement
12 Class, and (d) a statement whether he or she intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing.
13

14

5. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement

15 may also present objections at the Fairness Hearing.

16

6. The procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the

17 Fairness Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the orderly
18 presentation of any Settlement Class Members’ objection to the Settlement Agreement, in 19
accordance with the due process rights of all Settlement Class Members. 20
7. Class Counsel shall provide copies of any objections to Defendants’ counsel 21
22 within fourteen (14) court days of receipt. Class Counsel shall also file any objections with the
23 Court at such time as they file their Summary of Objections.

24

8. Pending the Fairness Hearing, all class proceedings in this Action, other than

25 proceedings necessary to carry out and enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement
26 Agreement and this Order, are hereby stayed. Additionally, the Court enjoins all Settlement Class
27 Members from asserting or maintaining any claims to be released by the Settlement Agreement
28

1199887

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 5 of 7

1 until the date of the Fairness Hearing.

2

9. In accordance with the above, the Court adopts the following schedule:

3 a. Within three (3) business days after entry of the Order Granting
4 Preliminary Approval, Notice in the form of Exhibit A to the Settlement
5
Agreement shall be posted on Class Counsels’ websites, and the Shasta 6

7

County’s official website; and prominently posted in all Jail facilities

8

operated by Defendants, including, but not limited to, all day rooms, the

9

out-patient medical pod, all visitation rooms, and the visitor waiting room.

10

The notice shall remain posted for 30 days.

11 b. Each Class Member shall be given a full opportunity to object to the
12 proposed Settlement and Class Counsel’s request for an award of
13

14

reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. Any Class Member seeking

15

to object to the proposed Settlement may submit an objection to Class

16

Counsel in writing, via regular or electronic mail, or by leaving a message

17

with their objection via telephone, on a toll free number established by

18

Class Counsel.

19 c. Fourteen (14) days prior to the objection deadline, Plaintiffs shall file a
20
Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses. 21

22

The hearing on that Motion shall be concurrent with the Fairness Hearing.

23

d. Twenty (20) days after Plaintiffs file a Motion for an Award of Reasonable

24

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses Defendants shall file an opposition to

25

the aforementioned motion.

26 e. Ten (10) days after Defendants file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
27 an Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses Plaintiffs
28

1199887

4
[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 6 of 7

1

shall file a reply to the aforementioned opposition.

2

f. The Parties shall file a Summary of Objections and Responses with the

3 Court, if any, no later than fifty (50) days after the date of the posting of
4 the Class Notice.
5
g. The Parties shall file a Joint Motion for Final Approval and respond to 6

7

objections, if any, no later than two (2) days prior to the Fairness Hearing.

8

All parties shall file statements of compliance with notice requirements.

9

h. The Fairness Hearing shall be held on April 19, 2018 at 2 P.M. o’clock in

10

Courtroom 7, Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street

11 Sacramento, CA 95814.
12 10. In the event the Court does not grant final approval of the Settlement Agreement,
13

14 or for any reason the Parties fail to obtain a Final Judgment and Order Approving Settlement as

15 contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, or the Settlement Agreement is terminated pursuant

16 to its terms for any reason or the Effective Date does not occur for any reason, then the Settlement

17 Agreement and all orders and findings entered in connection with the Settlement Agreement and

18 the Settlement shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect whatsoever, shall

19 not be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever, and shall not be admissible or discoverable
20
in this or any other proceeding. 21

22

This Order shall not be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by

23 or against the Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability, and shall not be deemed

24 to be a stipulation as to the propriety of class certification, or any admission of fact or law
25 regarding any request for class certification, in any other action or proceeding, whether or not
26 involving the same or similar claims. Nor shall this Order be construed or used as an admission,
27 concession, or declaration by or against Plaintiffs or the other Settlement Class Members that
28

1199887

5
[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

Case 2:13-cv-00882-MCE-AC Document 119-4 Filed 11/28/17 Page 7 of 7

1 their claims lack merit or that the relief requested is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as
2 a waiver by any Party of any defenses or claims he, she, or it may have in the Action or in any
3 other proceeding.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

6 Dated: _____________________ 7
8

_________________________________ HON. MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1199887

6
[PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC)

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 1 of 21
PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−00882−MCE−AC

(PC) Jewett v. California Forensic Medical Group et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Allison Claire Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/06/2013 Date Terminated: 01/23/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Everett Jewett

represented by Amethyst Thormann Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Blvd Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1031 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: Amethyst.Thormann@drlcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony C. Pinggera Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Blvd Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 736−1031 Fax: (213) 736−1428 Email: anthony.pinggera@drlcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon Ali Atabek Atabek & Associates 57 Bianco Irvine, CA 92618 213−394−5943 Fax: 213−402−3413 Email: jatabek@atabeklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven P. Ragland Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111−1809 415−391−5400 Fax: 415−397−7188 Email: sragland@keker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary J. Genduso Disability Rights Legal Center 1541 Wilshire Blvd Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 736−1031 Fax: (213) 736−1428 Email: zachary.genduso@drlcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 2 of 21
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ajay Sundar Krishnan Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−5400 Fax: 415−397−7188 Email: akrishnan@keker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna Mercedes Rivera Barajas & Rivera, APC 1440 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 900 Fullerton, CA 92835 714−443−0119 Fax: 714−443−0096 Email: anna.rivera@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Franco E. Muzzio Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−5400 Fax: 415−397−7188 Email: fmuzzio@keker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Gibson Disability Rights Legal Center 350 S. Grand Ave. Suite 1520 Los Ageles,, CA 90071 213−736−1031 Ext. 8372 Fax: 312− 736−1428 Email: jonathan.gibson@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 09/01/2016
Joseph Taylor Gooch Email: tgooch@durietangri.com TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Kara Jane Janssen Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld 50 Fremont St. 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: KJanssen@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 09/01/2016
Mallory L. Sepler−King Disability Rights Legal Center 350 S. Grand Avenue Suite 2010 Los Angeles, CA 90071 626−389−8277 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: Mallory.Sepler−King@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 08/30/2019
Maronel Barajas Disability Rights Legal Center

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 3 of 21

350 South Grand Ave. Suite 2010 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−736−1031 x1195 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: Maronel.Barajas@drlcenter.org TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Plaintiff Glen Harold Everett

represented by Amethyst Thormann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony C. Pinggera (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven P. Ragland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary J. Genduso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Franco E. Muzzio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Taylor Gooch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Mallory L. Sepler−King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2019

Maronel Barajas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Plaintiff Michael Donald Ackley

represented by Amethyst Thormann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony C. Pinggera (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven P. Ragland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 4 of 21

Plaintiff Harold Robert Marquette

Zachary J. Genduso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Franco E. Muzzio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Taylor Gooch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Mallory L. Sepler−King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2019
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
represented by Amethyst Thormann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony C. Pinggera (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven P. Ragland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary J. Genduso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Franco E. Muzzio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Taylor Gooch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Mallory L. Sepler−King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2019
Maronel Barajas

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 5 of 21

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Plaintiff
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

represented by Amethyst Thormann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony C. Pinggera (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven P. Ragland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary J. Genduso (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Franco E. Muzzio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Taylor Gooch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

Mallory L. Sepler−King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2019

Maronel Barajas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/10/2019

V. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.
Defendant Shasta County Jail TERMINATED: 09/24/2014

represented by Jerome Martin Varanini Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini 641 Fulton Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916−993−4868 Fax: 916−993−6750 Email: jvaranini@tsvlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gary Charles Brickwood Brickwood Law Office 1135 Pine Street

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 6 of 21

Suite 210 Redding, CA 96001 530−245−1877 Fax: 530−245−1879 Email: office@brickwoodlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeremy Austin Dr. TERMINATED: 06/23/2016

represented by Jerome Martin Varanini (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Shasta County Sheriff's Department

represented by Gary Charles Brickwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mary Barnes TERMINATED: 06/23/2016

represented by Jerome Martin Varanini (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Roemmich TERMINATED: 06/23/2016

represented by Jerome Martin Varanini (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sheriff Tom Bosenko

represented by Gary Charles Brickwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Shasta County

represented by Gary Charles Brickwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/06/2013
05/06/2013 05/10/2013
05/10/2013

# Docket Text
1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against Austin, California Forensic Medical Group, Shasta County Jail by Everett Jewett. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Everett Jewett. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
3 PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 6/13/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider served on Everett Jewett. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 05/10/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 7 of 21

05/22/2013 06/07/2013 08/27/2013
08/27/2013 08/27/2013
08/27/2013 09/12/2013 09/16/2013 10/15/2013 01/22/2014
01/22/2014 02/03/2014 02/14/2014 02/20/2014
02/20/2014

4 CONSENT to JURISDICTION of US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Everett Jewett. (Michel, G) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
5 FIRST AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all Defendants by Everett Jewett. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
6 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/26/13 granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the court's order to the Sheriff of Shasta County filed concurrently herewith. The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. The amended complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file a second amended complaint within 28 days from the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Order on Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, served on Everett Jewett. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
7 ORDER DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Everett Jewett signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/26/13. The Sheriff of Shasta County shall collect payments from plaintiff's account and forward to the clerk until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. Clerk to serve this orderand a copy of plaintiff's IFP on the Sheriff of Shasta County. Clerk to also serve Financial with a copy of this order. (cc: Financial)(Plummer, M) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Order Directing Prisoner Payment, served on Everett Jewett. A copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff's IFP 2 served on the Sheriff of Shasta County. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
8 REQUEST for copy of amended complaint by Everett Jewett. (Zignago, K.) (Response sent: If you wish to have a conformed copy returned to you, you must file an original plus twocopies and provide the court with a self−addressed stamped envelope with the correct postage.) Modified on 9/17/2013 (Dillon, M). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
9 SECOND AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against Austin, California Forensic Medical Group, Shasta County Jail by Everett Jewett. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
10 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Everett Jewett. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
11 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/21/14 ordering plaintiff's claims of negligence and due process violations against the defendants are dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file a third amended complaint within 28 days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff's premature motion for summary judgment 10 is hereby vacated. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 11 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, served on Everett Jewett. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
12 MOTION for 90−DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to Amend 9 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint by Everett Jewett. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
13 [STRICKEN− PURSUANT TO 14 Order] THIRD AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiff Everett Jewett. (Marciel, M) Modified on 3/26/2014 (Donati, J). (Entered: 02/18/2014)
14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/19/14 ordering plaintiff's proposed amended complaint 13 filed on 2/14/14 is stricken. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 12 is granted. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order to file a third amended complaint. There will be no further extension, and failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in this action proceeding against the defendants and on the claims of the second amended complaint this court has previously found cognizable. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 14 Order on Motion for Extension,, served on Everett Jewett. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 8 of 21

03/24/2014
03/24/2014 04/02/2014 04/30/2014 07/03/2014 09/02/2014 09/24/2014
09/24/2014 10/01/2014 10/03/2014 10/09/2014
10/09/2014
10/09/2014 10/31/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014

15 THIRD AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiff Everett Jewett. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (MAINTAINED ON PAPER) (Marciel, M) Modified on 3/26/2014 (Donati, J). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
16 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by plaintiff Everett Jewett. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
17 FOURTH AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against Everett Jewett by Everett Jewett.(Reader, L) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
18 LETTER from plaintiff Everett Jewett regarding his extensive spinal injuries and disabilities. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
19 LETTER confirming mailing address; REQUEST FOR STATUS from Everett Jewett. (Michel, G) (Response Sent − The Court will notify you as soon as any action is taken on your case.) Modified on 7/14/2014 (Yin, K). (Entered: 07/07/2014)
20 REQUEST for status of case by Everett Jewett. (Kastilahn, A)(Response sent: "The Court will notify you as soon as any action is taken in your case.") Modified on 9/3/2014 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 09/03/2014)
21 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/24/2014 ORDERING that service is appropriate for Dr. Jeremy Austin, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Mary Barns and James Roemech; the Clerk shall send plaintiff forms for service to be completed and returned within 28 days. (Yin, K) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 21 Order along with 1 Summons, 5 USM−285 forms, an instruction sheet and 1 copy of the 4/2/14 amended complaint served on Everett Jewett. (Yin, K) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
22 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: 1 Summons, 5 USM−285 Forms, and 6 copies of the 4th amended complaint by Everett Jewett. (Reader, L) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
23 NOTICE of submission of documents for documents already submitted by Everett Jewett. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
24 ORDER DIRECTING USM to serve process within 14 days on defendants Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., James Roemech and Shasta County Sheriff's Department signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/7/2014. The Clerk is directed to forward to the USM documents for service, the form re consent or request for reassignment and this order. The Clerk shall also send plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules. (Yin, K) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 24 Order and Local Rules served on Everett Jewett. The USM served with instructions for service, completed summons, 5 USM−285 forms, 6 copies each of the 4/2/2014 complaint, the order re consent and 24 service process order.(Yin, K) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
25 ORDER RE CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/9/2014. (cc: for USM service) (Yin, K) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
26 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: defendants Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, and James Roemech Waiver sent on 10/17/2014. (Marciel, M) Modified on 11/4/2014 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 11/03/2014)
29 ADDENDUM to the 4th amended complaint by Everett Jewett. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
27 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, James Roemech and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. Attorney Varanini, Jerome Martin added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Varanini, Jerome) Modified on 11/19/2014 (Yin, K). (Entered: 11/17/2014)
28 [DISREGARD, DUPLICATE OF 27 ANSWER] ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by James Roemech. Attorney Varanini,

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 9 of 21

11/21/2014
11/21/2014 12/17/2014 12/17/2014 12/17/2014 12/17/2014 12/19/2014 12/29/2014 01/16/2015 01/26/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 03/02/2015
03/03/2015
03/05/2015

Jerome Martin added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Varanini, Jerome) Modified on 11/20/2014 (Yin, K). (Entered: 11/17/2014)
30 DISCOVERY and SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/20/2014: Discovery due by 3/13/2015; Pretrial Motions, except motions to compel discovery, due on or before 6/5/2015; and Pretrial Conference and Trial dates will be set as appropriate. (Yin, K) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 30 Discovery and Scheduling Order served on Everett Jewett. (Yin, K) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
31 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Shasta County Sheriff's Department. Attorney Brickwood, Gary Charles added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
32 DECLINE to PROCEED BEFORE US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 12/17/2014 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 12/17/2014)
33 CLERK'S NOTICE (text only): This case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. and U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; the new case number is 2:13−cv−882 MCE AC (PC). (Plummer, M) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 33 Notice − Other served on Everett Jewett. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
34 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Shasta County Sheriff's Department Waiver sent on 10/17/2014. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
MAIL RETURNED as No longer in custody: unable to forward 33 Notice sent to Everett Jewett. Notice of Change of Address due by 3/9/2015. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
35 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS to PO Box 600, Tracy, CA 95378 by Everett Jewett. and notice of counsel.(Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
RE−SERVICE BY MAIL: 33 Notice − Other served on Everett Jewett. (Dillon, M) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
36 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. served on 1/23/2015. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
37 REQUEST for Court Order Reimbursing Service Fees filed by USM. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
38 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Shasta County Sheriff's Department re 31 Answer to Complaint. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
39 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Shasta County Sheriff's Department regarding document 32 . (Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 2/23/2015 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 02/20/2015)
40 MOTION for 180−DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to Extend Cut−Off Dates for Discovery and Dispositive Motions by Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Gary Brickwood, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proof of Service)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 3/3/2015 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/02/2015)
41 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Jeremy Austin, Mary Barnes, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., James Roemmich to 40 MOTION for 180−DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to Extend Cut−Off Dates for Discovery and Dispositive Motions. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/4/2015 GRANTING defendant's 40 motion and VACATING the 4/1/2015 hearing; the Scheduling Order is revised as to discovery is extended to 9/9/2015, and all pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 12/2/2015. (Yin, K) (Entered: 03/05/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 10 of 21

03/05/2015 04/10/2015 04/16/2015 05/14/2015 06/08/2015 08/13/2015 08/25/2015 08/25/2015 08/31/2015
11/18/2015 01/04/2016 01/11/2016 01/12/2016 03/14/2016
03/16/2016
05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/16/2016 05/17/2016

SERVICE BY MAIL: 42 Order on Motion for Extension served on Everett Jewett. (Yin, K) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
43 MOTION to COMPEL by Everett Jewett. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
44 OPPOSITION by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. to 43 MOTION to COMPEL. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Varanini, Jerome) Modified on 4/17/2015 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 04/16/2015)
45 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jon Ali Atabek on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Atabek, Jon Ali added. (Atabek, Jon) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
46 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Anna Mercedes Rivera on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Rivera, Anna Mercedes added. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
47 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS to California Medical Facility, PO Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696−2500 by Everett Jewett. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
48 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Kara Jane Janssen on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Janssen, Kara Jane added. (Janssen, Kara) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
49 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Vacate Discovery Cutoff and Dispositive Motion Deadline by Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
50 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/28/15 ordering that the discovery deadline of 09/09/15 and the dispositive motion deadline of 12/02/15 are vacated. The Discovery and Scheduling Order 30 is hereby revised as follows: The parties may conduct discovery until 03/15/16. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 6/15/16. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
51 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/18/15 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 43 motion to compel. (Yin, K) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
52 PROPOSED ORDER re Stipulated Protective Order by Everett Jewett. (Janssen, Kara) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
53 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/08/16. (See order for further details).(Plummer, M) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
54 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Jonathan Gibson on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Gibson, Jonathan added. (Gibson, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
55 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Vacate Discovery Cutoff and Dispositive Motion Deadline by Everett Jewett. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Vacate Discovery Cutoff and Dispositive Motion Deadlines)(Janssen, Kara) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
56 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/15/16 ordering that the discovery cut−off of 03/15/16 and the dispositive motion deadline of 06/15/16 are vacated. Plaintiff will file or seek leave to file, Plaintiff's amended complaint within 60 days of this order. (Plummer, M) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
57 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Steven P. Ragland on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Ragland, Steven P. added. (Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
58 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Ajay Sundar Krishnan on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Krishnan, Ajay Sundar added. (Krishnan, Ajay) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
59 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Joseph Taylor Gooch on behalf of Everett Jewett. Attorney Gooch, Joseph Taylor added. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
60 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Motion for An Extension to File Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint by Everett Jewett. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
61 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/16/2016 ORDERING that the deadline to file plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint is EXTENDED to 5/30/2016. (Reader, L) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 11 of 21

05/25/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/23/2016
07/06/2016 07/07/2016 07/18/2016 07/29/2016 08/19/2016 08/31/2016
09/01/2016 09/02/2016 09/06/2016

62 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint by Everett Jewett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
63 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 6/1/16, ORDERING that the Court grants leave for Plaintiff to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
64 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Everett Jewett (Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
65 FIFTH AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs. (Ragland, Steven) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 06/02/2016)
66 DEMAND for TRIAL by JURY by all Plaintiffs. Attorney Ragland, Steven P. added. (Ragland, Steven) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 06/02/2016)
67 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/22/16 ordering Dr. Jeremy Austin, Mary Barns, and James Roemech are dismissed as defendants in this action. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Shasta County and Tom Bosenko,Sheriff of Shasta County. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, counsel for defendant Shasta County Sheriffs Department, Mr. Gary Brickwood, is directed to file waivers of service ofprocess for new defendants Shasta County and Tom Bosenko, or show cause inwriting why he is unable to do so. All defendants shall have thirty days from the date of service of the fifth amended complaint, or the filing of waivers of service thereto, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Within sixty days of the filing date of this order, the parties shall file a joint statement of availability for the period of September 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016, indicating blackout dates when counsel will not be available for a status conference.(Plummer, M) Modified on 6/23/2016 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 06/23/2016)
68 ANSWER TO PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
69 WAIVERS of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Tom Bosenko Waiver and Shasta County Waivers sent on 6/2/2016. (Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 7/8/2016 (Yin, K). (Entered: 07/07/2016)
70 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department.(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
71 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Anna Mercedes Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
72 JOINT STATEMENT in response to the Court's June 23, 2016 order 67 by Plaintiffs Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Attorney Gooch, Joseph Taylor added. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 8/22/2016 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
73 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/31/2016 SETTING a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference for 10/19/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. No later than 14 days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall attach to this order the form "Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge". (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Yin, K) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
74 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL by Everett Jewett. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
75 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Maronel Barajas for Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett,Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and Harold Robert Marquette (Rivera, Anna) Modified on 9/6/2016 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 09/02/2016)
76 NOTICE of Consent to Jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette re 73 Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 12 of 21

09/15/2016 10/04/2016 10/19/2016
10/20/2016
12/01/2016 12/01/2016 12/22/2016 01/27/2017
02/02/2017 02/03/2017

09/06/2016)
77 DECLINE to PROCEED BEFORE US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
78 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
79 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 10/19/2016. The court and the parties discussed various issues regarding plaintiff's motion to certify a class and the informally lifted stay regarding discovery. After the hearing the court informed the parties a scheduling order would be issued as soon as possible. Plaintiffs Counsel Jon Atabek, Jonathan Gibpson, Joseph Gooch present in court. And Anna Rivera via telephone. Defendants Counsel Gary Brickwood present. Court Reporter/CD Number: Jonathan Anderson. (Callen, V) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
80 AMENDED DISCOVERY and SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/19/2016: Initial Disclosures to be exchanged by 11/2/2016; Fact Discovery due by 5/1/20177; Pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, on or before 9/15/2017; the parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness no later than 30 days after receiving this Court's ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motions.(Yin, K) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
81 AUDIO RECORDING REQUEST by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette for proceedings held on October 19, 2016 before Judge Hon. Allison Claire. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
RECEIPT number #CAE200078357 $31.00 fbo Nationwide Legal, LLC by Nationwide Legal, LLC on 12/1/2016 re 81 Audio Recording Request. (Benson, A) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
82 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Anna Mercedes Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
83 MOTION to CERTIFY CLASS by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Taylor Gooch, # 3 Exhibit A−P to Taylor Gooch Declaration, # 4 Declaration of Everett Jewett, # 5 Declaration of Glen Harold Everett, # 6 Declaration of Michael Donald Ackley, # 7 Declaration of Dorsey Nunn, # 8 Declaration of Steven P. Ragland, # 9 Declaration of Anna Rivera, # 10 Exhibit A to Anna Rivera Declaration, # 11 Exhibit B to Anna Rivera Declaration, # 12 Declaration of Jon A. Atabek)(Ragland, Steven) Modified on 1/30/2017 (Yin, K). (Entered: 01/27/2017)
84 STIPULATION (Joint) and PROPOSED ORDER Extending Case Deadlines by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 2/3/2017 (Yin, K). (Entered: 02/02/2017)
85 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/02/17 ordering the present discovery cut−off and deadlines for filing of dispositive motions contained in the October 20, 2016 order are vacated. Fact discovery shall be completed by November 1, 2017. Motions to compel must be heard not later than October 10, 2017. Initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before January 10, 2018; rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on or before February 1, 2018. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty(30) days after receiving the Courts ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motion(s). If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery and the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. After review of the parties Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the Court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and trial. (Plummer, M)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 13 of 21

02/22/2017 02/22/2017 03/08/2017 03/09/2017
03/13/2017
03/13/2017
03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/20/2017

Modified on 2/3/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 02/03/2017)
86 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department to 83 MOTION to CERTIFY CLASS. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
87 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. to 83 MOTION to CERTIFY CLASS. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
88 Private note: MINUTES (Text Only)for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: MOTION HEARING held on 3/8/2017 re 83 MOTION to CERTIFY CLASS filed by Michael Donald Ackley, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett. The motion is granted and the court will issue findings and recommendations. Plaintiffs Counsel Steven Ragland and Joseph Gooch. Via telephone Maronel Barajas. Defendants Counsel Via Telephone Gary Brickwood.Court Reporter/CD Number: Jonathan Anderson. (Callen, V) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
89 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/08/17 recommending that plaintiffs motion for class certification 83 be granted. The following class be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications ,services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws. Keker & Van Nest LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabek & Associates,P.C. be appointed class counsel. Motion 83 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 7 days. (Plummer, M) Modified on 3/9/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/09/2017)
90 ORDER and AMENDED FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/13/17 vacating 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for class certification 83 be granted. The following class be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications,services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws. Keker & Van Nest LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabek & Associates,P.C. be appointed class counsel. MOTION to CERTIFY CLASS 83 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 7 days.(Plummer, M) Modified on 3/13/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/13/2017)
91 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only). The parties have stipulated to a settlement conference before the Honorable Allison Claire U.S. Magistrate Judge, whom the case is assigned. Within seven (7) days from the date of this minute order, the parties are to file a waiver of disqualification pursuant to Local Rule 270(b). The Settlement Conference Hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement conference statements no later than May 11, 2017, to the following email address: acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Furthermore, each party shall file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement pursuant to Local Rule 270(d). All parties are required to have principals present at the settlement conference. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of an order made in the above captioned case. (Callen, V) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
92 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS CHANGE by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
93 NOTICE of Waiver Re Claim of Disqualification of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire by Plaintiffs re 91 Minute Order. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 3/15/2017 (Yin, K). (Entered: 03/13/2017)
94 NOTICE of Waiver of Disqualification of Settlement Judge Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b) by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Jail, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. Attorney Brickwood, Gary Charles added. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 14 of 21

03/20/2017 04/05/2017
04/25/2017
04/25/2017 04/25/2017
04/26/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 05/11/2017 05/11/2017 05/11/2017 05/18/2017

03/20/2017)
95 NOTICE of Waiver of Disqualification of Settlement Judge by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
96 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/4/2017 ADOPTING IN FULL 90 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 83 Motion to Certify Class; DEFINING the certified class; APPOINTING Keker & Van Nest LLP, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Atabek & Associates, P.C. as class counsel. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
97 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER Excusing Plaintiffs Ackley and Everett from Attending May 18, 2017 Settlement Conference by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 4/26/2017 (Henshaw, R). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
98 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Appear Via Phone at Mandatory Settlement Conference by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 4/26/2017 (Henshaw, R). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
99 [DISREGARD DUPLICATE OF DOCUMENT 97 ]STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Stipulation and [Proposed] Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 4/26/2017 (Henshaw, R). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
100 CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION re 99 Stipulation and Proposed Order. This document is a duplicate of document 97 and should be disregarded. Attorney is directed to resubmit his Stipulation and Proposed Order for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum. (TEXT ONLY) (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
101 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Stipulation and [Proposed] Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
102 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/27/2017 ALLOWING plaintiff to appear by phone at the Settlement Conference set for 5/18/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
103 STIPULATION and WRIT ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/27/2017 ORDERING the Warden of California Medical Facility to produce plaintiff Everett Jewett by phone for the Settlement Conference on 5/18/2017 at 9:00 AM. (3 certified copies to Warden, CMF) (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
104 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/27/2017 EXCUSING plaintiffs Ackley and Everett from appearing at the settlement conference scheduled for 5/18/2017 at 9:00 AM. (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
105 NOTICE of Lodging of Plaintiffs' Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
106 NOTICE of Lodging of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
107 NOTICE of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by Shasta County Defendants by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
108 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 5/18/2017; CASE NOT SETTLED at this time. Continued Settlement Conference scheduled for 8/10/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. Plaintiffs Counsel Steven

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 15 of 21

05/24/2017 05/25/2017
06/20/2017
08/02/2017 08/03/2017 08/03/2017 08/10/2017

Ragland, Jon Atabec, Anna Rivera, Joseph Gooch and Maronel Barajas present. Defendants Counsel Jerome Varanini and Gary Brickwood present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
109 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER Extending Case Deadlines by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 5/25/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 05/24/2017)
110 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/25/17 ordering The present discovery cut−off and deadlines for filing of dispositive motions contained in the February 3, 2017 Order are vacated. Fact discovery shall be completed by March 30, 2018. Motions to compel must be heard not later than March 16, 2018. Initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before April 30, 2018; rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on or before May 18, 2018. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be completed on or before June 30, 2018. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty days after receiving the Courts ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motion(s). If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than thirty days after the close of discovery and the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. After review of the parties Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the Court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and trial. (Plummer, M) Modified on 5/25/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 05/25/2017)
111 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) re 108 Settlement Conference. The parties previously stipulated to a settlement conference before the Honorable Allison Claire U.S. Magistrate Judge, whom the case is assigned and have filed their waivers pursuant to Local Rule 270(b). The Settlement Conference is now continued for Hearing on August 10, 2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement conference statements no later than August 3, 2017, to the following email address: acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Furthermore, each party shall file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement pursuant to Local Rule 270(d). All parties are required to have principals present at the settlement conference. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of an order made in the above captioned case. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
112 NOTICE of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by Shasta County Defendants by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
113 NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENT IN PAPER by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.: Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
114 NOTICE OF LODGING OF PLAINTIFFS' CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
115 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 8/10/2017;The parties have concluded round two of the Settlement Conference in this case, subject to the approval by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. The parties have settled the Class Wide Injunctive Relief portion of the law suit. A memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement has been executed and signed by all counsel present today. Its attached class action agreement and release of claims will be finalized according to its own terms following approval by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. Issues regarding attorney fees will be left to motion before the District Court. The individual damages claims of Mr. Jewett remain open in this law suit. CASE SETTLED IN PART. Plaintiffs Counsel Jon Ali Atabek, Maronel Barajas, Ajay Sundar Krishnan, Anna Mercedes Rivera and Joseph Taylor Gooch present. Defendants Counsel Gary Charles Brickwood and Jerome Martin Varanini present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 16 of 21

08/11/2017 09/15/2017 09/19/2017 11/28/2017
11/29/2017
01/10/2018 01/17/2018 01/23/2018
02/21/2018 02/21/2018 02/27/2018

116 MEMORANDUM of Understanding Regarding Settlement by the parties. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 8/15/2017 (Yin, K). (Entered: 08/11/2017)
117 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Mallory L. Sepler−King for Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Harold Robert Marquette (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
118 AMENDED 117 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL Added attorney Mallory Sepler−King by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Sepler−King, Mallory) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
119 MOTION for PPRELIMINARY APPROVAL of CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Motion Hearing set for 2/22/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Taylor Gooch, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Proposed Order)(Ragland, Steven) Modified on 11/28/2017 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 11/28/2017)
120 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the February 22, 2018 hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement 119 is vacated and submitted without appearance and argument. The opposition or statement of non−opposition, and reply due dates shall be filed in accordance with the original motion hearing date. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. Any outstanding request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
121 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extending Case Deadlines by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
122 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Franco E. Muzzio on behalf of Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Attorney Muzzio, Franco E. added. (Muzzio, Franco) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
123 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/23/18 ORDERING the present discovery cut−off and deadlines for filing of dispositive motions contained in the May 25, 2017 order 110 are VACATED. Fact discovery shall be completed by July 31, 2018. Motions to compel must be heard no later than July 13, 2018. Initial expert disclosures shall be made on or before August 28, 2018, and rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on or before September 17, 2018. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be completed on or before October 29, 2018. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness no later than 30 days after receiving the courts ruling(s) on the last filed dispositive motion(s). If the parties do not intend to file dispositive motions, the parties are ordered to file aJoint Notice of Trial Readiness no later than 30 days after the close of discovery, and the notice must include statements of intent to forgo the filing of dispositive motions. After review of the parties Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the court will issue an order that sets forth dates for a final pretrial conference and trial. (Plummer, M) Modified on 1/23/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 01/23/2018)
124 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extending Briefing Deadlines by Everett Jewett. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
125 MOTION for SANCTIONS Pursuant to FRCP, Rule 37 by Everett Jewett. Motion Hearing set for 3/28/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Taylor Gooch, # 3 Exhibits 1 through 27, # 4 Proposed Order)(Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
126 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/27/2018 EXTENDING the briefing deadlines. Plaintiff shall submit the Rule 37(e) motion on 2/21/2018; Defendant Shasta County shall submit its Opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 37(e) motion on 3/14/2018; Plaintiff shall submit his Reply to the Rule 37(e) motion

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 17 of 21

03/06/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/21/2018 03/21/2018 03/28/2018 04/11/2018
04/12/2018 04/12/2018

on 3/21/2018; and, the noticed hearing on this matter will be heard on 3/28/2018.(Yin, K) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
127 NOTICE of Errata regarding Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff Everett Jewett's Motion for Sanctions 125 by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Taylor Gooch, # 3 Exhibit 28)(Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 3/7/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/06/2018)
128 OPPOSITION by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County to 125 Motion for Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Joe Danis, # 2 Exhibit A, B, C, D)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
129 DECLARATION of GARY BRICKWOOD regarding 128 OPPOSITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 3/15/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
130 EXHIBITS 2 and 3 by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County regarding 128 OPPOSITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 3/15/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
131 EXHIBITS 4 and 5 by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County regarding 128 OPPOSITION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 3/15/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
132 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/20/2018 GRANTING the Preliminary Approval of Settlement; GRANTING Certification of Settlement Class; DIRECTING Notice to the Class; Fairness Hearing is SET for 6/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Washington, S) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
133 REPLY by Everett Jewett re 125 Motion for Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Taylor Gooch, # 2 Exhibit 29, # 3 Exhibit 30, # 4 Exhibit 31)(Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
134 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: MOTION HEARING held on 3/28/2018 re 125 Motion for Sanctions filed by Everett Jewett. Matter submitted the court will issue a written order. Plaintiffs Counsel Steven Ragland, Joseph Gooch and Franco Muzzio present. Defendants Counsel Gary Brickwood present. Court Reporter/CD Number: Jonathan Anderson. (Callen, V) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
135 MOTION for ATTORNEY FEES and Expenses by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Steven P. Ragland, # 4 Ragland Exs. 1−19, # 5 Declaration of Maronel Barajas, # 6 Barajas Exs. A−Q, # 7 Declaration of Jon A. Atabek, # 8 Atabek Ex. A, # 9 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl, # 10 Pearl Exs. A−D, # 11 Declaration of Everett Jewett, # 12 Jewett Ex. A, # 13 Jewett Ex. B, # 14 Declaration of Rhonda Andrew, # 15 Declaration of Michael Borges, # 16 Declaration of Kelly Knapp, # 17 Declaration of Sidney Wolinsky)(Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
136 CORRECTED NOTICE of MOTION regarding 135 Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Ragland, Steven) Modified on 4/13/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 04/12/2018)
137 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Pursuant to Local Rule 302(c), the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses 135 is to be renoticed according to Local Rule 230(a) before the assigned Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the June 28, 2018, hearing date is VACATED. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 18 of 21

04/13/2018 04/18/2018 04/20/2018
05/01/2018 05/01/2018 05/01/2018 05/07/2018 05/11/2018
05/15/2018 05/16/2018 05/16/2018
05/16/2018 05/17/2018 05/21/2018

138 RE−NOTICE of MOTION HEARING re 135 Motion for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing RESET for 5/23/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Ragland, Steven) Modified on 4/16/2018 (Yin, K). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
139 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette for proceedings held on March 28, 2018 before Judge Hon. Magistrate Allison Claire. Court Reporter ECRO Jonathan Anderson. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
140 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions held on 3/28/18, before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, filed by Court Reporter/Transcriber Kacy Barajas, Phone number 916−426−7640 E−mail kbarajas.csr@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 5/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/19/2018. (Barajas, K) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
141 OPPOSITION by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Jail, Shasta County Sheriff's Department to 135 Motion for Attorney Fees, 136 Corrected Motion for Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gary Brickwood, # 2 Exhibit 1 − 8, # 3 Exhibit 9 − 16)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
142 DECLARATION of O'Connor in opposition to 135 Motion for Attorney Fees, 136 Corrected Motion for Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−L)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
143 OPPOSITION by California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. to 136 Corrected Motion for Attorney Fees. (Varanini, Jerome) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
144 NOTICE of Errata by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department re 141 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 5/8/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 05/07/2018)
145 REPLY by Michael Donald Ackley, et al., re 135 Motion for Attorney Fees, 136 Corrected Motion for Attorney Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Steven P. Ragland, # 2 Exhibits A−D, # 3 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl, # 4 Exhibits A−B, # 5 Declaration of Kara Janssen, # 6 Declaration of Jon A. Atabek, # 7 Exhibits 1−6, # 8 Declaration of Maronel Barajas, # 9 Exhibit A, # 10 Declaration of Sidney M. Wolinsky)(Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
146 DECLARATION of Anna Rivera. Attorney Rivera, Anna Mercedes added. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
147 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department to 145 Reply. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
148 REQUEST for Leave to File Surreply Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff's Department re 145 Reply filed by Michael Donald Ackley, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett. (Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
149 REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE at the 5/23/2018 Attorneys' Fees hearing by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
150 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette to 148 Request,. (Ragland, Steven) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
151 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) re 148 Request. Defendants' request for leave to file a surreply re: plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees (ECF No. 148) is DENIED. In addition, the court will take plaintiffs' motion for attorneys fees and related filings (ECF No. 135 et seq.) under submission on the papers. Therefore, the in−person

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 19 of 21

06/19/2018 06/20/2018 06/26/2018 06/27/2018 07/09/2018 07/11/2018 07/19/2018 07/24/2018
07/25/2018

hearing calendared for May 23, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 138 is VACATED, and defendants' request for telephonic appearance at the attorneys' fees hearing ECF No. 149 is DENIED as moot. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
152 REQUEST regarding order on class action fairness hearing by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Jail, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 6/20/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 06/19/2018)
153 REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE at the 6/28/2018 Fairness hearing by Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
154 PROPOSED ORDER re Approving Class Action Settlement by Michael Donald Ackley, et al.,. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, # 2 Declaration Anna Rivera, # 3 Declaration Gary Brickwood, # 4 Declaration Jerome Varanini, # 5 Proposed Order Approving Class Action Settlement)(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
155 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the June 28, 2018 hearing on the Fairness Hearing 132 and Motion for Attorney Fees [135−136] are vacated and submitted without appearance and argument. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. Any outstanding request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
156 CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION as to ECF No. 155. The Motion for Attorney Fees remains submitted without oral argument before Magistrate Judge Claire (ECF No. 151). The Faireness Hearing is vacated and the matter is submitted by Judge England pursuant to ECF No. 155. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
157 MOTION (Ex Parte Request) for Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Newman by Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brickwood, Gary) Modified on 7/12/2018 (Yin, K). (Entered: 07/11/2018)
158 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/17/18 GRANTING 157 Motion to conduct settlement conference. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
159 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy A. Waldrop for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/24/2018: Pursuant to the Court's Order (ECF No. 158 ) and parties' communication with the court, this matter is set for Settlement Conference on 12/5/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present for the settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. The individual with full settlement authority to settle must also have unfettered discretion and authority to change the settlement position of the party, if appropriate. The purpose behind requiring attendance of a person with full settlement authority is that the parties view of the case may be altered during the face to face conference. An authorization to settle for a limited dollar amount or sum certain can be found not to comply with the requirement of full authority to settle. The parties are directed to exchange non−confidential settlement conference statements seven days prior to the settlement conference. These statements shall be simultaneously delivered to the Court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. These statements should not be filed on the case docket. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
160 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy A. Waldrop for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/25/2018: In light of the 12/5/2018 settlement conference, plaintiffs' counsel is to notify the court within 14 days if any of the plaintiffs are incarcerated, if the plaintiffs wish to attend the settlement conference, and if the incarcerated plaintiff(s) wish to appear in person or by video. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 20 of 21

08/07/2018 08/08/2018 08/21/2018 08/23/2018 08/23/2018
11/28/2018 12/05/2018
12/05/2018
12/12/2018 01/02/2019

161 ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/6/2018. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
162 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Case Deadlines by Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. (Gooch, Joseph) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
163 NOTICE of Plaintiff Everett Jewett's Telephonic Appearance at Settlement Conference by Everett Jewett re 159 Minute Order. (Gooch, Joseph) Modified on 8/22/2018 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 08/21/2018)
164 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/23/2018 VACATING the present discovery cut−off and dispositive motion deadline in 123 Order; ORDERING the depositions of Sgt. Joseph Danis and Captain Janet Breshears to be taken at mutually agreed upon date and time, notwithstanding the close of fact discovery on 7/31/2018; and SETTING a case management conference in from of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire at 10:00 a.m. on 12/19/2018. (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
165 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/23/2018 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Everett Jewett via telephonic conferencing at 9:00 a.m. on 12/5/2018 before the Honorable Kendall J. Newman at the California Medical Facility. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian. The court will contact CMF with the call−in number and instructions. (cc: KJN) 3 Certified copies served on The Warden, California Medical Facility, P.O. Box 2000, Vacaville, CA 95696−2237. (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
166 NOTICE of Lodging of Plaintiffs' Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Muzzio, Franco) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
167 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE as to plaintiff, Everett Jewett held on 12/5/2018. Counsel for parties present. Plaintiff present and appearing by telephone. Shasta County counsel, Jim Ross and Randy Lingenfelter present. CFMG Carrier, David Rettig and CFMG Representative, Rachel Eckhart also present. After discussions with the Court, parties reached a verbal settlement. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates are vacated. Dispositional documents to be filed within 45 days. Plaintiffs Counsel Steven Ragland, Anna Rivera, Joseph Gooch, Maronel Barajas, and Franco Muzzio present. Defendants Counsel Jerome Varanini and Gary Brickwood present. Court Reporter: ECRO. (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 12/05/2018)
168 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE as to the pending Motion for Attorney's Fees in Class Action held on 12/5/2018. Counsel for parties present. Shasta County Counsel, Jim Ross present. After discussions with the Court, parties reached a verbal settlement as to the Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 135 ) subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. Terms of the settlement stated on the record by the Court. All pending dates are VACATED. Parties are to file within 30 days Stipulation for Court Approval of Attorney's Fees and to withdraw pending Motion for Attorney Fees for Judge England's review. Defense counsel is to email plaintiffs' counsel and Judge Newman's chambers by 4:00 PM, Tuesday 12/11/2018, notifying the Settlement Conference Judge and plaintiff's counsel regarding settlement. Plaintiffs Counsel Steven Ragland, Anna Rivera, Joseph Gooch, Maronel Barajas, and Franco Muzzio present. Defendants Counsel Gary Brickwood present. Court Reporter: ECRO. (Waldrop, A) (Entered: 12/05/2018)
169 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for An Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
170 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 12/29/18 APPROVING the parties' settlement regarding attorneys' fees and expenses, finding that an award of $850,000.00 is to be paid by 1/31/2019 to plaintiffs' counsel. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

Case: 2:13-cv-882 As of: 07/15/2020 09:05 AM PDT 21 of 21

01/17/2019 01/23/2019 02/11/2019 08/30/2019 10/10/2019
10/10/2019 10/15/2019
10/15/2019

171 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER of DISMISSAL by Tom Bosenko, Shasta County, Shasta County Jail, Shasta County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brickwood, Gary) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
172 ORDER of DISMISSAL signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/22/2019. CASE CLOSED (Washington, S) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
173 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Anna Mercedes Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
174 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE: Attorney Mallory L. Sepler−King terminated. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
175 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Amethyst Thormann for Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Harold Robert Marquette. Attorney Maronel Barajas and Anna Mercedes Rivera terminated (Thormann, Amethyst) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
176 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Joseph Taylor Gooch by All Plaintiffs. (Muzzio, Franco) Modified on 10/11/2019 (Plummer, M). (Entered: 10/10/2019)
177 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Zachary J. Genduso on behalf of Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Attorney Genduso, Zachary J. added. (Genduso, Zachary) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
178 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Anthony C. Pinggera on behalf of Michael Donald Ackley, Glen Harold Everett, Everett Jewett, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Harold Robert Marquette. Attorney Pinggera, Anthony C. added. (Pinggera, Anthony) (Entered: 10/15/2019)