Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 33
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 33

. :S:UMMt>N~ __
(CI:TACUJfiJtif!).IC.fAtJ

..NOTJGE TOPJiR.ENJi)A~'f.:·

.,

-'{A li/$0:'AiJJ.Ef.?AfiDAD..9_):

trituooR.y

J.

AHERN;•'

Ai~meda

cotiiity.,.Sl\ ic1ii'f..

y(£oou. i:A$REr'4BEp{tfN4J~~rf:J$oi_)t>E.[fi::iPa1yi·f~i.0.\Lt·fiP>.(~.Nft.iAf.i.:~JD.Arvrei:: SUSAl-J:HAAA1:AN~ NANC.Y'M'A~crAS..·:,,nd 1ANE't>6E:

. ·.scNb·ea!Ol·Ji"sY!fl)e'(WIiiO.i·~d.T·E~h<._I!<aII!Yrvt<eh~lme~l_.lapolyl-ai.ibQanveAt.i~yfahf=,eNCAiDOm~J\selfruUtW~elJfo.id,q'..\iiTrY\ jtlS:iheihajloic.f-yiOlloeet:iticrilf.i:chmlll)l~lanw,Yscl.utllidlsl)clil'loc(ltif·dlop~irrhio.s.ya'!)oge'"ucalr-ilit'nr~:ye_s!!sre)yp,u!.co:i:U~n'il'spo_e\Wa"·_l.lph~Y~(or~ii.u;ta~t!ire:yeic.ola.u'sirl(cr!-sf_ipbnr_yedo~·.idnoU_._gOsi.ee,hns!eYle·laP'i·!Jr.cdIsot.tulb~irfn~~li!Jl'efor<'sit-n.s.·3ipsyWfC~ai!:in~nt-ld(hr!.fem!lsetp~9o_oasifnelfid_oltrtw!irnfr~oitlth.i(:·mailnlf;a-,t3l~ll:oDi.tl·uii~ldi.'aa!?=ly~,.l.n!oh'.!.lllfr'tRC!.~heii_l1lt~iid;f-~i,iihi.~l·la.)vUi~.aI.n~·:J.fC~"O\:.ohr£CmPu~prtayty.stoi·o.~n.r' ~~u~!ih~~~~~~~~t.J~S~;Jv#JttK£~1{:v€~~~t«~%~~iiii~~s~Y:t~:r~~~%~~jJf~ffi~o~:~~:i,:f1r~~t~~~,Y.}%:~~~~~:~:~~;\~~:~r;;:;~~~: ma~~:~~~f~ J~~i~t.&f~~~i:;~t~~~~G~aV!~~i :c~n :a~:~ltor~oy:tTiih~i~av:=fiydu.~_b ri-~loit~'oW:~\i.:~.ttorii~Y.;:¥4ii:~~~:wanti~ ~o'~o ~iiom~~ tI,c[.\~AYoe(~~!,V~IJl'Y;fJs\e''s!lo'l\.dc1n;\sOi'~:L.aruryotyilfPiiy~.(h0!~IoIl!sQf_!ii;r•li.c.lrl!lacfIl;l~e1yg~~io~o;i~!ylJ~I/elm..~ns:$CntJI"d:j!~ia/~lc~lrf1h!e;Oeo.i/.l9.rp.).baS;i1f;l!l{o'rlnfir<~o.pU#b:!aty.pnh'.as:ianfc~?\w~.ollaHnn\lO~rc!nd~f,lf,'Il::'!dilil$ill!;,n!YS~tg>i1r.__l~y~fylo.,~:_tl\o_u~!id,~'l\s.'\foI16!\.J\.i~J'>jY).l./ctlI);:!::iaJdi~([l-Iof-~~Jacetio_!!s(e~l'il;it/:rf~'l\hlb~tllt~iar~':eclo_;~ifQ;v\~~i'a·ln'll!l('cf':ele?l-~!l'l.f!ilJJ~il!.dOb:<i;Qa\J:lr'1!!.1t'fa/ilis~s:?~'t~'pciPe9.r.~1~~1l1.1(.Ta1ci(!.'e9l<S,.o9:~ntfJJT.9i~.sO)ol'•v.)i.0."lJlr!Jn}:qiio.T~io~-~.l9i;9~~'Pl~sT.llhf~-bt~'~~~r6W:~p;.c,}p.'~!lQ?r!~JN.i!l_\ii!!?flce8l:.lV,_J,hgie~~~ell.lr!}s\:i-9i.i!sil1fpi!-1:'.·1N,l~1lr\h!,ea~br~t,-~!s;f~J·~i.~p'l!rr·ror'lpf.~QW..'!Yll!.\l:-lJll'!I~!'(Tl!!d\fQJfl,!l?,~('nOSl{\(~,!I.oyi.rifJWi.~!'!r!\Ile:Vj~pti~il.o!fCJ\;../-~i6{C.:r~IJe~.!~!~.i]!J~l!·!·:l.:d·•:· ~J;;j!j&~fA;:Q~J?.~.~E~p~~~~~~:pj;il.$:'1~;ci~~_(6}~;[~;~~~::~·$1Q,_9/IB:Cl~n,)i~~~ilf4~.~~~~~~~~~m:p(P~~~;fi~~;1~!:~.;f~-;~191J.~/~$,~~;l~.~.~-~itf, ··
cof{~..y h_~cer qu11 .so,_epJrflgue. una .ctJpiB:/11 demoniilmlo: Vn11 ca/111. DJ!Illi 1/m~mde talufilmca:no.Jo._prolegen,•·Su fat>P.VIlliiP par fiScril(J.tllmf?.. lt/!.Oi9,Sftn'

~~ii:J;urn~~fo!r~miu~la~ij~o~d:e·Jojx.enfaflion'ifJ.~t~~~~{;~~'-i~~~~~i~~~f~ifJ~·:''~:llil!~!~~~~~;t·!~Y'PQ;~.su.fa!t;J~tei~. ·s! ppqijut,ao_1odrH{~jJi~!a_(J~Jyn~~mad~IJri/laIr:{!pnIdsI!aailr-JPsMJ_~.ruEQi.~I"vIu~f,s.oi!!eiC:;ll'J~;§o.!:ld!diei!giin~!Dr!oicn·ie-_pssq;;._!~Efy!l~hJ~nl/(r.tPmi~fnc~.qe~l¥lme-'srasi.(1p!d~Jiio.gll'~_lgu~!mo~(cl<rdigllvs,a_.4:~P!aoa1id.!uu1vJ~o}oo~!t.foaIfJ~llsta,ii,erP..·8!tic5cffmlJ/pl.!fln.:•.oo=~t.l.'n!-lIpt!Jurl:uup~"sJ.&:i.u~isnuOlggol.aa_S4'.vvJJ~;,Jnup!ftU,r!jJop)~..s~olp!sqoitJ~:p,;o~lm!'s(!,l'lf;~iltn~la·a_~·l..!/.!mf p' o,..·pC.(~Hl:-!:s·~IMd'J1.fe£:!lJ_..l·!tp'If,e~i!slWriJol~!t.:~eQU/rl'J'!f?flMlarl~l:i!~.:_<Ii.~fOJ)lf!Wi.l.L·

y lo.IXJrteJt~·

:;:puo.d~_l.l.f.l.ll.l.l·.l_r:o

• . .. :... lllHU.CVfC!!~

; .,
C!11_

~'r:J4a¢.;-:!;~f;;;W~~fJ:i.~V./~~~/I;;Jtr,~~~;.if!l~ s-~3~t;JJ.I,at;;~~1J£~f~;~1f~~~;~:~c;J~~~;;r;:po~;i:un ~r~~!if~1-sdz::-= _: p~Ua8g/~qurloet/rQa~iPil.vIiIlf!n:oII'iCnIRk(f/la.'Qce.O._r$te1'Q.a,rOiOlQe.$6o#ol~.q~:ild6,!.'J1,8Viil:/Oiirrfi..i,pii'.

.mgfl.i_lllile. :desccli'tir

!!!I P!;Uf!f'i:lo
cl ta'$o,.

C!

.l!flf}

C9M~~6t}_t[~

'[j(.l:il((lij~,e~
.. .

t/o

~~,!1,1!

1/l!fttr:}!C!

(:/.\'1~:

T'!'_IJ.11.9J!!I.:
_

.

,,._
·..

T(~hie.i1npamr6'ImJ-¢y.<ifmidr~~cMq(dir5reys_:sd.9~f.itlhie_~~o®iut9rtesI)$~:-:.

· · · ·· ' . 4l~-ill~~il:~\)~nty·StiperiltfCp~it1

0122s Fmloti srreet

.~'G~~79!ioJ! 7:2 t.4J'.4? ·::·

. •n(.-CwE:.ho-Il_~:'r,iiiwkomsi~mta;1i·l1ii:i!£e1-(~;u=)ia¢H.i_ia\fs.r:dke'i.tr~ot_sgte;i/&j!C~,oi!in.;idrit_y.:ii~s~~tI~irPir(-t~tm1e?e·1\Er~ol;,)n~_dJ(~m/blleia.inrl:di.},q[_6JiG.ipoo'_:i'~iVJ:n~Jie~!!J~irlt'j!jo;pn;{af·t_'la9'&mcJe1fy3!,'\.dQi~rrr.lipifhclamgal!1;lJ-!(i1J:f~fhvftr;~I.;ioi,i'.ionf\dJteh}Sd.ie~if'!,J;{EoS!/\-i\i~aj..In~Ji;:iI(fYi.rfYq.aiflin_&ic:'.)!.~i.!·¢t•:..fo'!.J!,l"iX:;i.A~.:9a.},.!4.~'1,!lJ!.i.l_,(.:,!..4~,1.-.~.~~)~i;~..~"U' l•;•;:-Q-~·.(.:t..

o ((F-Pts_a_qreArapq[pO.iQu.~[ (bJ~[.$/~Jer-.l.re!ici~.l9re-g(alh·ai;"Ne;'piisrptai·p'-Ni1cqt/.d.nt~isiliTlioOJn.§.:~l.T:-.P!att.i!rli:~o>e;.iel:ol~a.E'nef.f'·_'dpofPin{E15d:!fJSnRivQ.il_S!oirdOf:n!a\!-~fr.sfiSi.iioElu::j~e1JlUd:_~We·;friiE.eo,n$lcdJ,i.W\n!!Id!i,Jne.!'liol,-if!..1:;i.1S~h9i.!~eil-r~vfi~1i(icof.e!qt~_lro~=tl·iei't·o·;$t'P,ii.,s~rQi;er"Siih"ml;QctWVmi1e~$:o'O);f~·.){('fS'f:aiSeic.i0·f·.Y~';1·<Q·)-l•·

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 33

·.:·

-·· ·-··;.:·':'·:.:

'ENDbRS:El) . . FILED,
ALAi\1EbA.COUNTY
.JUN 02' 2014

r1-'
1::

:2,·:

:Thl,s case: .L,.~.fi~. LL))s fiOi··_, . CQJllp)e~·.!J[!d!)f.;rule,~:i\66 o"fl,he. ¢'~1ffQrJJia
:: ·· ff!~lq~:l'equi_ii/l.!f~~cept!i!n.aiJiidiJjiaJm~n!lg!'IJ:i:i!iht;.· · · ... · - ··- ·· · ·

.F·.l·!·iie..s,.

qfC~urt.JNii.e :CC)s~l'f~
·: · ·· ... __ .,. · ·

c·g[·np..l.eli·.;

r.r.i.a.rli

tit9/ .. ·-·

a '~ D
·b._ Q

L;a_rg~n\i!Jitierors~par!1!~Wr!:lpr~erited·iJP:ni.Qs:~ ~xtilns_ive'.i:ritilion·pr~C.ii~:t(li_si~:dllljpuiror-n9~~~-

~,[]J-atg~:nlimQ'~ror.~~Mess.~$.':

. .. . . _

e; :9tit>(~iiiaiioli.'~i(li (Eililfe#;.<i'ctip~s~pen~i[lg' fo6Jie.~(irl,6(et&i\l(t~;~

:~~~!Je.s)ha~wll! .b~-, t!m~.~~liumi!ig. \9.J.f~~O.I'.!o
' P: D :S.:u:~~~a,riJi~t a!lJ!?.\lflf'ot.'~9cH-fll~,~i!I.~;9·M~n!te.

· l11't~~lier:·c;()!Jn.li~l?i ,sl~!!fsd~r ;;;o!ll!t~l~.s;:9dn:~ ~~~{!raJ ::cs>:YI1
t: 'CJt!ub~J~nii~i:[iqsJ}'q~g~Mt i!1.i:if.ei~i:s!Jpfii'Vf{lq~

:}, ·-Rem"eot~!i,sQi.lgttt (¢/J._eP.k.:a.tNiiai:flPP~)I :~;tJ mori~ii:l~ .o.IZ)- nonfuorYefu)'y_) ·aeC:Jariil5ry:iir;io1_~uric_.tN~ ~~h~r ·~;trl~~'ridiv~:

"!•. 'NI.imti¢ror~usr#fof:actioi:l·:(spcci/jiJ:· · ·

· ·

· ·· · - -·

t: .._.. !i.• :tf\ls:i:a~e, ':D'i(· 0-i:i'no.t a.·,c1a$S,'I:li:ticfl'l:$i.tlk

_ .

~·- J1th~ro ~(~-a?y:lgi~Wfi./~'r:lledcaseS', filE( an&.iioMt,i;l ri.otlc1(9(rel~.l~\tc<J.S.if..(Y()I.hf!a·. :

'l.iiE~:,'f,,.$.:,.~DCIa\lHes:'tJiuWnees..2·i-.-2I0a·1s4ke:t~ '(«PI;:.!JR~RI}~T}U.! _- . -

~.-.i...-;J·.:;/~·-~>~:-~,,-~~~~~g~~~~~c:.:..;:..;,;,;,;::

.. .

.. ·iS!G)'liiTI)RI;.Q. :p~TY'.CilAI QW', fOR.P./.RT.Y)

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 4 of 33

I~STRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE. COVER SHEET. To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Pap~rs. .If" you are filing· a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case,. you must complete and fila, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on .page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must compl~te items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you mu~t check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general an\1 a· more specific type of ca·se listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes· of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subje¢ a party,
its counsel, or both to sanctions under _rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.

To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under.rule 3.740 is defined as art action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and. attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, seNices, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: {1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The Identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it. will.be exempt from the general
time-for-seNice requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for seNice and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must. alsQ· use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is romplex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this most be indicated by
completing the· appropriate b_oxes in items 1 and 2. If a-plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation,· a designation that

the case is complex.
Auto Tort Auto (22).,.Personallnjury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured·Motorist {46) (if the case Involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead ofAuto)
Other PIIPDJWD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death
Product Liability (not asbestos or toxidenvironmental) (24)
Medical Malpractice (45) Medical MalpracticePhysicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice
Other PI/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily lhjury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) lntenlionallnHic!ion of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of . Emotional Distress other PI/PD/WD
Non-PIIPD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PIIPD/WD Tort (35)
Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15)
CM-010 IRev. July 1, 2007) .

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Contract Breach of Contract!Warranty (06) Breach of RentaiiLease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) ContractJWarranty Breach--Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18)
Auto Subrogation Other Coverage
Other Contract (37) ·contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute
Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) · Wrongful Eviction (33) · · · ·
Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure ·
Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) ·
Unlawful Detainer · Commercial (31)
Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
drugs, check this item; olhetwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review · Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Administrative Mandamus . Wrii--Mandamus on Limited Court
Case Malter Writ-Other Limited Court Case
Review Other Judicial Review (39)
. Review of Health Officer Order .. Notice ofAppeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Provisionally Complex.Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation ·(03) Construction. Defect (10} Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentalrroxic Tort (30)

Insurance Coverage Claims

(arising from provisionally complex

case type listed above) (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

Enforcement of Judgment (20)

Abslract of Judgment (Out of

County)

·

Confession of Judgment (non-

domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaid taxes) . Petition/Certification of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes

Other Enforcement of Judgment Case

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RIC0(27)

Other Compiaint.(not specified.. ·

above) (42)

·

Dec[aratory Relief Only · Injunctive Relief Only (non-

harassment)

Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint

Case (non-tort/non-complex)
other Civil Complaint .. · (non~tortlnon-comp/ex)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate

Governance (21)

Other Petition (not speaified

above) (43) Civil Harassment

Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult

Abuse

Election Contest

Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late
Claim

Other Civil Peiition

Page 2of2

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 5 of 33

.1 · .· dhtistln"t~,:Sa\nitlrlts Has~_~t1 {S~'N.lS~t)S3)

2.

~ht_istJI\~~qe~ly:_EtJg!~!J~.(S~N26J50lJ
{;OVINGTON.&·BUR.LlNG LLP · . ·:

3 . Os.~nwer~FrarlotncitsSc<trle.e¢t.A ..~wn:.t._

TetepJw.ne: .(4J$)·,?-9"1-fi.O'Q:o
4 Fitc.!>htti.l!f: (41 ~)5~1~6.0,9}
. E~tail; ch!lsketi@cpr,,com;·.:ce.ttglAi1!i@CJ?v~co:•.lJ..

5

Mi¢h;i'¢l Te9~p:lc RJslJI!r. (SJ3N 19162?1

6 El!r..h!)'e~h 0~ Gill.(SBN ~l~Hl.)

Am:cl'ic!in'CiVil L.ihcrtics Unio11... '1 Fotifl<l~1tioii ¢fN9filt'~)n.: G,a1_i!'9~~Jiiil~ lii~;

J 9:nruhi111 s.ttee\:,S~n Fra•i~Js~o;' CA 94l0
8 l'clep1n'inc: (41 5)62:1-2493 · · · · · ..

facs)li'iile:·:(41.S):25~..;g437 ..· _,. .

9 Bii1ail: mfis11et@aCJbnc:org·; egill@achntc;or;g

·w AttOr•)~ys· fur·l'iil'i'iuitf's

END-ORS~.Q:
FILED; ........ .
ALA.r4E.I?$::QQ1J.NTY.
JUN.O','Z :1_014 CLERK elF n.ni siwamoit.¢¢i4~r' . ,.- ~>.'-...,... · ·...·ci.c.o..t.i. ,. JQhn}~~~r~~c¥·

IJ.

1. 2; .

s:n.r~r:moRcO.tJJ~t:.or tBE};ti.\Tttof' c.AtmonNIA.-

FPR~1'f:IH GQ\JNl'Y-OJti\ t-AMGP~:

_f?\}SAN·HARI\1AN; NANCY MANCIAS~ ~J\d

JANEOOE;-·

. .·

.

:piainii~

.y.

'1J
·22
24
ii

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 6 of 33

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action challenges the Alameda County Sheriffs policy ofrequiring women arrested

3 and booked into Alameda County jails to submit to a pregnancy test. In at least one j£lil, this mandatory

4 testing occurs entirely outside the context of any other health screening. And it does not appear to be

5 related to providing appropriate health care to women in the jails: it applies to women who will stay at

6 the jail for only a few hours, and it applies to women who cannot be pregnant. Women are not permitted

7 to refuse the t~sting.

8

2. As a means to providing appropriate health care to female inmates, jails should offer

9 women the option oftaking a pregnancy test as a voluntaq component of the more general health care ·

10 screening the jails conduct for all inmates. By isolating the pregnancy test and making it mandatory,

11 however, the sheriffs policy publicly intrudes into one ofthe most intimate and private areas of a

12 person's life- reproductive decisionmaking. As a result, female arrestees in Alameda County suffer

13 .humiliation and even greater distress, when, for example, they have to take the pregnancy test despite

14 knowing that are not able to become pregnant due.to age or infertility; they did not know they were

15 pregnant and have to receive that information from someone other than a trusted healthcare provider; or

16 ·they were trying to get pregnant and have to receive the news· ofnegative test results from someone

17 other than a trusted healthcare provider.

18

'3. The Alameda County Sheriff's polic;y ofrequiring female arrestees to submit to a

19 . mandatory pregnancy test is a clear violation ofthe California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and

20 state statutory law. The test violates arrestees' right to privacy under Article I§ 1 of the California

21 Constitution; it constitutes an unlawful search and seizure under the state and federal constitutions; and

22 it violates Title 15 § 1214 ofthe California Code ofRegulations, which requires jails to allow mentally

23 competent inmates to refuse non-emergency medical care and mandates that all examinations,

24 treatments and procedures conducted in jail accord with the same informed-consent standards that apply

25 outside ofjail.

26

4. Plaintiffs seek mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive reliefto ensure that female

27 arrestees may refuse to submit to this pregnancy testing.

28

1
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD; 4, AND 15 C.C.R. § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 7 of 33

1 ,II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

5. This Court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 10, ofthe California Constitution and

3 Califorirla Code of Civil Procedure§ 410.10.

4

6. Venue· in this Court is proper because this is .an action against the Alameda County

5 Sheriff in his official capacity for acts he performed as part of his public duties that caused, and will

6 continue to cause, legal injuries and deprivation ofrights to persons, including Plaintiffs, in Alameda

7 County. See id. §§ 393(b), 395(a); Civ. Code§ 52.l_(c).

8 III. PARTIES

9

Plaintiffs

'10

. 7. In July 2010, at the age of69, Plaintiff Susan Harman was required to submit to a

11 pregnancy test at Alameda County's Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility after she was arrested at a

12 political demonstration. Ms. Harman is assessed and pays annual property taxes on real propertythat

13 she owns in Alameda County. Ms. Harman believes that pregnancy testing of each and every female

14 arrestye is an abuse of government power and a waste ofher tax dollars. She brings this suit as a citizen

15 and as an Alameda County taxpayer.

16

8. In August 2012, PlaintiffNancy Mancias was required to submit to a pregnancy test at

17 Alameda County's GJenn E. Dyer Detention Facility after she was arrested at a political demonstration.

18 Ms. Mancias continues to participate in political demonstrations and is sometimes arrested at them. She ·

19 brin'gs this suit as a citizen and so that she will not be forced to undergo this intrusive testing during

20 future arrests in Alameda County.

21

9. . In Apri12014, Plaintiff Jane Doe was required to submit to a pregn~ncy test at Alameda

22 Coun~'s Santa Rita Jail after she was arrested for allegedly delaying or obstructing a peace officer

23 following a traffic stop-. Ms. Doe is assessed and pays annual property taxes on real property that she

24 owns in Alameda County: She brings this suit as a taxpayer and as a citizen ofAlameda County.

25

Defendant

26

10. Defendant Gregory J. Ahern is the Alameda County Sheriff. Defendant Ahem has

' 27 ultimate authority over the Alameda County jails, including the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility and

28

2
VERlFIE]}PET~TION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAJNT FORDECLARATORY AN]}lNJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD-. 4, AND 15 C.C.R. §1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 8 of 33

1 the Santa Rita Jail, and is responsible for protecting the constitutional and statutmy rights of prisoners

2 under his custody. He is named in his official capacity only.

3 IV. . STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. Plaintiff Susan Harman was arrested in Oakland in July 2010, during a protest relating to

5 the shooting of Oscar Grant. Immediately after she was arrested, Ms. Harman was taken to the

I

I

6 emergency room for examination and treatment for injuries she had sustained when police officers

7 struck her on the head. The hospital did not conduct a pregnancy test. After she was released from the

8 hospital, Ms. Harman was taken to the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility in downtown Oaldand. Soon

9 after she arrived, jail personnel required her to take a pregnancy test. The officer took her, along with

10 two other women, to a bathroom and demanded that she urinate in a cup. Ms. Harman told the officer

11 that she was 69 years old and could not possibly be pregnant, but the officer required her to take the test'

'12 anyway.

13

12. · Ms. Harman was not provided with any additional medical screening at the jail.

14 Although Ms. Harman is diabetic, no jail personnel respondedto her concern that she needed i~sulin.

15 After being held in a crowded holding cell all night, Ms. Harman was released from custody the next

16 morning. Ms. Harman was never told the results of her pregnancy test. She Wfl.S nyver charged with any

17 crime.

18

13 .

Ms. Harman felt generally hurililiat~d and demeaned by the force~ pregnancy test. Given

.19 her age, the pregnancy test clearly had !lathing to do with providing her with appropriate health care.

20 Moreover, the fact thatthe jail required h~r to take the pregnancy-test yet ignored her actual medical

21 needs around insulin, made her feel as ifthe only purpose of the pregnancy test was to embarrass her

22 and to invade her privacy.

23

14. PlaintiffNancy Mancias was arrested during a political demonstratioJJ. in Oakland. in

24 August 2012 and taken the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility. Soon after she anived at the jail, an

25 officer ordered Ms. Mancias to take a pregnancy test. Ms. Mancias responded: "Isn't that a violation of

26 my civil_ liberties?" The officer told her that if she refused to take the pregnancy test she would be sent 27 to Santa Rita Jail, some 30 miles :fi:om where she had been arrested. In response to thi~ coercion, Ms.

28 Mancias took the test. She stepped behind a low partition that reached only to her waist level and

3
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND.INJUNCTJVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ I, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD. 4, AND· IS C.CR § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 9 of 33

1 urinated into the sample cup, while the officerturned her back. She then handed her sample to the

2 officer.

3

15. Ms. Mancias did not see any doctors or nurses and did not receive any additional medical

-4 screening.· After some eight hours in custody, Ms. Mancias was released. Ms. Manc~as was never told

5 the results of her pregnancy test. She was never charged with any crime.

6

16. Ms. Mancias felt humiliated and deeply distressed by the forced pregnancy testing, which

7 she experienced as a gross violation ofher privacy. Ms. Mancias had tried to become pregnant in the

8 past, but had been unable to do so. Because ofthis, she knew that she was not pregnant and found the

9 compulsory pregnancy testing particularly inappropriate and invasive into an area that she considers

10 private. Ms. Mancias has been arrested during political demonstration.s in other jurisdictions but has

11 never been required to take a pregnancy test.

12

17. Plaintiff Jane Doe was arrested in April2014 for allegedly obstructing, resisting, or

13 delaying a peace officer during a traffic ~op. After her arrest she was taken to Santa Rita Jail and
two 14 photographed and fingerprinted. After some hours, Ms. Doe was given a medical screening, during

15 which she believes she was asked whether she was pregnant. Ms. Doe is married with two young

16 children and knew that she was not pregnant and believes that she informed staff that she was not

17 pregnant Nevertheless, staff directed her to submit to a pregnancy test. Nobody indicated inany way

18 to Ms. Doe that she could refuse. Ms. Doe"later posted bail and was released after approximately 16

19 hours in custody. ·

20

18. Ms. Doe provided a urine sample for the pregnancy test only because she believed that

21· she was required to do so: She had never been arrested before and did not want to do anything that

;

(

22 would prolong her stay mjail or cause her additional legal problems. She believesthat the testing

23 infiinged on her privacy and that it should have been her personal decision whether to take the test.

24 More generally, she believes that other womel?- in this position should haye the right to\refuse to submit

25 to a pregnancy test.

26

19. Ms. Doe brings this suit under a pseudonym to avoid additional invasions of her privacy.

27

28

4
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST.ART.I§§ I, 13, US. CONST. AMD. 4,ANDI5C.C.R. § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 10 of 33

1

20. SheriffAhern has confirmed that, as of December 20, 201 (}, "every female brought into

2 [the] Gl~nn E. Dye~ Facility is required to submit to a pregnancy test through urinalysis." See Exhibit A

3 (Dec~mber 20, 2010 Letter from Sheriff Ahern to Michael T. Risher) (emphasis added).

4

21. The current General Health Services Policy & Procedure at the Santa Rita Jail and Glenn

5 E. Dyer Detention Facility requires that "All female inmates under 60 years of age are tested to

6 determine pregnancy at intake using a urine test or other means oftesting." See Exhibit B.

7

22. Plaintiffs are aware ofno other county in California that requires women to submit to

8 pregnancy testing when they are arrested. Instead, at least some other counties make pregnancy testing

9 available to women who cons~nt to it but also respect a woman's choice to refuse to submit to testing.

10 For example, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department checks women for pregnancy as part of a 11 comprehensive medical screening procedure and makes pregnancy testing available for them. Bu~ it

12 also specifically allows women to refuse to take the test by completing a written refusal form. See City

13 and County ofS~ Francisco, Department ofPublic Health, Jail Health Services Policy and Procedure

14 No. 302 § I(E), a true copy of which is attached to this complaint as Exhibit C.

15

23. More generally, healthcare professionals recognize that incarcerated people have the right

16 to refuse medical examinations and treatment. For example, the American Public Health Association's

17 Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions states that "every prisoner has the right to 18 . refuse a medical examination; this right must be re~pected." Similarly, the National Commission on

.19 Correctional Healthcare's 2008 Standards for Health Services in Jails states that a"[a]ll examinations,

20 treatments, and procedures are governed by iriformed consent practices applicable in the jurisdiction"

21 (emphasis original}.

22

24. Because the Alameda County jails are refusing to respect this important right to refuse a

23 pregnancy test, they are committing the following violations:

24

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Constitution, Article I·§ 1)

25

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

26

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe above paragraphs as though fully

27 set forth herein.

28

5
VERIFIED PETITION" FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD. 4, AND 15 C.C.R. § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 11 of 33

26. Article I§ 1 of the California Constitution expressly protects privacy: "All people are by 2 nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life 3 and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness,

4 and privacy."

5

27. Mandatory pregnancy testing implicates a female arrestee's legally protected privacy

6 interest in two distinct ways. First, any type of mandatory urinalysis infringes on the constitutionally

\,:

7 protected right. Second, requirin~ a woman to reveal whether or not she is pregnant infringes on her

8 right to privacy.

9

28. When the government intrudes into the privacy protected by California's Constitution, it

10 must show that the need for this intrusion outweighs the individual's privacy interests and that less-

11 intrusive measures would be ineffective. No governmental interest justifies this broad intrusion caused

12 by Defendant's mandatory pregnancy testing program.

13

29. · Defendanfs policy and practice violate Article I§ 1 ofthe California Constitution by

14 invadjng female arrestees' right to privacy.

15

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

17

30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

18 set forth herein.

·~ ...

19

31. The Fourth Amendment of the ~Jnited States Constitution prohibits the government from

20 conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

21

32. Compulsory pregnancy testing by means ofurinalysis is both a search and a seizure.

22

33. Because they not justified by any legitimate government interest, Defendant's policy and

23 practice of requiring arrested women to submit to mandatory pregnancy testing· is unreasonable and

24 violates the Fourth Amendment.

25

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Constitution, Article I§ 13)

26

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

27

34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe above paragraphs as though fully

28 set forth herein.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1, 13, U.S. CONST. AMU 4, AND 15 C.C.R § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 12 of 33

35. Article I§ 13 ofthe California Constitution prohibits the government from conducting

2 unreasonable searches and seizures.

3

36. Compulsory pregnancy testing by means of urinalysis is both a search and a seizure.

4

37. Because it is not justified by any legitimate government interest, Defendant's policy and

5 practice of requiring arrested women to submit to mandatory pregnancy testing is unreasonable and

6 violates Article I§ 13.

7

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Code of Regulations, Titl~ 15 § 1214)

8

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

9

38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe above paragraphs as though fully

10 set forth herein.

11

39-. The California Code ofRegulations requires that inmates provide informed consent

12 before being subject to non-emergency medical care:

13

Except for emergency treatment ... all examinations, treatments and

procedures affected by informed consent standards in the community are

14

likewise observed for inmate care.... Any inmate who has not been

adjudicated to be incompetent may refuse non-emergency medical and

15

mental health care. Absent informed consent in non-emergency situations,

a court order is required before involuntary medical treatment can be

16

administered to an inmate. 15 Cal. Code. Regs.§ 1214

17

40. Pregnancy testing is medical care and a medical examination) treatment, and procedure

18 that requires informed consent in the community. Any arrestee who has uot been adjudicated as

19 incompetent should therefore be permitted to refuse a pregnancy test, absent a valid court order

20 requiring her to submit to the test.

21

41. Because Defendant's policy and practi.ce-require women to submit to pregnancy testing

22 without their informed consent, they violate Title 15 § 1214 ofthe California Code of Regulations.

23

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Taxpayer Action under Code of Civ. Proc. § 526(a) to Prevent Illegal Expenditure of Funds)

24

(Plaintiffs Harman and Doe against Defendant Ahern)

25

42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations oftbe above paragraphs as though fully

26 set forth herein.

27

28
7
VERIFIED PETITION FORWRIT OF MANDATE AND-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUN"cTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1,13, U.S. CONST. AMD. 4, AND 15 C.C.R. § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 13 of 33

43. Defendant is illegally expending public funds by requiring female atrestees to submit to 2 pregnancy tests in violation ofthe United States and-California constitutions, as well as the California

3 Code ofRegulations.

4

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Bane Act, Civ. Code§ 52.1)

5

(All Plaintiffsagainst Defendant Ahern)

6

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe above paragraphs as though fully.

7 set forth herein.

8

45. The Bane Act allows a person whose rights have been interfered with by means of

9 threats, intimidation, or coercion to sue for injunctive and other equitable relief._ Civ. Code§ 52.1(b).

10

46. By forcing PlaintiffS to submit to a pregnancy test, Defendant has interfered with their

11 rights, as set forth in the United States and California constitutions as well as the California Code of

12 Regulations by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion.

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

15

A. Issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing Defendant to: (1) stop requiring female

16 arrestees in Alameda County to take a pregnancy test unless they have given informed consent to this ·

17 testing; (2) provide every female arrestee with a meaningful opportunity to refuse pregnancy testing; and

18 (3) take aU other necessary steps to insure and prott?ct the privacy rights of female arrestees with respect

19 to pregnancy testing, including directing that all intake procedures be revi~ed to reflect this Court's

20 ruling.

21

B. Issue a declaration that Defendant's actions in requiring mandatory-pregnancy testing of

22 female arrestees violate: (1) Article I§ 1 ofthe California Constitution; (2) the Fourth Amendment of

23 the United States Constitution; (3) Article I§ 13 ofthe California ConstitUtion, and (4) Title 15 § 1214

24 ofthe California Code ofRegulations.

25

c. Grant injunctive reliefdirecting that Defendant stop requiring female arrestees to submit

26 to a mandatory pregnancy test.

27

D. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b),

28 Civil Code§ 52.1(h):. Code Civ. Proc § 1021.5, and any other applicable statutes.

8
VERIFIED-PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND ffiJUNCTIVE RELIEF UN£lER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ I, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD. 4, AND 15 C.C.R § 1214

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 14 of 33

1

E. Grant Plaintiffs such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2

3 June 2, 2014 4

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

5

By:

6

7

8 June 2, 2014 9

ACLU Foundation ofNorthem California, Inc.

10

By:

Michael Temple Risher

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

'25

26

27

28

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND- JNJUNCflVE RELIEF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ 1, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD. 4, AND IS C.C:R. § 1~14

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 15 of 33

1

VERIFICATION

2

I, Nancy Mancias, am a plaintiffin this matter of Harman, et al. v. Ahern. I have read

3 this Verified Petition for Writ ofMandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

4 in this matter. l am.informed, and do believe, that the matters herein are true. On that ground, I

5 allege that the matters stated herein are t~e. In addition, the facts within paragraphs 8 and

6 14-16 are within my own personal knowledge and I know them to be true.

7

I declare under penalty <?fperjury under the laws· of the State of California that the

& foregoing is true and correct.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
2&

VERIFIEDPETJTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIBF UNDER CAL. CONST. ART. I§§ I, 13, U.S. CONST. AMD.4, AND IS C.C.R. § 1214

-

-- - I

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 16 of 33

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 17 of 33

Alameda County Sheriffs Office
LAKESIDE JlLAZA, 1401 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 12th FLOOR, OAKLAND, CA 94612-4305

·Gregory]. Ahern, Sheriff

Coroner- Public Administrator- Marshal
Director of Emergency Services

(510) 272-6866

December 20) 2010

RECEIVED

Mr. Michael T. Rish.er American Civil Liberties Union
39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 941 ~ 1

DEC 22 20J:.l

Dear Mr. llisher:

REDACTED

Concerning your second inquiry, evety female brought into our Gle1m E. Dyer Detention Facility is required to submit to a pregp.ancy test through urinalysis. Our accredited medical personnel conduct the
pregnancy test so that we can provide the essential medical necessities n~ed.ed by pregnant women in our ·
care and custody. This infonna.tion also allows staffto expedite the booking process fm· these individuals or transfer them to Santa Rita Jail where we house female inmates and have an OBGYN clinic.
If you have. any additional questions; please contact Lt. Gan·ett Holmes at (925) 551-6553.
Sincerely,
6nJd4--
Gregory J. Ahern Sheriff-Coroner
GJNgoh

. .I
Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 18 of 33
.J
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 19 of 33

General Health Services
Policy & Procedure
Site Name: Santa Rita Jail I Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Title: Receiving Screening

CGRIZONlM
Date of Issue:. 10/29/2012
Revision Dates: 2/2/13 No: J-E-02.00

POLICY:
Receiving screening is performed on inmates upon arrival at the intake facility to ensure that emergent and urgent medical and mental health care needs are met.

PROCEDURE STATEMENTS:

NCCHC/ACA
1. Persons who are unconsCious, semic~nscious, bleeding, mentally unstable, or otherwise urgently in need of medical attention are:

a. Referred promptly for care and medical clearance into the facility.

.

b. If they are referred to a community hospital and then returned, their admission to the facility

is predicated on written medical clearance from the h.ospital.

2. Urgent health needs are identified and addressed, and potentially infectious inmates are isohlted.

3. A receivi.ng screening takes place for inmates as soon as possible by qualified health care professionals or health trained correctio':al officers.

4. When health trained correctional personnel perform the receiving screening, they are to call health staff for disposition of the inmate if problems are identified.

5. Reception personnel, using a form approved by the responsible health authority, conduct a basic receiving screening inquiry on:

a. Current and past illnesses, health conditions, or special health requirements.

b. Past serious infectious disease.

c. Recent communicable illness symptoms (e.g., chronic cough, coughing up blood, lethargy,

weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, fever, night sweats).

d. Past or current mental illness, including hospitalization.

e. History of or current~uicidal ideation.

f. Dental problems.

·

g. Allergies.

h. Alcohol, legal and illegal drug use (including type, amount and time of last use).

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 200&, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opiold Treatment Programs in Correctional Facilities, 2004, 0-E-01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adult local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADLF-4C-22, -IIC-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012· Standards Supplement- 4-AlDF·2A·21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 Corizon Health Inc. Page 1 of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 20 of 33

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Facllltles, 2004, 0+01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4·ADLF-4C-22, -4C-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards.Supplement-4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-JOptl-3 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 CorilOn Health Inc. Page2of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 21 of 33

Site Name: Santa Rita Jail I Glenn Dyer Detention Facility

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012 Revision Dates: 2/2/13

Title: Receiving Screening

No: J-E-02.00

PROCEDURE STATEMENTS: {continued)
i. Drug or alcohol withdrawal symptoms. j. Current or recent pregnancy. k. Other health problems as designated by the responsible health authority.· ·
6. Reception personnel record,· on the receiving screening form, their screening observations of the inmate's:
a. Appearance (e.g., sweating, tremors, anxious, disheveled}. b. Behavior {e.g., disorderly, appropriate, insensible}. c. State of consciousness (e.g., alert, responsive, lethargic}. d. Ease of movement (e.g., body deformities, gait). e. Breathing (e.g., persistent cough, shortness ofbreath, hyperventilation). f. Skin (including lesions, jaundice, rashes, infestations, bruises, scars, tattoos and needle marks
or other indications of drug abuse) Receiving screening forms are signed with title, dated and timed upon completion.
7. The disposition of the inmate {e.g. prompt referral to the appropriate health care service, placed in general population.) is indicated on the receiving screening form.
8. Receiving screening forms are dated and timed promptly on completion and include the signatures and title of the person completing the form.
9. Prescribed medications are reviewed and name of prescriber and pharmacy obtained if known, . and acted upon by a practitioner. Verification by an outside entity should not delay notification and action by a practitioner.

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 200&, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Facilities, 2004, o-E-01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services In Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adult Local Detention Fadlities,4th Edition, 4-ADLF-4C-22, -4C-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards.Supplement- 4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy &Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 Corizon Health Inc. Page 3 of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 22 of 33

Site Name: Santa Rita Jail/ Glenn Dyer Detention Facility Title: Receiving Screening

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012
Revision Dates: 2/2/13
No: J-E-02.00

ACA

10.. The disposition ofthe inmate is indicated on the receiving screening form:

a. Refusal of admission until inmate is medically cleared.

b. Cleared for general population.

'

c.- Cleared for general population with a referral to appropriate health care services.

d. Referral to appropriate health care services for emergency treatment.

e. Written medical clearance ·is obtained after off-site emergency medical treatment.

NCCHCOTP 11. Admission to the OTP is based on clinical criteria and participation in voluntary.

REFERENCES NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, ·2008, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Facilities, 2004, 0--E-01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Hea.lth Services in Correctional·FacUlties, 2008, MH-E-02 . ACA: Standards for Adult Local Detention Fadlities, 4th Edition, 4·ADLF-4C-22, •4C-27, ·4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards Supplement -4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail·

© 2012 Corizon Health Inc.
Page4of9

. I
Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 23 of 33

Site Name: Santa Rita Jail/ Glenn Dyer Detention Facility

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012 ·Revision Dates: 2/2/13

Title: Receiving Screening

No: J-E-02.00

PROCEDURE DETAILS~·
1. A receiving screening is performed on inmates upon arrival at the intake facility by healthtrained or qualified health care personnel (an RN or LVN) as soon as possible. The receiving screening form, either paper or electronic, is approved by the health authority.
2. An initial intake screening may be performed by health-trained custody staff or health care staff. For the initial intake screening performed by health-trained custody staff, any screens with positive findings. are to be reviewed by ·licensed health care staff (RN or LVN) for disposition of the inmate if any problems are identified. Referral to a hospital for medical
clea ranee may be required. .
3. Mental health screening is performed on inmates upon ar_rival atthe intake facility by mentalhealth-trained or qualified mental health care personnel. The initial mental health screening is_ part of the receiving screening process.
4. During the receiving screening process inmates may be referred to the Opioid Treatment Program (OTP} based on clinical criteria and participation is voluntary. The referral is noted on
the receiving screening form.
5. During the receiving screening process inmates may be referred to Criminal Justice Mental Health (OMH} for mental health services. The referral is noted on the receiving screening form. Th.e referral is given to CJMH staff for processing and timely intervention. Health care staff may call the on-call OMH clinician as needed. Inmates having suicidal ideation or appearing to be in crisis are to be referred to OMH staff ASAP. {See J-G-04.00 Mental Health Services and J-GOS..OO Suicide Prevention for details.}
6. At any time a Corizon staff suspects. that an inmate may be developmental disabled, the staff member is to refer the inmate to Criminal Justice Mental. Health. (CJMH} in order to ensure communication to the Regional Center of the East Bay pursuant to Title 15 Section 1057, Developmentally Disabled Inmates. (The health authority or designee shall contact the Regional Center on any inma~e suspected or confirmed to be developmentally disabled for the purposes of diagnosis and/or treatment within 24 hours of such determination, excluding holidays and weekends.) CJMH staff shall contact the Regional Center.

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Faclllties, 2004, 0-E-01
I'ICCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-OZ
ACA: Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADlF-4C-22, -4C-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards Supplement- 4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail

©·2012 Cori:l~on Health Inc. PageS of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 24 of 33

Site Name: Santa Rita Jail/ Glenn Dyer Detention Facility

Date of Issue: "10/29/2012 Revision Dates: 2/2/13

Title: Receiving Screening

No: J-E-02.00

7. During the receiving screening process inmates identified as in need of or currently using orthopedic or prosthetic appliances may be referred to the Medical Director or designee for review of the individual case and the presence of such devices with regard to medicalf!eed and custody security measures in compliance with Penal Code §2656.
8. All females who have given birth within the past year and charged with murder or attempted murder of their infant(s) (18-7 P.C.) will be identified and given an additional mental health screening, per California Title XV, Section 1207.5. For inmates meeting this criteria mental health screening will be performed at intake, and if screening assessment indicates postpartum psychosis, a referral for further evaluation will be made.
9. Each inmate is verbally told and shown in writing how to access medical services and the ACSO grievance system during medical and/or mental health screening.
10. Inmates who are identified as being unconscious, semiconscious, bleeding profusely, mentally unstable, or otherwise urgently in need of medical attention that _cannot be managed at the facility are referred appropriately for care, i.e., to an acute care community hospital for stabilization and return with medical clearance.
11. Inmates referred to a community hospital who return to the correctional facility are only accepted if there is written medical clearance or there has been documented communication with the hospital of appropriate medical clearance ("fit for incarceration'1) and cli~ician orders if appropriate. Receiving health care staff is to review the documents from the community hospital and take appropriate steps to ensure continuity of care. Inmate may be referred to the OPHU for observation and follow-up care as needed.
12. Intake personnel complete the intake receiving screening process using a form; either paper or .electronic; approved by the health authority. The receiving screening form addresses:
a. Current and past illnesses, health. conditions,· or special health requirements (e.g., dietary needs)
b.- Past serious infectious disease c. Recent communicable illness symptoms {e.g., chronic cough, coughing up blood,
lethargy, weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, fever, night sweats}; a separate TB Screening Form may be used. d. Past or current mental illness, including hospitalizations e. History of or current suicidal ideation .

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Facilities, 2004, D-E-01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adult local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADLF-4C-22, -4C-27, -4C-2.9 ACA: 201:Z Standards Supplement-4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Polley & Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 Corit.on Health Inc.
Page6of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 25 of 33

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012 Site Name: Santa. Rita Jail/ Glenn Dyer Detention Facility Revision Dates: 2/2/13

Title: Receiving Screening

No: J-E-02.00

.f. Acute dental complaints g. Allergies h. Legal and illegal drug use (e.g., type, time of last use and quantities) i. Drug and alcohol withdrawal symptoms j. Current or recent pregnancy k. Other health problems as designated by the medical director.
13. Intake personnel record their visual observations of the inmates on the receiving scre~nihg form including:
a. Appearance (e.g., sweating, tremors, anxious, disheveled) b.. Behavior (e.g., disorderly, appropriate, insensible, combative) c. State of consciousness (e.g., alert; responsive, lethargic) d. Ease of movement {e.g., body deformities, gait, immobility) e. Breathing (e.g., persistent cough, hyperventilation) f. Skin (e.g., lesions, wounds, jaundice, rashes, Infestations, bruises, scars, tattoos, and
needle marks or other indications of drug abuse) g. Evidence of abuse or trauma.
14. The mental health screening includes, but is not limited to:
a. Present suicide ideation b. History of suicidal behavior c. Present us~ of psychotropic medication d. Mental health complaint e. Current treatment for mental health problems f. History of inpatient and/or outpatient psychiatric treatment g. History of treatment for substance abuse.
15. Immediate health needs are identified an~ addressed,. and potentially infectious inmates are Isolated. Each case is evaluated on an individual basis and the Isolation is determin~~d as required, i.e., house in place, isolate ·by pod, isolate in OPHU, or by using other measures as needed.
16. The dispo-sition of the inmate (e.g., referral to an appropriate health care service, placed in · general inmate population) is indicated on the screening form.
17. The intake receiving screening form is dated and timed upon completion and include the print/stamp name, the signature and title of the-person completing the screening.

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-o2 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs in Correctional Facilities, 2004, 0-E·Ol NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services In Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH·E·02 ACA: Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADlF-41;-22, -4C-27, ·4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards Supplement- 4-ALDF·2A·21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 Corizon Health Inc. Page 7 of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 26 of 33

Site Name: Sant<! Rita Jail I Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Title: Receiving Screening

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012
Revision Dates: 2/2/13
No: J-E-02.00.

18. All female inmates under 60 years of age are tested to determine pregnancy at intake using a urine test or other means of testing. If positive for pregnancy, inmate is to be referred to Women's -Health for assessment~ monitoring, and treatment.
19. Inmates entering the facility on· verified prescription medication continue to receive the medication in a timely fashion as prescribed, or acceptable alternate medications are provided as clinically Indicated. Intake health care staff (RN or LVN) ·is responsible for verifying medications, if possibl~, or they may obtain new orders from on-site or on-call clinicians.
20.. Each receiving screening is prioritized by acuity, i.e., urgent, expedited, or PRN sick call. As needed, inmates may be referred to emergency 911. Inmates may be ·referred to the Outpatient Housing Unit for observation. Patients identified as urgent or expedited are referred to housing unit sick to be seen within 24 hours and 72 hours respectively. Otherwise inmate's without a current medical need have access to request sick call as needed.
21. Health care staff is provided information regarding the needs of inmates in their housing unit or work area, including rqutine care and follow-up treatment. (chronic care clinic, wound care, special dietary needs). Referrals are documented in the health record and appointments may be scheduled in the electronic health record:
22. Health care staff makes appropriate referrals for inmate patients to custody staff regarding specific recommendations for classification and/or communication of inmate needs using the detail special request form, such as: lower tier, lower bunk, extra blanket,· cane, etc.· Staff may also notify the ACSO intake booking staff as n~eded.
23. Clinicians are notified of the need to review medications by telephone call from he~lth care staff_ referral to housing unit sick call, or referral to chronic care clinic.
24. Health care staff notifies the Medical Director and/or designee in ·the event of a unique drug situation, i.e.; clinical trials or anti-rejection. medications..
25. Dental care needs are identified and appropriate referrals are made based on acuity. Routine follow-up care and annual assessments may be scheduled in the electrC?nic health record. Health care staff may contact the dentist and/or dental assistant to expedite a referral ifthe patient needs urgent care or an expedited appointment. Patients may also be referred t9 the acute community hospital as needs require.

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standards for Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-02
NCCHC: Standards for Opiold Treatment Programs in Correctional Facllltles, 2004, Q-E-01 NCCHC Standards for Menial Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 200S, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adultlocal Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADLF-4C-22, -4C-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards Supplement- 4-ALDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

General Health Services Policy &Procedure Manual- ~ail

© 2012 Corlzon Health Inc.
Page 8of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 27 of 33

Site Name: Santa Rita Jail I Glenn Dyer Detention Facility

Date of Issue: 10/29/2012
Revision Dates: 2/2/13

Title: Receiving Screening

No: J-E-02.00-·

26. Disclosure of sexual assault at intake, either by victim or perpetrator: a. Health care staff is to refer patient to OMH for mental health services. b. Health care is to notify custody staff of the event. c. CJMH is to offer the inmate patient a follow-up meeting with mental health staff within 14 days of the intake screening.

REFERENCES
NCCHC: Standardsfor Health Services in Jails, 2008, J-E-02 NCCHC: Standards for Opioid Treatment Programs In Correctional Facilities, 2004, 0-E-01 NCCHC: Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, 2008, MH-E-02 ACA: Standards for Adult local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, 4-ADl.F-4C-22; -4C-27, -4C-29 ACA: 2012 Standards Supplement -4-AlDF-2A-21

NA-J0043 Issued 10/2012

- General Health Services Policy & Procedure Manual- Jail

© 2012 Corlzon Health Inc. Page9 of9

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 28 of 33
EXHIBIT C

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 29 of 33

'

.

'-'

...

;-

..

City and.COunty of ~an Francisco

Department of Public Health Jail Health Se~vlce.s Administi:ative''t:Jttice

'I

~

. ·,

Policy a~d Prc;>cedure No.: 302

·

Effective Date: 1o/aa

Last Revision Pate: 12/12 NeXt Sch_eduled Revision Dc;~te: 12/13

;RECEIVING I~IAGE_ANO INT}\KE ~CREENIN~.

POLICY

Arrestees entering the County.Jiidl forbooking and/or housing a~~ ~een.arid eyah.i.ate~ by Jail

Health Services (JHS) staff before l:i~hig housed In any area.9f the jails: ;A;rie~tees_who, have

medicai problems beyond the scope of theJacillty's medim11~faffto manage safelya(e referred

to. San Francisco General' Hospital Medical Center (SFGHMC) for-~v;;~luation- prior to the

Sheriff's Depa:rtmeiit (SFSD) accepting custody.

.

. ~: :: ' ... -.- ... ... .....

P. ROCEDURE$_.

TRIAGE

A. Ariestees with ,the following 'problems/conditions :·wili not b~ ·.accepte'd intcHh'e I

.jail unti_l medlcaJiy cleftrf}d af SFGH:

I

·:..

··.:.

.

.

.

·1, signs, syni.P.toins; or historY ~usp.idb'us ior:iictiv~'rs ~

-2_; .. 1-~c~rations :r.equiring sutu.fing ... : · · . ; : .· .. .

3~. Onresporisiveness .·. _·.. .. . .. .

4. .lnjurie$:wt11ch require _X-r~y eva_IIJ~tiort ... ·

5. seiious head::hijurles

· ·· ·· ·

6.- Pregnancy with: . . .. ._ .. .. . . .

.

a~ S.igrys _an~: symptom_s l:oL<?P.!ate :Wifhdrawai.or lii~tory of opiat~

:a9~ic~i(>n.(r€.)gular.~r}d .rece.n.tll~e);";)

·.

b. _History of alcohol addlctlc)_rra~q: ..

:1; : puis~' above 1.o:o,:~f1~:::: :..•. ': . ._ . . .-

. J.L Hallucinations, tremors,.sweatingi arpdelYi:.orirr~tabJ.IIt~/. _ .

of c..Histor)i praCk/cocainefaddiqtion)J.i)q:_pt:il~e: ~~OIJ~.12Q:and/qr: ·

above blood:pressure

1'40/90,:. · :--. _· ····.. ·· ··· · · · ·· ..

d; ..·1-fisioiY:·of:·daiJy :I b'enzodiazepii1Ef.\ise ·ot 6.Drng .or .more ot - :diaz~pam. c>r.: :eq~iv~l¢nt .{see:: !S.t.~iid~r44~~. :Pr9c~Cture tof
Registerecf Nurses, B.e:n.zqc;ljlizepine V\r'ith<Jf~W.al) an:ct;: .. .. .

:ir ·Pul~~ils::ijbov~doo::ijnd;= .:· · :::_,

..

. .. .. lf .8~~~uci_l)_?ti~Ds; tr6.1m()r~: :~We.ati_n9' ~nxietY,;:orir'fitabilltY~..

- e. Qra!J1p[ii9'9f.:'t~gi_nal b.le~qing:;. · .......... · · ·

··

·

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 30 of 33

Policy:

Receiving Triage and Intake Screening

Policy and Procedure No: 302
~a~e 2 ?!~---··· ···-··.·-··:-:

f. Pulse above 100

g. Blood pressure above 140/90 x ·2 .and no known history of

hypertension. (Contact Ob/Gyn-on~caU Re!)identto:discuss'prior

to refusing. Pager (415) 443~415)

·

7. Unstable cardiac chestpain

8. Severe cellulites.- abscesses requiring 1&0,. infected human bites

9. Inability to walk or stand unassisted . . . .

·1 0. Peritoneal dialysis ·

11. Respiratory distress of unknown and/or unmanageable etiology

12. Reporting to have ingested narcotics or cocairie · ··

13. Reporting to have been raped withlri the_last72 hours
14. Requiring life sustahilng medical equipnienlnot available in.the jail

to a. For patients requiring a CPAP machine: the tri_age nurse shoul(:j call C-pod see if.the JHS CPAP machineis 111 use; If it is noUn use, the a patient can be housed. in:~pod;-!fthe)HS,CPAP machine is in use, arid the patient has BMI >_30 ·fmd 02 ·saf<:.95%,,~end the patient to

SFGH. If the patientdoes 11ot:mee( the criteria jp..be sen{ to SFGH, · . call the on-call MD du.ringwi::Jklrig hol,mdor orders: .. . . .. .

15. Imminent di:mger to $elf or oth¢rs.-:- . ·.

.

16.

Any .

other

serious

medical

condition .. ..

r. eq..u. i•; r·:in.~-:-.f. e: m. e. r..geqt.c. ar..e

B. A note is made in the electronic·medicai :recorCi:_to d_ocuqient non-ac(!eptan~:

~~~

..·

..

.C. dFoocruamcecnetpetdedusainrrgesttheeesT, rimaegdeicaslGirpeseyn~h..il<ildt(einci:enprtbi6bnlesmtsh:a. tansdh.O:auslds·e;nsosmt weanittsl.iahrteil:

Intake Screening are begun: Immediately. Jf.ilidi¢atea, deioxifrcl:ltion' procedures:

are initiated.

· · · · ··· · ·

o_ Arrestees with the follciwihg prciblemsi.~;O.n~itidns; :will be iefer'red to :J~di.
Psychiatric servicesJ_JPS): ·

1. Severe psychiatric:lmpairtn!:mt (i~e,, ..hi_stoty of ,psychotropic· medlcation,

pberiorref~ePrrSedtretoatJmPeSnfto; rbeizvaarirueatbi'o~h'na.v.ioi";..'o,t.

other:mentai ''

:health

concerns) · .

will'

2. Any of thefollowing charg-es:
a. Murder 0 87 Per . . . ..

b.- Attempted murder (66:4/187)'. ': '

..

c. Lewd and Lasclvio~s ~_eh.!Slv.io,r).Vith a rni[lot_(28:S:PC)

· d, Rape (26~ PG) ·

·

tias 3. Any woman entering the jail that giv~n:b.frthvvifhir:l the pastyeqranq

Is: charged wit~ rnurd~_r. or~tt~rnpt~d. m~f.c;lef.' ofh~r infah,f child will .b~,

im.riieciiateiy· refer~d to· JP.$. If =)P_s; ;¢; riot or{ ·sit.Ek the patient .is'

a.ssessed

for

s'll)cide

lind·

hous~d..

hta:

sa'rety· .

cell'udtif :

JPS

l.~.f.a.v·a·:il:a··b"·i·e· .,.

E.- Female Arrestees

1.• Pregnant women will have theirbi!Jodptessure.·che-cked.-

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 31 of 33

:~-

Policy: · Receiving Triage and Intake Screening

Pollcyand.Procedure No: 302 Page 3of5.

2. Women will be asked.thedate- o.f th~ir last menstrual period (the date of

the first day of their last normal period).. . _

· ·

3. Women wit~ the following conditions who report an l,MP more than_30-
days prior or unknown LMP will be tested for pregnancy before being

accepted Into the jail:

·

· ··

· ··

or . . -

.

.

a. IV opiate (heroin),. crack/cocaine, benzodlazepine, heavy·

alcohol use ·

· ·

b. ·Cramps or vaginal bleeding

c. Pulse above 100

.4. Any woman reporting an LMP more than 30 days-prior, and who .does

not meet ~he above criteria for testing _flt.Triage, wi!l be referred_ to

nursing ·clinic· for pregnancy t~sting ·within· 24 _hours,·- with the following

exceptions:

.

. .

a.. women..50 yea~s ora9~::or 'oider. unles$ :they are stiil having .mens·trua(periodsr· _ ; --- ::·- :: ·~ · ·· · ... - -- ·· ' · - ·· - ···· ·

b. Women who . give a reliable . Iiistory of .tubal :ligation or:

_tiysterectomy,. · _ · · · · _. _ .

· ·

..

c. Women who have documen:tation iri thelrjail me~i.c:al r~c:;ord of
_a llegative pregnancy test. wlthiri the' previous tw.o. weeks unless they report thafttle-y.-i)e!.iev·e:...t.he..Y:pqul<i be.p. reg·. nant;

cWoommpelentedm.ay refuse pregn. an. cy. . te.sti:n-g,. b.u..t. a: .refu. $.af f.o.r.m m..ust. b..e.

5. Wo_men wlil be asked :If they tiave had unprotedeci_:se~ ,n.'the· 5 .~r:tYS

prior to bE)ing arrested, lfJhey ·:answer: ·yes·,· 'th~y wi.U ·l)e._ W~r~d

emergeopy cohtracepUor:l orr~ten:ed t(dhe pb/Gyo.NP'withiri ~4.1Jours:

t~ discu~s erf!~rgency c~n.t_r~~~ptio:h;

.

.

. .

ioe: .E Prescriptio~ medic'atl~ns brought :hi _b}r ~'1 ~rre'~te!3 .:ar~: ~.il¢1Jm.efite~ in

medical re¢ord;. the ·drug .nani~•.. ~os~ge, __ dir(3ctjoris Jor::)is~;, __.pre.scri~ing

physiCian;_:dispensing ptlarmacY.,:(lncl_uqiitg telephone ..n~ljlbE!r)· aijd: ci~te ·filled:

are re<::orded: (see: Policy. ·and:-Proce_dure' ~o,,-401¢~ .Ptls<?ne(s Person~!

Medications)..-The .medicatlohs;: c:ir:e: theri•:giveir- tcf .Sh~iiff's Dep~rtolent.

perso)1n~Jf6f stotag~ with th~.P:efson:s propE;:r;tY; ::: . . . .

. .

G~ 1\rre~te~s who. ~avEi.b.een sprayed\~it~:mace:.or-peppen spr~y :ffiijs(have· th_e(r

eyes ;Wash~d ~it_hirt{)ile:.'half,~o~r of.co.!)tact: .

.·.

:!s' .H.:

·.M~.dJ~..a. '..

ci~ar~nce ... . . .

note~

.....

-.

•l))r.·s··t·q.f.f

(ni~~)'ir)g
.... ·-· ...

~nidatl~g
·-. ... . .

~he
.

_appr~prlate :sp~~::e;
...................... ---

OI)·tM housiJ;g·oard.. _.

.. .... ··········. ~- .. ...

.

.. .

......

·.: -·· ..... ······ . . . . . . . - .. - ... .

J•. .W. tie.~.l.cl.i.a.i.r~.b.o.u.nd.·.a.rr.e.:s.te.e.s.:.'~.6.ri.~P·.1.a6.i.~..i6..t·'Ja..li...h.o..u.s.i.r.i9··'..-.a.r~.,·.r.e...f.e...r.r.ed•.fo.r..h.1..ta.ke.·

.screeiliri9'·pt-ior .to: housitig. in P..C?q C ~f:G()untY Jail:#~:Qt:testiofis'feg~t<;li.~g ~h~;

.for app~ppriaterie=?S hou~lng !n...Po!:f ;C.-fqr'9tn~r ·mo.l:?il.ity, !rnpalr~cfpatjen.t~ ~~ri.,

· ··be.referred -to.the 'Me~ii::~t.-[)i~~cto(~r· As,~_is.~~n(~e~,icii.l pi~~c,tc).i'.. ·

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 32 of 33

Policy:_ Receiving Triage and Intake Screening

Policy ~nd Procedure No: 302 Page 4of5

J. Arrestees who require housing lri a safetfcell are screened, -usin[j:the Intake

as Screening questionnaire, to the extent that the person and circumstances
allow. This Is done prior to placement ih the safety cell.- or soon a·s possible

after placement.

·

K. Arrestees refusing to cooperate with triage procedures or answer questions are

·assessed as well as possible based·on their general appearance arid degree of

cooperation.

·

--

-· ·

-

· L. HousiQg Codes

1. i'he following codes will be placed on ~' patient's housin~, card

1:.... Refused;
2 _:Accepte-d with medical prol;llel:n or need :tor furthej-.evaluation of

electronic record;

.

34-

TAococecpotemdb,antioveprooibinletCmixsj;ca· ted·

to ·

<:u'l&We{tdage " ' -- · ··--·· ·- ·· ···

·qli~1>tloti_s;
--· - - -- ---

5 ..c Papertriage is dorie<and JH~ waftiftor:ID.'proces:do .identify correct

~~

-

.

-

ll.

INTAKE S~R.EEI\IING

A. The Intake Screening _questionnai~e Is _c<Jrnplet~d:'-a.nd: documented in the e_lectronic nie.dical_ record for all prisoners prlodt;i being boused:in:the jliiil,- · ·

e. . Intake Screening'~i~pp~ltiOf1S ihciude?

.

.

-

::·:·

..

1~- Clearance for housln~i in general p'optJic:ttiO:r(. ·

2. Cle_arance tor:specific cjesignated hoi.lsing ':·,

_ _. .

3.. Refert~J ~o ::m _ap_propryate ~H-~:pto~_~ar(i o:~;'~l19~g~h(C?r'~ol:Jjir)e_basls

c. Arrest~e~ refi,1s_ing .. Jo · coop~r_ate .with._ '·scfe.el1iog .. pro·~qure.s _or: ·answer

·screehit:Jg ·ques~ions .are.:assessed fig as ·w~ll' a~_;'pO:s$.ipl¢.- ~-a-~ 9.ri.theii; -genl3ral,

appearance. a:hd degree of C:ciopera1iof1~ .In coorqina~ioh 'With··¢llsloqy staff; lhey,
In are held the ln~ake _facilitY j'jnd:- e:ri(:;o~rE!QE!~ t(?_i p~[ticipi:de i.n ,.r:nedh:~cll

screef1ing. An'. arreste~ who refLis~~: ~pr~er\i.m(tb~e6. tim~~ .may then :bE!

transfEmed fcir liousirig_ put i::> refeiTedi.tC,. :theO~ite nu(~ing'Jor·,screeriing, :All

refusals
. •

~re

.

.

documented in
. • .. :, ' :: . .. :. • .

>: ••· '•• .' theJ;~Iecitron16'

: I.,

-~;:

•m••• .e'd.i'c.'a·: i:r..e,. c,,o:•t,d':.>..,"..

. ..

..

-- . -- . . ...

..

· D. \JVheh ajl arrestee}'~ English Jarig_uage:abi_l.ities: prevent ;adeqi.iate:screeiiirig,_·an:

interpreter is ~s.ed, . whE:l~ ~.Y~IIE\.t?Ie.. Wt)~rf ilb .interpret~r' Js.: urJ,aVE!ilable,

sqreen!ng is..c:prripl_~t~~i.a~ ,'«~II· .~s- po~~Jpt~, an~. th,~LJ>~~~qn;J.s: app~~Pfl~t~J}',

housed.-8creenh1g is tf:IE;m cQ[hplet~~-'as soori.Jl$.pci_ss!bJe, b:UtJn..n:o,ca~e later

tnan the-ile)(t__hursiilSplinic.' · - ·

., - " ··

Tne.: e·~ Developmeiit~iiy'::di's~~I~d pati¢nis: ~f.e 'i~'entlfri3~ ~t screehir;ig: :tiased on·

c}b~ervati_oii ~hiftor: ·:history:

'~.s~~~-~m.enr ~f _p,P:s~!b.le' dev~ldi:ifrwntal.

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/14 Page 33 of 33

. :~·

·.;

Polley: Receiving Triage and Intake Screening

Polley and Procedure No: 3o2
Page 5of5

disability is documented in the medical :rEi<;ord... Ali known or suspected
developmentally disabledadults will b~ referred ~~ JP_S forf<>IIO\IJ~up.

REFERENCES:

·cMAstanC!aid302;

.. . .

California Code of Regul<dions, Title 15, Article 1"0, Section 1207 and 1207.5,1208;

Article 5, Section 1051;

·

· ·

· ·· ·· ·

JHS Policy: "Prisoner's Personal Medication;" #401 c; "Repr<x:fuctiv.e Services,". #314;· ·
"Language Translation Services/ #331 i
JHS Registered Nurse standardized Proc~dures: •iAJCcihi>I.Oetoiiflcationu
"Heroin •"sentoctiazepine: Withdrawal" -.. .. W- .ithdrawal" · · ·

'ARiEiriVt.iIaEflWy ..S· HE-·D--·U·· L· E:",

' 1:

·,;

 
 Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 11

1 Christine Saunders Haskett (SBN 188053) Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (SBN 294430)
2 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Telephone: (415) 591-6000
4 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 Email: chaskett@cov.com; rjacobs@cov.com
5
Michael Temple Risher (SBN 191627) 6 Elizabeth O. Gill (SBN 218311)
American Civil Liberties Union 7 Foundation of Northern California, Inc.
39 Drumm Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493 9 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
Email: mrisher@aclunc.org; egill@aclunc.org 10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and
JANE DOE 12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16

17 SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and JANE DOE,
18 Plaintiffs,
19 v.
20 GREGORY J. AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff,
21 Defendant.
22

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 11

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action challenges the Alameda County Sheriff’s policy of requiring women arrested

3 and booked into Alameda County jails to submit to a pregnancy test. In at least one jail, this mandatory

4 testing occurs entirely outside the context of any other health screening. And it does not appear to be

5 related to providing appropriate health care to women in the jails: it applies to women who will stay at the

6 jail for only a few hours, and it applies to women who cannot be pregnant. Women are not permitted to

7 refuse the testing.

8

2. As a means to providing appropriate health care to female inmates, jails should offer

9 women the option of taking a pregnancy test as a voluntary component of the more general health care

10 screening the jails conduct for all inmates. By isolating the pregnancy test and making it mandatory,

11 however, the sheriff’s policy publicly intrudes into one of the most intimate and private areas of a person’s

12 life – reproductive decisionmaking. As a result, female arrestees in Alameda County suffer humiliation

13 and even greater distress, when, for example, they have to take the pregnancy test despite knowing that are

14 not able to become pregnant due to age or infertility; they did not know they were pregnant and have to

15 receive that information from someone other than a trusted healthcare provider; or they were trying to get

16 pregnant and have to receive the news of negative test results from someone other than a trusted

17 healthcare provider.

18

3. The Alameda County Sheriff’s policy of requiring female arrestees to submit to a

19 mandatory pregnancy test is a clear violation of the California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and

20 state statutory law. The test violates arrestees’ right to privacy under Article I § 1 of the California

21 Constitution; it constitutes an unlawful search and seizure under the state and federal constitutions; and it

22 violates Title 15 § 1214 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires jails to allow mentally

23 competent inmates to refuse non-emergency medical care and mandates that all examinations, treatments

24 and procedures conducted in jail accord with the same informed-consent standards that apply outside of

25 jail.

26

4. Plaintiffs seek mandamus, nominal damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief to ensure

27 that female arrestees may refuse to submit to this pregnancy testing.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 11

1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because one or more of the claims arise

3 out of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court has determined that plaintiffs

4 have standing to pursue this action in federal court, explaining that “Ms. Mancias has standing because

5 she has alleged that she was required to undergo a pregnancy test pursuant to a written policy and

6 officially sanctioned conduct.” Order Denying Motion to Remand at 4.

7

6. Venue in this Court is proper because this is an action against the Alameda County Sheriff

8 in his official capacity for acts he performed as part of his public duties that caused, and will continue to

9 cause, legal injuries and deprivation of rights to persons, including Plaintiffs, in Alameda County. See 28

10 U.S.C. § 1391.

11 III. PARTIES

12

Plaintiffs

13

7. In July 2010, at the age of 69, Plaintiff Susan Harman was required to submit to a

14 pregnancy test at Alameda County’s Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility after she was arrested at a political

15 demonstration. Ms. Harman is assessed and pays annual property taxes on real property that she owns in

16 Alameda County. Ms. Harman believes that pregnancy testing of each and every female arrestee is an

17 abuse of government power and a waste of her tax dollars. She brings this suit as a citizen and as an

18 Alameda County taxpayer.

19

8. In August 2012, Plaintiff Nancy Mancias was required to submit to a pregnancy test at

20 Alameda County’s Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility after she was arrested at a political demonstration.

21 Ms. Mancias continues to participate in political demonstrations and is sometimes arrested at them. She

22 brings this suit as a citizen and so that she will not be forced to undergo this intrusive testing during future

23 arrests in Alameda County.

24

9. In April 2014, Plaintiff Jane Doe was required to submit to a pregnancy test at Alameda

25 County’s Santa Rita Jail after she was arrested for allegedly delaying or obstructing a peace officer

26 following a traffic stop. Ms. Doe is assessed and pays annual property taxes on real property that she

27 owns in Alameda County. She brings this suit as a taxpayer and as a citizen of Alameda County.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 11

1

Defendant

2

10. Defendant Gregory J. Ahern is the Alameda County Sheriff. Defendant Ahern has ultimate

3 authority over the Alameda County jails, including the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility and the Santa

4 Rita Jail, and is responsible for protecting the constitutional and statutory rights of prisoners under his

5 custody. He is named in his official capacity only.

6 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

7

11. Plaintiff Susan Harman was arrested in Oakland in July 2010, during a protest relating to

8 the shooting of Oscar Grant. Immediately after she was arrested, Ms. Harman was taken to the emergency

9 room for examination and treatment for injuries she had sustained when police officers struck her on the

10 head. The hospital did not conduct a pregnancy test. After she was released from the hospital,

11 Ms. Harman was taken to the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility in downtown Oakland. Soon after she

12 arrived, jail personnel required her to take a pregnancy test. The officer took her, along with two other

13 women, to a bathroom and demanded that she urinate in a cup. Ms. Harman told the officer that she was

14 69 years old and could not possibly be pregnant, but the officer required her to take the test anyway.

15

12. Ms. Harman was not provided with any additional medical screening at the jail. Although

16 Ms. Harman is diabetic, no jail personnel responded to her concern that she needed insulin. After being

17 held in a crowded holding cell all night, Ms. Harman was released from custody the next morning.

18 Ms. Harman was never told the results of her pregnancy test. She was never charged with any crime.

19

13. Ms. Harman felt generally humiliated and demeaned by the forced pregnancy test. Given

20 her age, the pregnancy test clearly had nothing to do with providing her with appropriate health care.

21 Moreover, the fact that the jail required her to take the pregnancy test yet ignored her actual medical needs

22 around insulin, made her feel as if the only purpose of the pregnancy test was to embarrass her and to

23 invade her privacy.

24

14. Plaintiff Nancy Mancias was arrested during a political demonstration in Oakland in

25 August 2012 and taken the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility. Soon after she arrived at the jail, an officer

26 ordered Ms. Mancias to take a pregnancy test. Ms. Mancias responded: “Isn’t that a violation of my civil

27 liberties?” The officer told her that if she refused to take the pregnancy test she would be sent to Santa

28 Rita Jail, some 30 miles from where she had been arrested. In response to this coercion, Ms. Mancias

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 11

1 took the test. She stepped behind a low partition that reached only to her waist level and urinated into the

2 sample cup, while the officer turned her back. She then handed her sample to the officer.

3

15. Ms. Mancias did not see any doctors or nurses and did not receive any additional medical

4 screening. After some eight hours in custody, Ms. Mancias was released. Ms. Mancias was never told the

5 results of her pregnancy test. She was never charged with any crime.

6

16. Ms. Mancias felt humiliated and deeply distressed by the forced pregnancy testing, which

7 she experienced as a gross violation of her privacy. Ms. Mancias had tried to become pregnant in the past,

8 but had been unable to do so. Because of this, she knew that she was not pregnant and found the

9 compulsory pregnancy testing particularly inappropriate and invasive into an area that she considers

10 private. Ms. Mancias has been arrested during political demonstrations in other jurisdictions but has never

11 been required to take a pregnancy test.

12

17. Plaintiff Jane Doe was arrested in April 2014 for allegedly obstructing, resisting, or

13 delaying a peace officer during a traffic stop. After her arrest she was taken to Santa Rita Jail and

14 photographed and fingerprinted. After some two hours, Ms. Doe was given a medical screening, during

15 which she believes she was asked whether she was pregnant. Ms. Doe is married with two young children

16 and knew that she was not pregnant and believes that she informed staff that she was not pregnant.

17 Nevertheless, staff directed her to submit to a pregnancy test. Nobody indicated in any way to Ms. Doe

18 that she could refuse. Ms. Doe later posted bail and was released after approximately 16 hours in custody.

19

18. Ms. Doe provided a urine sample for the pregnancy test only because she believed that she

20 was required to do so. She had never been arrested before and did not want to do anything that would

21 prolong her stay in jail or cause her additional legal problems. She believes that the testing infringed on

22 her privacy and that it should have been her personal decision whether to take the test. More generally,

23 she believes that other women in this position should have the right to refuse to submit to a pregnancy test.

24

19. Ms. Doe brings this suit under a pseudonym to avoid additional invasions of her privacy.

25

20. Sheriff Ahern has confirmed that, as of December 20, 2010, “every female brought into

26 [the] Glenn E. Dyer Facility is required to submit to a pregnancy test through urinalysis.” See Exhibit A

27 (December 20, 2010 Letter from Sheriff Ahern to Michael T. Risher) (emphasis added).

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 6 of 11

1

21. The current General Health Services Policy & Procedure at the Santa Rita Jail and Glenn E.

2 Dyer Detention Facility requires that “All female inmates under 60 years of age are tested to determine

3 pregnancy at intake using a urine test or other means of testing.” See Exhibit B.

4

22. Plaintiffs are aware of no other county in California that requires women to submit to

5 pregnancy testing when they are arrested. Instead, at least some other counties make pregnancy testing

6 available to women who consent to it but also respect a woman’s choice to refuse to submit to testing. For

7 example, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department checks women for pregnancy as part of a comprehensive

8 medical screening procedure and makes pregnancy testing available for them. But it also specifically

9 allows women to refuse to take the test by completing a written refusal form. See City and County of San

10 Francisco, Department of Public Health, Jail Health Services Policy and Procedure No. 302 § I(E), a true

11 copy of which is attached to this complaint as Exhibit C.

12

23. More generally, healthcare professionals recognize that incarcerated people have the right

13 to refuse medical examinations and treatment. For example, the American Public Health Association’s

14 Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions states that “every prisoner has the right to refuse

15 a medical examination; this right must be respected.” Similarly, the National Commission on Correctional

16 Healthcare’s 2008 Standards for Health Services in Jails states that a “[a]ll examinations, treatments, and

17 procedures are governed by informed consent practices applicable in the jurisdiction” (emphasis original).

18

24. Because the Alameda County jails are refusing to respect this important right to refuse a

19 pregnancy test, they are committing the following violations:

20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Constitution, Article I § 1)

21

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

22

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

23 set forth herein.

24

26. Article I § 1 of the California Constitution expressly protects privacy: “All people are by

25 nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and

26 liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and

27 privacy.”

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 7 of 11

1

27. Mandatory pregnancy testing implicates a female arrestee’s legally protected privacy

2 interest in two distinct ways. First, any type of mandatory urinalysis infringes on the constitutionally

3 protected right. Second, requiring a woman to reveal whether or not she is pregnant infringes on her right

4 to privacy.

5

28. When the government intrudes into the privacy protected by California’s Constitution, it

6 must show that the need for this intrusion outweighs the individual’s privacy interests and that less-

7 intrusive measures would be ineffective. No governmental interest justifies this broad intrusion caused by

8 Defendant’s mandatory pregnancy testing program.

9

29. Defendant’s policy and practice violate Article I § 1 of the California Constitution by

10 invading female arrestees’ right to privacy.

11

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

12

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

13

30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

14 set forth herein.

15

31. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from

16 conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

17

32. Compulsory pregnancy testing by means of urinalysis is both a search and a seizure.

18

33. Because they not justified by any legitimate government interest, Defendant’s policy and

19 practice of requiring arrested women to submit to mandatory pregnancy testing is unreasonable and

20 violates the Fourth Amendment.

21

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Constitution, Article I § 13)

22

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

23

34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

24 set forth herein.

25

35. Article I § 13 of the California Constitution prohibits the government from conducting

26 unreasonable searches and seizures.

27

36. Compulsory pregnancy testing by means of urinalysis is both a search and a seizure.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 8 of 11

1

37. Because it is not justified by any legitimate government interest, Defendant’s policy and

2 practice of requiring arrested women to submit to mandatory pregnancy testing is unreasonable and

3 violates Article I § 13.

4

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15 § 1214)

5

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

6

38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

7 set forth herein.

8

39. The California Code of Regulations requires that inmates provide informed consent before

9 being subject to non-emergency medical care:

10

Except for emergency treatment … all examinations, treatments and

procedures affected by informed consent standards in the community are

11

likewise observed for inmate care. … Any inmate who has not been

adjudicated to be incompetent may refuse non-emergency medical and

12

mental health care. Absent informed consent in non-emergency situations, a

court order is required before involuntary medical treatment can be

13

administered to an inmate. 15 Cal. Code. Regs. § 1214

14

40. Pregnancy testing is medical care and a medical examination, treatment, and procedure that

15 requires informed consent in the community. Any arrestee who has not been adjudicated as incompetent

16 should therefore be permitted to refuse a pregnancy test, absent a valid court order requiring her to submit

17 to the test.

18

41. Because Defendant’s policy and practice require women to submit to pregnancy testing

19 without their informed consent, they violate Title 15 § 1214 of the California Code of Regulations.

20

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Taxpayer Action under Code of Civ. Proc. § 526(a) to Prevent Illegal Expenditure of Funds)

21

(Plaintiffs Harman and Doe against Defendant Ahern)

22

42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

23 set forth herein.

24

43. Defendant is illegally expending public funds by requiring female arrestees to submit to

25 pregnancy tests in violation of the United States and California constitutions, as well as the California

26 Code of Regulations.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 9 of 11

1

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Bane Act, Civ. Code § 52.1)

2

(All Plaintiffs against Defendant Ahern)

3

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the above paragraphs as though fully

4 set forth herein.

5

45. The Bane Act allows a person whose rights have been interfered with by means of threats,

6 intimidation, or coercion to sue for injunctive and other equitable relief. Civ. Code § 52.1(b).

7

46. By forcing Plaintiffs to submit to a pregnancy test, Defendant has interfered with their

8 rights, as set forth in the United States and California constitutions as well as the California Code of

9 Regulations by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion.

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

12

A. Issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing Defendant to: (1) stop requiring female

13 arrestees in Alameda County to take a pregnancy test unless they have given informed consent to this

14 testing; (2) provide every female arrestee with a meaningful opportunity to refuse pregnancy testing; and

15 (3) take all other necessary steps to insure and protect the privacy rights of female arrestees with respect to

16 pregnancy testing, including directing that all intake procedures be revised to reflect this Court’s ruling.

17

B. Issue a declaration that Defendant’s actions in requiring mandatory pregnancy testing of

18 female arrestees violate: (1) Article I § 1 of the California Constitution; (2) the Fourth Amendment of the

19 United States Constitution; (3) Article I § 13 of the California Constitution, and (4) Title 15 § 1214 of the

20 California Code of Regulations.

21

C. Grant injunctive relief directing that Defendant stop requiring female arrestees to submit to

22 a mandatory pregnancy test.

23

D. Order Defendants to pay nominal damages.

24

E. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b),

25 Civil Code § 52.1(h), Code Civ. Proc § 1021.5, and any other applicable statutes.

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 10 of 11

1

F. Grant Plaintiffs such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2 April 28, 2015 3

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

4

By: /s/ Christine Saunders Haskett

Christine Saunders Haskett

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7 April 28, 2015 8

ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

9

By: /s/ Michael Temple Risher

Michael Temple Risher

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

CAND-ECF

Page 1 of 1

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 30 Filed 04/28/15 Page 11 of 11

Complaints and Other Initiating Documents
3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Harman et al v. Ahern
ADRMOP,CONSENT,REFSETKAW

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Haskett, Christine on 4/28/2015 at 2:42 PM and filed on

4/28/2015

Case Name:

Harman et al v. Ahern

Case Number:

3:14-cv-03051-MEJ

Filer:

Susan Harman

Jane Doe

Nancy Mancias

Document Number: 29

Docket Text: COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Gregory J. Ahern. Filed bySusan Harman, Jane Doe, Nancy Mancias. (Haskett, Christine) (Filed on 4/28/2015)

3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Christine Saunders Haskett chaskett@cov.com, rhouston@cov.com
Elizabeth O. Gill egill@aclunc.org, agaldamez@aclunc.org
Gregory J. Rockwell chankins@bjg.com, lmiller@bjg.com
Matthew M. Grigg mmg@hudginslaw.com
Michael Temple Risher mrisher@aclunc.org, clamprecht@aclunc.org
Rebecca Ariel Jacobs rjacobs@cov.com
3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document Original filename:C:\fakepath\2015.04.28 First Amended Complaint.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=4/28/2015] [FileNumber=11603965-0] [512a052f429a0322f4c4f811936f9986a3e9bbb0207939ffe1729db61df23d8ab0fa ad90297d0baaadbae6ffa0caf421af01088b5520fd231e71418ba6a73f61]]

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?572245801685959

4/28/2015

 
 Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 4

1 Christine Saunders Haskett (SBN 188053)
Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (SBN 294430) 2 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3 One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
4 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
5 Email: chaskett@cov.com; rjacobs@cov.com

6 Michael Temple Risher (SBN 191627)

7 Elizabeth O. Gill (SBN 218311) American Civil Liberties Union

8 Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

39 Drumm Street 9 San Francisco, CA 94111

10

Telephone: Facsimile:

(415) 621-2493 (415) 255-8437

11 Email: mrisher@aclunc.org; egill@aclunc.org

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and
13 JANE DOE

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16

17 SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and JANE DOE,
18

19

Plaintiffs,

20

v.

Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ JOINT STATUS REPORT

21 GREGORY J. AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff,

22

Defendant.

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 4

1 I. Introduction

2

After agreeing to a settlement in principle at a May 8, 2015 court-ordered settlement conference,

3 the parties stipulated to suspend case deadlines so that a final settlement could be reached. Dkt. No. 32.

4 The Court approved the stipulation and ordered that case deadlines be suspended. Dkt. No. 33. The

5 parties submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s August 17, 2015 order. Dkt. No. 42.

6 II. Plaintiff’s Position

7

Since the Court-ordered settlement conference, the parties have reached near-final agreement on

8 all aspects of the settlement, except one. The settlement agreement requires Corizon and Defendant “to

9 confer with Plaintiffs’ representatives to attempt to resolve other concerns Plaintiffs identified during the

10 course of this Lawsuit.” Accordingly, Corizon and Defendant agreed “to have appropriate

11 representatives meet in person with Plaintiffs’ representatives to confer by August 31, 2015, subject to a

12 good faith attempt to confer about the representatives’ availability.” The agreement clearly states that

13 “[t]he appropriate representatives must include individuals who together have authority to reach

14 agreements in principle on behalf of Corizon and Defendant.” Adding further clarity as to which

15 individuals would have such authority, Defendant included the following sentence in the agreement: “It

16 is anticipated that appropriate representatives would include: (a) Corizon Women’s Health Director

17 Tori Garcia, RN, MSN, WHNP-BC or Regional Medical Director Glenda Newell, M.D., (b) defense

18 counsel, and (c) ACSO Lt. Michael Malloy or Commander Carla Kennedy.”

19

At the present moment, settlement discussions have stalled because Defendant has not confirmed

20 that an individual with decision-making authority for Defendant will attend the meeting required by the

21 agreement. Plaintiffs and Defendant have been exchanging proposed dates for the meeting (including,

22 most recently, September 28 or October 1, 2015), but Defendant’s proposed list of attendees includes

23 only Defendant’s counsel and Tori Garcia, and does not include anyone from the Alameda County

24 Sheriff’s Office. On August 21, Plaintiffs asked Defendant to confirm that an individual with decision-

25 making authority for Defendant would be at the meeting, but Defendant has not responded. As soon as

26 Defendant confirms that the appropriate persons will be at the meeting, Plaintiffs stand ready to confirm

27 the meeting date and finalize the settlement agreement between the parties.

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

1

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of 4

1 III. Defendant’s Position

2

The parties are finalizing the scheduling of the meeting envisioned by the settlement

3 agreement. The appropriate ACSO and care provider representatives will be present. Defendant

4 anticipates the parties will file a dismissal within 45 days.

5

6 September 3, 2015 7 8 9 10

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By: /s/ Christine Saunders Haskett Christine Saunders Haskett
ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

11

By: /s/ Elizabeth O. Gill

Elizabeth O. Gill 12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and

JANE DOE 14

15 September 3, 2015
16

LAW OFFICES OF NANCY E. HUDGINS

17

By: /s/ Matthew M. Grigg

Matthew M. Grigg 18

19

Attorneys for Defendant

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

2

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 43 Filed 09/03/15 Page 4 of 4

1

ATTESTATION

2

I, Christine Saunders Haskett, am the ECF user whose User ID and Password are being

3 used to file the JOINT STATUS REPORT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby

4 attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from signatories

5 Elizabeth O. Gill and Matthew M. Grigg.

6 DATED: September 3, 2015 7

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

8

By: /s/ Christine Saunders Haskett

Christine Saunders Haskett

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

3

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

 
 1 Christine Saunders Haskett (SBN 188053)
Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (SBN 294430) 2 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3 One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
4 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
5 Email: chaskett@cov.com; rjacobs@cov.com

6 Michael Temple Risher (SBN 191627)

7 Elizabeth O. Gill (SBN 218311) American Civil Liberties Union

8 Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

39 Drumm Street 9 San Francisco, CA 94111

10

Telephone: Facsimile:

(415) 621-2493 (415) 255-8437

11 Email: mrisher@aclunc.org; egill@aclunc.org

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and
13 JANE DOE

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16

17 SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and JANE DOE,
18

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

21 GREGORY J. AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff,

22

Defendant.

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

1

IT IS STIPULATED that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the above

2 entitled action shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms

3 of the settlement agreement entered between the parties on October 28, 2015.

4 May 4, 2016 5 6 7

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By:/s/ Rebecca Ariel Jacobs Rebecca Ariel Jacobs

8 9 10 11 12
May 4, 2016 13 14

ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. By:/s/ Elizabeth O. Gill
Elizabeth O. Gill Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and JANE DOE
LAW OFFICES OF NANCY E. HUDGINS

15

By:/s/ Matthew M. Grigg

Matthew M. Grigg 16

17

Attorneys for Defendant GREGORY J. AHERN

18 ORDER
19

20

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 _M_a_y___5__________, 2016 22

The Honorable Maria-Elena James

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR

1

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

1

ATTESTATION

2

I, Rebecca Ariel Jacobs, am the ECF user whose User ID and Password are being used to file the

3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. In compliance

4 with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been

5 obtained from signatories Elizabeth O. Gill and Matthew M. Grigg.

6 May 4, 2016 7

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

8

By:/s/ Rebecca Ariel Jacobs

9

Rebecca Ariel Jacobs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR

2

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

 
 Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 45 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3

1 Christine Saunders Haskett (SBN 188053)
Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (SBN 294430) 2 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3 One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
4 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
5 Email: chaskett@cov.com; rjacobs@cov.com

6 Michael Temple Risher (SBN 191627)

7 Elizabeth O. Gill (SBN 218311) American Civil Liberties Union

8 Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

39 Drumm Street 9 San Francisco, CA 94111

10

Telephone: Facsimile:

(415) 621-2493 (415) 255-8437

11 Email: mrisher@aclunc.org; egill@aclunc.org

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and
13 JANE DOE

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16

17 SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and JANE DOE,
18

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ JOINT STATUS REPORT

21 GREGORY J. AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff,

22

Defendant.

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 45 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3

1

The parties submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s September 8, 2015 text order.

2 Dkt. No. 44.

3

On October 28, 2015, the parties entered a Settlement Agreement pertaining to this dispute. The

4 Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiffs will seek dismissal following Plaintiffs’ counsel’s receipt

5 of the amounts specified as well as the new and revised policies and the revised inmate handbook

6 described therein. Plaintiffs’ counsel have received the new and revised policies and the revised inmate

7 handbook. Upon receipt of the amounts specified in the Settlement Agreement, which includes nominal

8 damages and attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs will request dismissal. The parties therefore respectfully request

9 that the Court either drop this matter from its calendar or continue the matter six (6) months for the

10 parties to submit an updated status report if they have not yet requested dismissal.

11

12 November 4, 2015 13 14 15 16 17

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By: /s/ Rebecca Ariel Jacobs Rebecca Ariel Jacobs
ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc.

18

By: /s/ Michael Temple Risher

Michael Temple Risher 19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

SUSAN HARMAN, NANCY MANCIAS, and

JANE DOE 21

22 November 4, 2015
23
24

LAW OFFICES OF NANCY E. HUDGINS

25

By: /s/ Matthew M Grigg

Matthew M. Grigg 26

27

Attorneys for Defendant

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

1

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

Case 3:14-cv-03051-MEJ Document 45 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3

1

ATTESTATION

2

I, Rebecca Ariel Jacobs, am the ECF user whose User ID and Password are being

3 used to file the JOINT STATUS REPORT. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby

4 attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from signatories

5 Michael T. Risher and Matthew M. Grigg.

6 DATED: November 4, 2015 7 8

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
/s/ Rebecca Ariel Jacobs Rebecca Ariel Jacobs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT

2

Case No. 14-03051-MEJ

 
 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SUSAN HARMAN, et al., 7
Plaintiffs, 8
v. 9
GREGORY J. AHERN, 10
Defendant. 11

Case No. 14-cv-03051-MEJ
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 23

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

INTRODUCTION

14

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias, and Jane Doe’s

15 (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

16 Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 23. Defendant Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern

17 (“Defendant”) filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 24) and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 25). The

18 Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the April 30,

19 2015 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’

20 positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

21 Motion for the reasons set forth below.

22

BACKGROUND

23

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging

24 that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department requires women arrested and booked into jail to

25 submit to a pregnancy test. Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1-1. They allege they were all required to

26 submit to pregnancy tests after being arrested in Alameda County. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Plaintiffs assert that

27 the policy violates: (1) their privacy rights under article I section 1 of the California Constitution

28 (First Cause of Action); (2) the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the

1 Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Second Cause of Action); (3) the right to be

2 free from unreasonable searches and seizures under article I section 13 of the California

3 Constitution (Third Cause of Action); (4) the requirement that inmates provide informed consent

4 before being subject to non-emergency medical care under California Code of Regulations, title 15

5 section 1214 (Fourth Cause of Action); and (5) the prohibition of illegally expending public funds

6 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a) (Fifth Cause of Action). Id. ¶¶ 25-43. In

7 their Sixth Cause of Action under the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 52.1, Plaintiffs seek

8 injunctive and equitable relief for interference with their rights by means of threats, intimidation,

9 or coercion. Id. ¶¶ 44-46. Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandate and injunction directing Defendant to

10 stop requiring female arrestees to take a pregnancy test, and a declaration that his actions in

11 requiring mandatory pregnancy testing are illegal. Id. at 8.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Although Plaintiffs allege that they were all subject to forced pregnancy testing, they

13 brought their Complaint as taxpayers and citizens, with the sole goal of preventing Defendant

14 from engaging in this policy in the future. Id. ¶ 4. For that reason, the operative complaint

15 requests only prospective equitable relief (a writ of mandate, an injunction, and a declaration that

16 the policy is illegal)—not damages. Id. at 8-9.

17

Defendant removed the case to this Court on July 3, 2014, on the basis of Plaintiffs’ Fourth

18 Amendment claim. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Remand on July 24,

19 2014. Dkt. No. 5. Although Plaintiffs stated that they had no objection to this Court deciding the

20 merits of their case, they were concerned that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to do so,

21 and therefore brought the motion “in order to raise this threshold question at the soonest possible

22 time, so that neither the Court nor the parties expend time and resources only to later find that the

23 Court has no power to hear the case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs noted that for two of the three

24 Plaintiffs—Harman and Doe—the Complaint made no suggestion that they will ever be arrested or

25 subject to Defendant’s policy and practice in the future. Id. at 4. Plaintiff Mancias, however, did

26 allege that she “continues to participate in political demonstrations and is sometimes arrested at

27 them,” and that she is suing “so that she will not be forced to undergo this intrusive testing during

28 future arrests in Alameda County,” in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Compl. ¶ 8. 2

1 Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs’ allegations were adequate to establish

2 standing. Dkt. No. 15.

3

On October 14, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, finding they have standing to

4 pursue their action in federal court. Dkt. No. 16. The Court ruled that Plaintiff Mancias has

5 standing to pursue an injunction because she has pleaded that she may be subject to the policy in

6 the future. Id. at 4. As standing could be shown for at least one plaintiff, the Court determined

7 that it need not consider the standing of the other plaintiffs to raise the same claims. Id.

8

After this ruling, in the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Defendant

9 stated that “Whether and/or to what extent Plaintiffs have standing” remains a legal issue in this

10 case,” and that “the Court’s prior standing ruling is not necessarily conclusive. New information

11 or circumstances may necessitate, in whole or in part a revised ruling.” Dkt. No. 20 at 6 & n.3.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Plaintiffs now move for leave to file an Amended Complaint to add a claim for nominal damages,

13 based on the possibility that Defendant may still challenge Plaintiffs’ standing. Mot. at 2.

14

LEGAL STANDARD

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a

16 matter of course within (1) 21 days after serving the pleading or (2) 21 days after the earlier of

17 service of a responsive pleading or service of a Rule 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

18 Outside of this timeframe, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written

19 consent or the court’s leave,” though the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.”

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Although the rule should be interpreted with ‘extreme liberality,’ leave

21 to amend is not to be granted automatically.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387

22 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).

23

A court considers five factors in determining whether to grant leave to amend: “(1) bad

24 faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5)

25 whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” In re Western States Wholesale Nat.

26 Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911

27 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)). “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.”

28 Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1387. 3

1

DISCUSSION

2 A. Bad Faith

3

Bad faith may be shown when a party seeks to amend late in the litigation process with

4 claims which were, or should have been, apparent early. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 846 (9th

5 Cir. 1995). Defendant does not argue that Plaintiffs seek to amend in bad faith. Further, in the

6 record before the Court, there is no indication of a bad faith purpose for Plaintiffs’ desire to

7 amend, and the Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is not motivated by bad faith.

8 B. Undue Delay

9

Plaintiffs maintain that there has been no undue delay in seeking leave to add their claim

10 for nominal damages, as the Court set a deadline of April 13, 2015 to seek leave to amend. Mot.

11 at 5. Defendant argues that “Plaintiffs have delayed unduly because they have known about the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 facts underlying their newly-proposed claims for over 2½ years (in Plaintiff Harman’s case), 1

13 year (in Plaintiff Doe’s case), and nearly 4 years (in Plaintiff Mancias’s case).” Opp’n at 3-4

14 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 11-18). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ delay “is particularly inappropriate

15 since they knew about the facts and theory underlying their newly proposed damages claims long

16 before they sued.” Id. at 4. Although Plaintiffs state that their request to amend is based on

17 Defendant’s statement that Plaintiffs’ standing remains a legal issue, Defendant notes that he has

18 not actually indicated he will challenge their standing. Id.

19

“[D]elay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to

20 amend.” United States v. Webb, 665 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Morongo Band of

21 Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). However, undue delay combined

22 with other factors may warrant denial of leave to amend. See, e.g., Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1387-89

23 (holding that prejudice and undue delay are sufficient to deny leave to amend); Morongo Band of

24 Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079 (“delay of nearly two years, while not alone enough to support

25 denial, is nevertheless relevant”).

26

A moving party’s inability to sufficiently explain its delay may indicate that the delay was

27 undue. Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1388. Whether the moving party knew or should have known the

28 facts and theories raised in the proposed amendment at the time it filed its original pleadings is a 4

1 relevant consideration in assessing untimeliness. Id. “[L]ate amendments to assert new theories

2 are not reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking

3 amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists &

4 Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986). “At some point, . . . a party may not

5 respond to an adverse ruling by claiming that another theory not previously advanced provides a

6 possible [ground] for relief and should be considered.” Ascon Prop., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866

7 F.2d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 1989) (quotation marks omitted).

8

In the January 9, 2015 Case Management Order, the Court directed the parties to seek

9 leave to amend on or before April 13, 2015. Case Management Order at 1, Dkt. No. No. 21. As

10 Plaintiffs filed the present Motion on March 26, 2015, their request is timely. Further, although

11 Plaintiffs allege that they were all subject to forced pregnancy testing, they did not initially seek

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 damages, as their goal was for Defendant to change the pregnancy testing policy. They sought

13 leave to add a nominal damages claim only after the parties were unable to reach an informal

14 resolution, and in part based on Defendant’s statement that standing remains a legal issue in this

15 case. See Yniguez v. State, 975 F.2d 646, 647 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A plaintiff’s pursuit of nominal

16 damages provides a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the litigation to confer standing

17 to pursue declaratory relief and thereby prevents mootness.” (citations omitted)); Carey v. Piphus,

18 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978) (deprivation of rights is “actionable for nominal damages without proof

19 of actual injury”). Further, this case remains in the early stages of litigation, with discovery

20 ongoing and the dispositive motion deadline nearly four months away. For these reasons, the

21 Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is not unduly delayed.

22 C. Prejudice to the Opposing Party

23

“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs,

24 Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “A need to reopen discovery and therefore

25 delay the proceedings supports a district court’s finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to

26 amend the complaint.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.

27 1999) (citing Solomon v. North Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1998)).

28 However, “[n]either delay resulting from the proposed amendment nor the prospect of additional 5

1 discovery needed by the non-moving party in itself constitutes a sufficient showing of prejudice.”

2 Tyco Thermal Controls LLC v. Redwood Indus., 2009 WL 4907512, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14,

3 2009).

4

Here, Defendant claims that the addition of a nominal damages claim will cause prejudice

5 “because Plaintiffs never have asserted a damages claim, [and] their personal experiences have

6 been irrelevant.” Opp’n at 5. As such, he “has conducted no discovery or investigation

7 concerning them.” Id. Defendant argues that persons with knowledge pertinent to Plaintiffs’

8 newly-proposed damages claims would most likely include people he could no longer identify or

9 locate, and for those who could be found, their recollections of pertinent events occurring as much

10 as four years ago would be significantly eroded, if not lost entirely. Id. Defendant also argues that

11 completing such an investigation and discovery would take “8-12 months.” Id. at 6.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to show how the addition of a claim for nominal

13 damages prejudices his defense. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ claim for “nominal damages will

14 not require any additional discovery because nominal damages require no proof of actual

15 damages.” In re Facebook Privacy Litig., 2015 WL 632329, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015)

16 (citing ProMex, 6 LLC v. Hernandez, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1019 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Cal. Civ.

17 Code § 3360)). As Plaintiffs do not seek to add any factual allegations, it is unclear why

18 Defendant would need up to an additional year for discovery on factual allegations which have

19 been known to him at least since they filed their Complaint.

20

Further, although Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ personal experiences have been

21 irrelevant, he fails to explain what discovery or evidence could be relevant to a claim for nominal

22 damages but not to a claim for injunctive relief. Moreover, in his Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

23 Defendant denied several material allegations, including denying that “plaintiffs have sustained

24 any injuries, losses, damages, or deprivation of rights of any kind or character as a result of any act

25 or omission on the part of this answering defendant.” Def.’s Answer ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 1-2. His

26 contention that Plaintiffs’ personal experiences have been irrelevant is at odds with Plaintiffs’

27 allegations regarding the injuries and deprivation of rights suffered by female inmates, including

28 themselves. See Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, 13, 16, 18. 6

1

Finally, as to Defendant’s claim that time has “destroyed or significantly eroded the quality

2 of evidence,” Def.’s Opp’n at 6, once again the Court notes that Plaintiffs have not alleged any

3 new facts in their proposed amended complaint. Thus, Defendant’s duty to preserve evidence has

4 not changed, and the Court cannot deny leave to amend based on the discovery choices Defendant

5 has made. See Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir. 1989) (filing of a lawsuit

6 “warns the defendant to collect and preserve his evidence in reference to . . . the whole transaction

7 described in it.”); In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal.

8 2006) (“As soon as a potential claim is identified, a litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence

9 which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” (citations omitted)).

10

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show prejudice based on the

11 addition of Plaintiffs’ nominal damages claim.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 D. Futility of Amendment

13

“A motion for leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be futile or legally

14 insufficient. However, a proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under

15 the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim [ ].” Miller v.

16 Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The standard to be

17 applied is identical to that on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

18 Id.

19

To satisfy the 12(b)(6) pleading standard, a plaintiff must plead his claim with sufficient

20 specificity to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it

21 rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[A] complaint must contain

22 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A

23 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

24 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

25 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

26

Defendant argues that amendment with respect to Plaintiffs Harman and Mancias would be

27 futile. As to Plaintiff Harman, Defendant argues that her claim for nominal damages is barred by

28 the statute of limitations, as her claim accrued nearly four years ago. Opp’n at 7. However, an 7

1 amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading when “the amendment asserts a claim

2 or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set

3 out—in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). “When a plaintiff seeks to amend a

4 complaint to state a new claim against an original defendant . . . the district court . . . compares the

5 original complaint with the amended complaint and decides whether the claim to be added will

6 likely be proved by the ‘same kind of evidence’ offered in support of the original pleading. In

7 making this decision, the court considers whether the ‘allegations of a new theory in an amended

8 complaint . . . involve [ ] the same transaction, occurrence, or core of operative facts involved in

9 the original claim.’” Percy v. S.F. General Hosp., 841 F.2d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation

10 omitted). The key question is whether the operative facts are similar enough to “impart fair notice

11 of the transaction, occurrence, or conduct called into question.” Martell, 872 F.2d at 327. The

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Ninth Circuit has made clear that the emphasis is not on the legal theory asserted by Plaintiff, but

13 rather on the operative facts of the claim. FDIC v. Jackson, 133 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir. 1998).

14

Here, because proposed amended complaint adds no new factual allegations, it is clear that

15 Plaintiff Harman’s claim for nominal damages arises “out of the conduct . . . set out” in the

16 original complaint. Martell, 872 F.2d at 325 (primary consideration under Rule 15(c) is whether

17 the original complaint provided adequate notice of the facts that form the basis of the claims). An

18 amended complaint that adds a damages claim to the previously pled equitable claims, without

19 alleging new facts, relates back under Rule 15(c). See Goodman v. Poland, 395 F. Supp. 660,

20 684-85 & n.16 (D. Md. 1975) (collecting cases). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harman’s

21 claim for nominal damages relates back to the June 2, 2014 Complaint.

22

Defendant also contends that futility forecloses a nominal damages claim by Plaintiff

23 Mancias because she had the option to decline pregnancy testing. Opp’n at 7. Defendant fails to

24 cite any authority explaining why this would make her claim for nominal damages futile.

25 Regardless, the Complaint alleges as follows:

26

Soon after she arrived at the jail, an officer ordered Ms. Mancias to

take a pregnancy test. Ms. Mancias responded: “Isn’t that a

27

violation of my civil liberties?” The officer told her that if she

refused to take the pregnancy test she would be sent to Santa Rita

28

Jail, some 30 miles from where she had been arrested. In response

8

to this coercion, Ms. Mancias took the test. 1

2 Complaint ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Given the allegation that Plaintiff Mancias was coerced into

3 taking a pregnancy test, the Court finds that she has stated a claim that is plausible on its face, and

4 Defendant has therefore failed to show that her claim for nominal damages would be futile.

5 E. Previous Amendments

6

Courts have broader discretion in denying motions for leave to amend after leave to amend

7 has already been granted. Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing

8 Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1999). In Chodos, the Ninth Circuit

9 affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend when the party knew of the factual basis for

10 the amendment prior to a previous amendment. 292 F.3d at 1003. Further, a party that contends it

11 learned “new” facts to support a claim should not assert a claim that it could have pleaded in

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 previous pleadings. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 2008 WL 913328, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

13 Apr. 2, 2008) (citing Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003).

14

Here, Plaintiffs have not previously sought leave to amend, and this factor therefore does

15 not inform the Court’s analysis.

16

CONCLUSION

17

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an

18 Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall e-file their amended complaint by April 30, 2015. No

19 chambers copy is required.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: April 24, 2015

23

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

24

United States Magistrate Judge

25

26

27

28 9

 
 Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 1 of 6
ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT,REFSET−KAW
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−03051−MEJ

Harman et al v. Ahern Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore (Settlement) Case in other court: Alameda County Superior Court,
RG14727494 Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Date Terminated: 05/05/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Susan Harman

represented by Christine Saunders Haskett Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7087 Fax: 415−591−6091 Email: chaskett@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Gealy England One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7048 Email: cengland@cov.com TERMINATED: 04/24/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill American Civil Liberties Union of No. Calif. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: egill@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Temple Risher ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: mrisher@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca Ariel Jacobs Covington and Burling LLP 1 Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7036 Fax: 415−955−6536 Email: rjacobs@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nancy Mancias

represented by

Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 2 of 6

Christine Saunders Haskett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Gealy England (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Temple Risher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jane Doe TERMINATED: 07/27/2015

represented by Christine Saunders Haskett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Gealy England (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Temple Risher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Gregory J. Ahern Alameda County Sheriff

represented by Gregory J. Rockwell Boornazian Jensen & Garthe A Professional Corporation 555 12th Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 12925 Oakland, CA 94604−2925 510−834−4350 Fax: 510−839−1897 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Grigg Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins 1981 N Broadway Suite 210

Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 3 of 6
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−906−0100 Email: mmg@hudginslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/03/2014 07/03/2014
07/03/2014 07/03/2014 07/07/2014 07/24/2014
07/24/2014 07/30/2014 08/05/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/07/2014

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Alameda County Superior Court. Their case number is RG14727494. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0971−8744713). Filed byGregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 7/3/2014) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gregory J. Ahern re 1 Notice of Removal, (Rockwell, Gregory) (Filed on 7/3/2014) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
Answer to Removed Complaint 1 byGregory J. Ahern. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 9/25/2014. Case Management Conference set for 10/2/2014 10:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order)(hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2014) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
5 MOTION to Remand filed by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 8/7/2014. Replies due by 8/14/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(England, Christine) (Filed on 7/24/2014) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias.. (England, Christine) (Filed on 7/24/2014) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
7 CLERKS NOTICE DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE CONSENT/DECLINATION BY 8/7/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2014) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
8 NOTICE by Gregory J. Ahern of Association of Counsel (Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins) (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
9 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Gregory J. Ahern.. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 8/6/2014) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
10 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATES filed by Gregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 8/6/2014) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
11 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 10 Stipulation regarding continuance of hearing dates. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2014) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 4 of 6

08/07/2014
08/27/2014 09/03/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014
10/13/2014 10/14/2014 10/14/2014 11/20/2014 11/24/2014 01/08/2015 01/09/2015
01/12/2015 01/12/2015
03/26/2015

Set/Reset Hearing re 11 Order on Stipulation Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2014) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
12 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Matthew M. Grigg (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 8/27/2014) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
13 MOTION to Continue STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING filed by Gregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
14 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 13 Motion to Continue Motion hearing and Case Management Conference. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing re 14 Order on Motion to Continue Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/13/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Motion to Remand Hearing set for 10/30/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
15 RESPONSE (re 5 MOTION to Remand ) filed byGregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 10/13/2014) (Entered: 10/13/2014)
16 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James denying 5 Motion to Remand (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
17 ORDER VACATING CMC. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 10/14/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
18 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Gregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 11/20/2014) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
19 ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 1/8/2015. Case Management Conference set for 1/15/2015 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 11/24/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2014) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
20 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Joint) filed by Gregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 1/8/2015) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
21 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings: 4/13/2015 Discovery due by 7/7/2015 Motions due by 8/6/2015 Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2015 Bench Trial set for 1/25/2016 Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 1/9/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
22 Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Settlement Conference set for 5/8/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/12/15. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
23 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. Motion Hearing set for 4/30/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 4/9/2015. Replies due by 4/16/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (First Amended Complaint), # 2 Proposed Order)(England, Christine) (Filed on 3/26/2015) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 5 of 6

04/09/2015 04/16/2015 04/24/2015 04/24/2015 04/24/2015 04/28/2015 04/28/2015
05/08/2015
06/10/2015 06/11/2015 06/11/2015
06/11/2015 06/11/2015 06/11/2015 06/12/2015 07/01/2015

24 RESPONSE (re 23 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint ) filed byGregory J. Ahern. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 4/9/2015) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
25 REPLY (re 23 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint ) filed byJane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (England, Christine) (Filed on 4/16/2015) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
26 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct ; Plaintiffs are required to E−FILE the amended document. No chambers copy is required (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
28 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Rebecca Ariel Jacobs (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 4/24/2015) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
29 COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Gregory J. Ahern. Filed bySusan Harman, Jane Doe, Nancy Mancias. (Haskett, Christine) (Filed on 4/28/2015) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
30 AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CORRECTED] against Gregory J. Ahern. Filed bySusan Harman, Jane Doe, Nancy Mancias. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Haskett, Christine) (Filed on 4/28/2015) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore: Case settled in principle. Settlement placed on the record.Settlement Conference held on 5/8/2015.FTR Time 6:05−6:14. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/8/2015) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO SUSPEND CASE DEADLINES filed by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 6/10/2015) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
33 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 32 Stipulation to Suspend Case Deadlines. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
34 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe filed by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. Motion Hearing set for 7/23/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 6/25/2015. Replies due by 7/2/2015. (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
35 Declaration of Rebecca A. Jacobs in Support of 34 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe filed byJane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Related document(s) 34 ) (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
36 Proposed Order re 34 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
37 RESPONSE (re 34 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel to Plaintiff Jane Doe ) (Non−Opposition) filed byGregory J. Ahern. (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
38 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 34 Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Jane Doe, on the condition that all papers from the Court and from Defendant shall continue to be served on Jane Does current counsel for forwarding purposes until a substitution of counsel is filed as provided by Civil Local Rule 11−5(b). (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-3051 As of: 09/18/2016 07:59 AM PDT 6 of 6

07/01/2015
07/07/2015 07/27/2015 08/17/2015 09/03/2015 09/08/2015
11/04/2015 11/04/2015 11/06/2015 05/04/2016 05/05/2016

39 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 8/6/2015 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 7/23/2015. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/1/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias ON JANE DOE (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 7/7/2015) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
41 ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE ONLY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/27/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
42 STATUS REPORT ORDER: Status Report due by 9/3/2015. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 8/17/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2015) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
43 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Haskett, Christine) (Filed on 9/3/2015) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
44 ORDER re 43 Status Report. If no dismissal has been filed, the parties shall filed an updated status report by 11/4/2015. This is a docket text order generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry. (Hon. Maria−Elena James) (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2015) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
45 STATUS REPORT −− Joint Status Report by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 11/4/2015) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
46 ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES. Dismissal or Joint Status Report due by 5/4/2016. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 11/4/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2015) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
47 NOTICE of Change of Address by Matthew M. Grigg (Grigg, Matthew) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
48 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Jane Doe, Susan Harman, Nancy Mancias. (Jacobs, Rebecca) (Filed on 5/4/2016) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
49 ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 5/5/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2016) (Entered: 05/05/2016)