Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 25

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com
2 KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013) kknapp@prisonlaw.com
3 PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street
4 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Fax: (510) 280-2704

6 JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (SBN 220934) jsantamaria@cooley.com

7

JEFFREY W. WALKER (SBN 280505) jwalker@cooley.com

8

COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street

9

Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

10 KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY(SBN 252294)

11

kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com PMB 233

12

1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615

13 Telephone: (408) 827-5024

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte

15

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

19 BRIAN CHAVEZ AND BRANDON

20

BRACAMONTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

21 situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

v.
23
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
24 Defendant.

25

Case No.
CLASS ACTION
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 25

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. Santa Clara County isolates hundreds of men and women in tiny, filthy

3 concrete jail cells as small as six by seven feet, and keeps them locked in these cells for 22

4 to 24 hours of every day, permitting them scant human contact, sunlight, fresh air,

5 exercise, and environmental stimulation for months or even years at a time. The County

6 does this to people who have not been convicted and are simply awaiting a court date.

7

2. The County locks up, indefinitely, hundreds of individuals in these cramped

8 jail cells at any given time. The County only allows them to go to small “yards” that are

9 enclosed within tall, solid concrete walls and steel mesh for a maximum of three hours a

10 week, which is their only access to fresh air and sunlight. For almost all of the remaining

11 hours, the County forces individuals to sit idle locked in their cells, often for 47 or more

12 hours at a time.

13

3. Santa Clara County, by its policy and practice of isolating people in these

14 inhumane conditions, is subjecting individuals to serious psychological and physiological

15 harm. Many individuals are already experiencing perceptible harm, including anxiety,

16 depression, social withdrawal, paranoia, agitation, and suicidal ideation. People with pre-

17 existing mental illness are suffering from more acute symptoms as a result of these policies

18 and practices. Jail officials have consistently denied or ignored individuals’ administrative

19 grievances and written requests to be removed from isolation. The County is deliberately

20 indifferent to the serious risk of harm caused by these conditions.

21

4. Santa Clara County has no legitimate justification for these inhumane

22 conditions. The classification system that the County uses to identify which individuals to

23 isolate in “solitary confinement” is, in the words of the County’s own consultants,

24 unreliable, invalid, and without integrity. Many people currently in solitary confinement

25 have not knowingly violated jail rules in years, if ever, and the County has never provided

26 any meaningful explanation for housing them in these harsh conditions.

27

28

1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 25

1

5. Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte, and the class they

2 represent, seek a declaration that Santa Clara County’s ongoing practices violate their

3 constitutional rights, and injunctive relief compelling Defendant to cease holding people in

4 the inhumane conditions of solitary confinement for prolonged periods, and to provide

5 individuals with meaningful notice and opportunities to challenge decisions to place them

6 in solitary confinement.

7

JURISDICTION

8

6. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

9 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

10

7. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

11 1343, and 1367. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343,

12 2201, and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

VENUE

14

8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

15 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

16 brought by plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District and Defendant is located

17 in this District.

18

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

19

9. Assignment to any division within this district is proper pursuant to Civil

20 L.R. 3-2(c) since this is a prisoner civil rights action. The events giving rise to this claim

21 arise in the County of Santa Clara.

22

PARTIES

23 Plaintiffs

24

10. Plaintiff Brian Chavez is a pretrial detainee in the Santa Clara jails in

25 custody of Defendant Santa Clara County. He was arrested in November 2011 on

26 narcotics and conspiracy charges, and has been subsequently indicted on conspiracy,

27 narcotics, and gang charges. He has not been convicted of any of these charges.

28 2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 25

1 Defendant has never charged him with any serious jail infractions, and he has not engaged

2 in any violent behaviors since he came to the jail four years ago. Santa Clara officials

3 housed him in various locations within the jail facilities, and appointed him a jail “trustee”.

4 Jail officials appoint as trustees only those individuals who have consistently demonstrated

5 good behavior, and give them special privileges and more time out of their cells than other

6 people. He remained a trustee until November 2014 when, without any explanation,

7 notice, hearing, or opportunity to challenge the decision, Defendant stripped Mr. Chavez of

8 his assignment as jail trustee and moved him to solitary confinement in the South Jail

9 Third West Maximum Unit (“Third West Max”). On November 4, 2015, Defendant

10 moved him to another solitary confinement unit in the North Jail again without any

11 explanation. In response to Mr. Chavez’s administrative grievances requesting to be

12 moved to less restrictive housing, Defendant has told him only that he is “properly housed”

13 and that his file will be reviewed every 30 days. Defendant has never allowed Mr. Chavez

14 to participate in such reviews, if, indeed, they have happened, or informed him of their

15 outcome.

16

11. Plaintiff Brandon Bracamonte is a pretrial detainee in the Santa Clara jails in

17 custody of Defendant Santa Clara County. He was arrested in April 2012 for carjacking

18 and has subsequently been indicted on conspiracy, robbery, and gang charges. As with

19 Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bracamonte has not been convicted of any of these charges. Defendant

20 has housed him in various locations and security levels within the jail facilities, including

21 in dorms and with cellmates, and has never found him guilty of any serious rule violations

22 or violent behaviors. Also like Mr. Chavez, jail officials appointed Mr. Bracamonte as a

23 jail trustee. In August 2013, the County alleged that Mr. Bracamonte participated in a

24 “gang assault,” but later concluded there was no credible evidence supporting the

25 allegations, and so did not formally charge him with a violation of jail rules. Similarly, the

26 District Attorney declined to prosecute the case. One to two months after that

27 unsubstantiated incident, Defendant moved him to Second East Maximum without any

28 3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 5 of 25

1 explanation, notice, or opportunity to challenge the decision. From November 2014 until

2 November 4, 2015, Defendant locked him in solitary confinement in Third West Max. On

3 November 4, 2015, Defendant moved him to another solitary confinement unit in the

4 North Jail without any explanation. In response to Mr. Bracamonte’s administrative

5 grievances requesting to be moved to less restrictive housing, Defendant told him that he

6 must be housed in solitary confinement because of the alleged “gang assault” in August

7 2013 for which he was never even charged, much less found guilty, and which he had no

8 opportunity to challenge.

9

12. From November 2014 until November 4, 2015, Defendant locked Mr.

10 Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte in separate six by seven foot windowless cells for at least 23

11 hours a day in Third West Max. The County exacerbated the conditions of these

12 exceedingly small cells by failing to keep them clean, thereby forcing Mr. Bracamonte and

13 Mr. Chavez to live in areas covered in filth and grime. Defendant typically only allowed

14 them out of their cells every other day, which means they often spent more than 48

15 consecutive hours locked down. Defendant never took them to the “yard,” and denied

16 them any access to natural light or fresh air, for seven months (November 2014 - June

17 2015). In July 2015, Defendant allowed them one hour a week in a caged enclosure on the

18 “yard” before sunrise. Mr. Chavez cannot remember the last time he felt direct sunlight.

19

13. When the County infrequently allowed them visits from their families,

20 Defendant took Mr. Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte out of their cells for a maximum of two

21 hours a week for non-contact visits through a glass window, speaking over a phone. The

22 only other time the County allowed them out of their cells was when correctional officers

23 moved them, alone, to another six by seven foot empty cell and adjacent stand-up shower

24 every other day for one hour. Defendant always chained and shackled them and regularly

25 strip searched them before they returned to their cells.

26

14. On November 4, 2015, Defendant moved Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bracamonte, and

27 a number of other individuals from Third West Max to another solitary confinement unit

28 4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 6 of 25

1 (4C) in the North Jail.1 But the conditions are no better. The cells in this unit measure

2 approximately eight by ten feet, and there is a window in each cell that filters in some light

3 through frosted glass. Plaintiffs are still locked down, alone, at least 23 hours a day in

4 unsanitary cells that Defendant has failed to clean. Defendant has denied them access to a

5 “yard” since November 4, 2015.

6

15. As a result of his prolonged isolation in solitary confinement, Mr. Chavez is

7 suffering from debilitating psychological damage. Although he is only 35 years old, he is

8 preoccupied with fears of dying alone and unnoticed in his cell. He withdraws from his

9 rare opportunities for social interaction, including when his family and friends attempt to

10 emotionally connect with him through occasional jail visits and letters. He is quickly and

11 easily irritated by minor noises such as someone tapping their fingers on a nearby surface.

12 He is often disoriented and confused about the time of day.

13

16. As a result of his prolonged isolation in solitary confinement, Mr.

14 Bracamonte is also suffering from debilitating psychological and physiological damage.

15 He suffers from insomnia and chronic fatigue. He suffers from anxiety that causes him to

16 pace back and forth, to the extent possible, in his small cell. Before the County sent Mr.

17 Bracamonte to solitary confinement, he passed the time by reading books. Now he cannot

18 read more than a few paragraphs without losing focus and needing to start over. He is

19 hypervigilant about certain noises; for instance he jumps to his feet when he hears alarms,

20 officers running, or cell doors popping open because he fears someone is coming to assault

21 him. He feels numb and distant when he speaks to his family, and he is no longer able to

22 emotionally connect with his wife and children.

23

24

25 1 This move occurred three days before members of a Blue Ribbon Commission were scheduled to 26 tour the jail on November 7, 2015. The Blue Ribbon Commission was formed by the County
Board of Supervisors to improve custody operations after three correctional officers were charged 27 with murdering a mentally ill pretrial detainee held in the North Jail.

28 5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 7 of 25

1

17. Mr. Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte have exhausted available administrative

2 remedies. They brought grievances challenging their conditions in solitary confinement,

3 and their assignment to solitary confinement, but Defendant denied these grievances.

4 Defendant

5

18. Defendant County of Santa Clara operates three jail facilities -- the Main Jail

6 Facility (including the South and North Jails), Elmwood Women’s Correctional Complex,

7 and the Elmwood Men’s Correctional Complex -- that incarcerate over 3,500 individuals.

8 The County is responsible for ensuring that the basic human needs of individuals in its

9 custody are met, and for ensuring that individuals are not at risk of serious harm, including

10 by providing appropriate funding, oversight, and corrective action to ensure adequate

11 conditions. The County is also responsible for ensuring that jail policies and practices do

12 not violate individuals’ substantive and procedural due process rights.

13

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14 I. 15

Santa Clara County Locks People in Inhumane Conditions for Months or Years at a Time.

16

19. Defendant, by policy and practice, locks hundreds of people in small cells for

17 at least 23 hours a day for months or years at time. The United States Department of

18 Justice defines “solitary confinement” as the “state of being confined to one’s cell for

19 approximately 22 hours per day or more, alone or with other prisoners, that limits contact 20 with others.”2 Over the last several decades, mental health and correctional experts have

21 documented the harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement. Prolonged solitary 22 confinement is defined as any period of time over three to four weeks.3 Common side-

23

24 2 U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of State Correctional Institution at Cresson, May 13,

25

2013, Attachment #7, p. 5, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf (last viewed on

26 October 15, 2015).

3 American Psychiatric Association, Position statement on segregation of people with mental 27 illness (2012), available from

28 (footnote continued)

6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 8 of 25

1 effects of prolonged solitary confinement include anxiety, panic, withdrawal,

2 hallucinations, self-mutilation, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Davis v. Ayala, 135

3 S.Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of

4 Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 325 (2006)). Defendant is deliberately

5 indifferent to the substantial and obvious risk of harm caused by its policy and practice of

6 locking people in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time.

7

A. Defendant locks people in cramped cells for at least 23 hours a day.

8

20. Defendant locks people in maximum security (including Plaintiffs Chavez

9 and Bracamonte), administrative segregation, or psychiatric housing for 23 hours or more a

10 day. Most of these individuals are locked alone in gray concrete cells that vary in size

11 from approximately six by seven to eight by ten feet. Defendant locks some of these

12 individuals in these tiny cells with a cellmate.

13

21. In the South Jail, which was built in 1956, the cells have no windows. The

14 doors to most of the cells are bars, but there is no visibility from one cell into another cell.

15 The cells only have room for a bed, writing table and stool, and a combined toilet and sink.

16 The cells have no access to fresh air or natural light, and no clocks.

17

22. In the more modern North Jail and Elmwood facilities, the gray concrete

18 cells are slightly bigger (eight by ten feet) and have the same limited furnishings, as well

19 as small, opaque windows to the outside. Because the window glass is opaque, the

20 individuals have no view of the outside world. The doors are solid metal with a food port

21 and a small rectangular window with a view toward a dayroom. There is no fresh air in the

22 cells and almost no natural light filters through the frosted glass in the exterior window.

23

23. Conditions in the Third West Maximum Unit (“Third West Max”), located in

24 the antiquated and worn down South Jail, are even more austere. This unit has the smallest

25

26 http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/Position-2012-Prisoners-
27 Segregation.pdf. (last viewed on November 2, 2015).

28 7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 9 of 25

1 cells, and there is no room for a writing table or stool. The doors are solid metal, with a

2 small rectangular window and food port that faces out to a dim, narrow hallway. There is

3 no access to fresh air or natural light, and there are no clocks.

4

24. Defendant typically only allows people in solitary confinement out of their

5 cells for “recreation” three hours a week; a few units periodically receive four hours a

6 week. “Recreation” consists of time spent in a dayroom, “yard,” or another cell.

7 Defendant prohibits them from attending any structured group recreational, religious,

8 educational, or vocational programs.

9

25. In the South Jail, the only access to fresh air and natural light is on the

10 “sundeck,” where Defendant locks individuals alone in cages that measure approximately

11 seven by fifteen feet. The cages are located in an area completely enclosed by tall concrete

12 walls and steel mesh overhead. An individual on the “sundeck” can the see the sky and the

13 tops of nearby buildings, but nothing else. There is nothing in the cages – no place to sit,

14 no exercise equipment, no toilet, and no access to water. Nonetheless, some individuals

15 choose to go to this “yard” just to get out of their cells and to interact with people in the

16 other cages. There are no dayrooms.

17

26. In the North Jail, people can go to a “yard,” alone, which is entirely enclosed

18 by concrete walls and steel mesh, with no seating, equipment, or activities. In the “yards”

19 connected to the dayrooms, individuals can move freely back and forth during the

20 regularly scheduled time they are allowed out of their cells, always alone. In the units

21 where the “yards” are separate from the dayrooms, people must ask the housing unit

22 officers to go to the “yard” during their out-of-cell time. If the housing unit officers decide

23 to grant their requests, the individuals must be chained and shackled, and, as such,

24 Defendant sometimes denies their requests because transporting them is burdensome.

25 People in the North Jail units are only given 25 minutes to one hour of out-of-cell time a

26 day, and within this time they must also shower, make phone calls, and use grooming

27 supplies (e.g., razors, nail clippers, hair clippers, etc.). This is also the only time

28 8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 10 of 25

1 Defendant allows individuals to interact face-to-face with other people through the glass

2 windows of closed cell doors. Thus, many individuals do not use the “yard” because there

3 is not enough time to go there and fulfill their other basic needs.

4

27. In many of the Elmwood cell-units, the outdoor “yards” are similar in design

5 to those in the North Jail. Defendant allows people out of their cells to use the “yard” and

6 dayroom one hour every other day.

7

28. All but a few of the Elmwood and North Jail dayrooms are stark and bare.

8 They do not have any tables, seating, or recreational activities other than televisions.

9

29. In Elmwood, an instructor comes once a week to teach yoga to women in

10 solitary confinement. However, the women are not let out of their cells for this class.

11 Instead, the instructor stands in the dayroom.

12

30. From November 2014 until the end of June 2015, Defendant never took

13 individuals in Third West Max, including Plaintiffs, to a “yard” or “sundeck.” Instead,

14 Defendant gave them “recreation” time in an empty cell the individuals in solitary

15 confinement have named “The Box.” The Box is a six by seven foot windowless cell that

16 is empty except for a phone and a toilet. The door to the cell is left open so that

17 individuals can come and go into the small stand-up shower immediately adjacent to the

18 cell. There is no place to sit, not enough room to do any meaningful exercise, and the cell

19 and shower are filthy. Defendant took people to The Box every other day for one hour,

20 which was their only time to shower and use the phone. However, due to the schedule

21 created and maintained by correctional officers, the single hour in The Box was regularly

22 late at night. When offered at this time, people sometimes refused because they could not

23 call their families or attorneys at that late hour, and when they were done showering there

24 was nothing left to do but stand there and wait until the hour was up.

25

31. On June 25, 2015, the Prison Law Office sent a letter to the Sheriff notifying

26 her, among other things, that she was obligated to provide outdoor time to people in Third

27 West Max. After receiving the June 25, 2015 letter, the County began taking people from

28 9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 11 of 25

1 this unit to the “sundeck” one hour a week. Before that, these individuals had not been

2 outside in seven months.

3

32. On November 4, 2015, Defendant moved Plaintiffs and a number of other

4 individuals to other solitary confinement units, including Unit 4C in the North Jail, and 5 Second West Maximum and the “E Dorms4” in the South Jail. Defendant has not taken

6 Plaintiffs Bracamonte and Chavez to a “yard” since they were moved to Unit 4C.

7

33. People in solitary confinement, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte,

8 have submitted administrative grievances requesting to receive more out-of-cell time,

9 including time on the yards. Defendant denied these requests, telling Mr. Bracamonte, for

10 example, that the one hour of outdoor time he received each week in Third West Max was

11 a “courtesy,” and he will not receive any additional time outdoors.

12

B. Conditions in Solitary Confinement Are Unduly Harsh.

13

34. The impact on people of being locked down in their cells nearly all of the

14 time is compounded by the harsh conditions and severe restrictions on all aspects of their

15 lives.

16

35. People in solitary confinement eat all of their meals inside their cells, usually

17 sitting on their beds.

18

36. Defendant shackles them every time they have contact with officers outside

19 of their cells. Officers frequently strip search them, in plain sight of other people,

20 sometimes up to six times a day. Their cells are thoroughly searched and their property is

21 strewn about by officers a few times a week.

22

37. Most people are locked in single-occupancy cells and cannot have normal

23 human conversations with other individuals. Their only avenues of communication are to

24 speak through the vents in their cells, or to yell loudly enough for people to hear through

25

26 4 The “E Dorms” are not actually dorms. The unit consists of single cells similar in design to 27 those in Third West Max.

28 10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 12 of 25

1 the cell walls and doors. Any communication with another suspected gang member, even

2 just a greeting, may be and has been used by Defendant to justify retention in solitary

3 confinement.

4

38. While some people are double-celled, being locked up with a cellmate in a

5 fifty square foot cell does not compensate for the severe isolation in solitary confinement.

6 Instead, double-celling requires two strangers to live around-the-clock in intolerably

7 cramped conditions, in a cell barely large enough for a single human being to stand or sit.

8

39. The units are loud – guards’ conversations echo throughout the unit all

9 day. Guards also open and close doors, and walk the unit with rattling keys and chains at

10 least every hour for count, safety checks, or to transport individuals. People yell from cell

11 to cell in an attempt to communicate, and individuals with mental illness yell and scream

12 incoherently or bang and rattle their cell doors.

13

40. When family visits do occur, Defendant limits them to a total of two hours

14 each week. Defendant does not allow any physical contact whatsoever; visits occur behind

15 a glass window, speaking over a telephone. This means that individuals are prohibited

16 from hugging or holding hands with visiting family members, children, or other loved

17 ones.

18

41. Despite the non-contact nature of family visits, Defendant strip searches

19 people in some of the solitary confinement units before and after each visit.

20

42. Property is tightly restricted. Defendant allows individuals a total of only

21 five books or magazines that family members can purchase for them, but correctional

22 officers make it difficult, or impossible, for people to swap those books out when they are

23 finished with them. Defendant only allows them one to two cubic feet of property and

24 prohibits individuals from putting up any decorations, drawings, photographs, or calendars

25 on the walls in an attempt to humanize their living spaces.

26

43. Defendant prohibits people in solitary confinement from using a broom,

27 mop, sponge, rag, or clean towel to clean their cells, and does not itself maintain sanitary

28 11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 13 of 25

1 conditions. Defendant issues a bathing towel to each individual. People who wish to keep

2 their cell clean must use their sole personal bathing towel to wipe down the floors and

3 surfaces, but they are reluctant to do so because correctional officers will not allow them to

4 exchange the towel for a clean one until the regularly scheduled laundry exchange that

5 occurs no more than once or twice a week. In addition, as a result of being locked in

6 solitary confinement, some people with mental illness throw or smear feces or urine.

7 When that happens, officers walk through and track feces and urine throughout the unit.

8 Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to maintain sanitary conditions, Plaintiffs

9 are forced to live in areas covered in dirt, hair, blood, feces, urine, food remnants, and

10 vermin, including large cockroaches.

11

44. Defendant, through their policies and practices, are directly responsible for

12 these harsh conditions and the related risk of harm.

13

C. Defendant is Deliberately Indifferent to the Harmful Effects of Solitary

Confinement.

14

15

45. Penological and psychological experts have documented for over a century

16 that people held in solitary confinement suffer from damaging physiological and

17 psychological consequences. All individuals are at risk of harm from these consequences,

18 not just those with pre-existing health conditions.

19

46. The most widely documented consequences of solitary confinement are its

20 psychological effects. These effects include (1) anxiety, ranging from persistent low-level

21 stress to full-blown panic attacks; (2) depression, ranging from flat/low mood to major

22 depression and feelings of hopelessness; (3) increased anger, ranging from irritability to

23 outbursts of violence; (4) cognitive disturbances, ranging from decreases in concentration

24 to total disorientation; (5) perceptual distortions, ranging from hypersensitivity to

25 hallucinations affecting all five senses; (6) paranoia and psychosis, ranging from

26 obsessional thoughts to full blown psychosis; and (7) increased risk of suicide and self-

27 harm. These effects frequently begin to manifest within hours or days of placement in

28 12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 14 of 25

1 solitary confinement, worsening with time and causing permanent damage to individuals,

2 especially those who linger in lockdown settings for months or years. These effects are

3 caused by the three main factors inherent in solitary confinement – social isolation, forced

4 idleness and inactivity, and the oppressive security and surveillance procedures (and the

5 weapons, hardware, and other paraphernalia that go along with them).

6

47. The physiological consequences are partly due to physical manifestations of

7 mental stress, and partly due to the extreme periods of inactivity, lack of natural light, and

8 lack of fresh air in solitary confinement. These consequences include gastro-intestinal and

9 cardiovascular problems, migraine headaches, profound fatigue, deteriorating eyesight,

10 back and joint pain, and aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions.

11

48. People with mental health problems are especially susceptible to harm by

12 prolonged isolation in solitary confinement. These individuals are more sensitive and

13 reactive to psychological stressors and emotional pain, and the direct negative

14 psychological effects of solitary confinement mimic already existing symptoms of mental

15 illness. As a result, solitary confinement worsens their psychiatric conditions and

16 intensifies their mental health related symptoms (including depression, psychosis, and self-

17 harm). In recognition of these well accepted facts, many correctional systems prohibit the

18 placement of people with mental illness in solitary confinement, or at least limit its use to

19 only when absolutely necessary (and only as a last resort) for a strictly limited timeframe

20 that is augmented with significant amounts of out-of-cell time and increased access to

21 mental health care.

22

49. In light of the well-documented harms described above, there is an

23 international consensus that the type of prolonged solitary confinement practiced by

24 Defendant violates international human rights norms and civilized standards of humanity

25 and human dignity. International human rights organizations and bodies, including the

26 United Nations, have condemned indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement as a human

27 rights abuse that can amount to torture.

28 13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 15 of 25

1

50. People in the Santa Clara County jails are suffering from the harms described

2 above as a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of locking them down 22 to 23 hours a

3 day without adequate access to social interaction, fresh air, natural light, exercise, and

4 stimulation. Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, for example, are suffering from symptoms

5 including hyper-sensitivity to stimuli, paranoia, anxiety, social withdrawal, emotional

6 numbness, and feelings of overall deterioration.

7

51. People with mental illness are especially vulnerable to the harms caused by

8 solitary confinement and, therefore, should be excluded from those units. Defendant fails

9 to screen individuals for mental illness before locking them in solitary confinement.

10 Defendant also fails to provide adequate mental health services to any individuals housed

11 in solitary confinement. Consequently, people with mental illness are experiencing

12 suicidal ideation, hallucinations, delusions, and are acting out by making suicidal gestures,

13 yelling and screaming, and smearing feces. Instead of reducing the risk of harm by

14 removing them from solitary confinement, correctional officers, in accordance with

15 Defendant’s policies and procedures, place them in restraint chairs and/or increase the

16 amount of time they are locked in their cells.

17

52. Individuals, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, who have managed

18 to avoid complete mental decompensation have done so thus far by developing harmful

19 responses that deaden feelings and emotions, and suppress anger. They attempt to

20 suppress that rage in order to avoid self-destruction, irresponsible acts of violence, or a

21 mental breakdown. Plaintiffs’ attempts at suppression, in combination with their isolation,

22 have led them to increasingly withdraw into themselves and become emotionally numb to

23 the point of feeling “non-human.”

24

53. Defendant is aware of the risk of harm caused by its actions. On June 25,

25 2015, the Prison Law Office sent a letter describing the risk of harm to individuals

26 resulting from Defendant’s policies and practices related to solitary confinement, and

27 requested a meeting. The Sheriff and other jail managers met with the Prison Law Office

28 14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 16 of 25

1 but did not agree to significantly ameliorate the harmful conditions in solitary

2 confinement. The Prison Law Office sent another letter to Defendant on August 5, 2015,

3 again describing the risk of harm, and requested a second meeting to negotiate an

4 agreement to implement measures that would reduce that risk of harm.

5

54. Numerous individuals, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, have

6 also repeatedly requested, through internal jail request forms and grievances, to be

7 removed from solitary confinement because of harm caused by the inhumane conditions.

8 Defendant has not moved any people out of solitary confinement in response to these

9 requests. Community organizations, including family members, have met with and

10 contacted Sheriff’s Department staff and members of the Board of Supervisors repeatedly

11 about conditions in solitary confinement. Defendant has refused to ameliorate the harsh

12 conditions in response to their concerns.

13 II. 14

People are Locked in Solitary Confinement Even Though They Pose No Threat to Safety or Security and Have No Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge Their Placement.

15

55. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement for indefinite terms based on

16 a classification system that their own consultants have called “questionable” because it

17 lacks validity, reliability, and integrity. Defendant does not make decisions about where

18 individuals should be housed using standardized classification policies and procedures.

19 Valid and reliable classification policies and procedures are based on quantitative and

20 objective factors, focused on people’s behaviors, that identify their custody and security

21 requirements. Defendant does not use such classification policies and procedures.

22

56. In July 2014, Defendant hired a correctional consulting firm, MGT of

23 America, Inc. (MGT), to evaluate jail conditions and systems. In December 2014, MGT

24 produced a report that, among other things, excoriated Defendant’s jail classification

25 system. It found the system to be exceptionally complicated and highly subjective and

26 concluded that jail staff is not appropriately trained on the system. MGT warned that the

27 system “creates a potential risk of costly mistakes.” MGT also found that Defendant does

28 15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 17 of 25

1 not consider individuals’ actual institutional behaviors when classifying them. For

2 example, nearly 20% of people identified as maximum security are classified that way due

3 only to their criminal charges and not their behaviors in the jail, which MGT found to be

4 unacceptable.

5

57. Defendant maintains this system even though there is no penological basis

6 for doing so. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement who pose no legitimate

7 security threat to staff or other prisoners. For example, Mr. Chavez has been in custody

8 since 2011, but has never been violent or charged with any serious rule violations in the

9 jail. Defendant has housed him in various locations with varying levels of restrictions

10 throughout the jail without incident. Indeed, for two years jail officials gave him special

11 privileges as a jail trustee because of his good behavior. Then, in November 2014,

12 Defendant moved him to solitary confinement in Third West Max and stripped him of his

13 trustee assignment even though he continued to remain discipline free.

14

58. Other jurisdictions, including the California Department of Corrections and

15 Rehabilitation (CDCR), have ended the practice of housing prisoners in solitary

16 confinement just because they are suspected gang members. CDCR prisoners housed in

17 the most restrictive settings have significantly more out-of-cell time than people in

18 Defendant’s solitary confinement cells.

19

59. Defendant also has a policy and practice of locking people in solitary

20 confinement who have only been charged with minor rules violations that do not justify

21 such restrictive housing. For example, the County has locked a woman in solitary

22 confinement for two and a half years even though her most serious offenses have been

23 talking back to correctional officers or yelling and banging on her cell door with other

24 individuals in the unit.

25

60. Defendant also has a policy and practice of locking people in solitary

26 confinement without notice, explanation, written reasons for the decision, or an

27 opportunity to present witnesses or documentary evidence to challenge the decision. For

28 16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 18 of 25

1 example, correctional officers told Mr. Bracamonte that he was housed in Third West Max

2 because of his participation in an alleged “gang assault” over two years ago, where his

3 only involvement was being present in the dayroom when the purported assault took place.

4 Defendant has not presented Mr. Bracamonte with any evidence that he assaulted, or

5 planned to assault, another person, and has denied him any opportunity to challenge his

6 placement.

7

61. There is no meaningful avenue to contest an incorrect placement decision.

8 Several people, including Plaintiffs, have attempted to challenge classification decisions

9 through the grievance system, and the County’s only response is that they have been

10 “properly housed” and they will not be moved. The County has told others that their

11 classification status will be reviewed every 30 days, but individuals cannot participate in

12 this review process and the reviews rarely, if ever, result in changes to classification status

13 for those in solitary confinement. Such reviews are therefore meaningless.

14

62. Defendant’s policy and practice retains people in solitary confinement

15 arbitrarily despite their good behavior, in reliance on opaque classification decisions, and

16 without reasonable penological justification.

17 III. Class Allegations

18

63. Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte bring this action on their

19 own behalves and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

20 Procedure, on behalf of all people in Defendant’s custody who are or will in the future be

21 locked in their cells for 22 hours a day or more for a period of three weeks or longer. By

22 locking people in prolonged solitary confinement, Defendant is depriving hundreds of

23 class members at least one basic human need including physical exercise, fresh air,

24 sunlight, normal human contact, meaningful activity, and environmental stimulation. In

25 addition, all class members are at risk of, and some are already suffering from, significant

26 mental and physical harm. While the exact nature of those harms may differ in some

27 respects for each prisoner, the source of the harm complained of here is the same – namely,

28 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 19 of 25

1 Defendant’s policies and practices in placing the class of prisoners for prolonged periods

2 of time in conditions of confinement are shown to cause serious mental and physical harm

3 in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.

4

64. Class members are also being held in solitary confinement for no legitimate

5 security purpose, and/or without (1) a hearing with advance written notice (except in case

6 of a genuine emergency) before initial placement, and/or (2) the opportunity to present

7 witnesses and documentary evidence, and/or (3) written reasons for the decision, and/or (4)

8 counsel-substitute for an illiterate or disabled inmate or in a case with complex issues,

9 and/or (5) meaningful review of their placements in violation of the Due Process Clause of

10 the Fourteenth Amendment.

11

65. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including whether

12 Defendant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by its policy and

13 practice of (1) denying individuals’ basic human needs by locking them in their cells for

14 22 to 24 hours a day for periods of three weeks or longer; (2) locking people in solitary

15 confinement for minor rules violations or because they are suspected gang members; and

16 (3) locking people in solitary confinement without a hearing, written notice, an opportunity

17 to defend themselves through witness or documentary evidence, or meaningful review of

18 their placements.

19

66. Since there are at least hundreds of class members, separate actions by

20 individuals would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in

21 turn would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

22

67. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds that apply generally to the

23 class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting

24 the class as a whole.

25

68. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class, since their claims

26 arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct and their claims are based

27 on the same theory of law as the class’s claims.

28 18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 20 of 25

1

69. The named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the

2 interests of the class. Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the plaintiff class.

3 Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and

4 omissions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil

5 rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.

6

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

7

First Cause of Action

(Fourteenth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Conditions) 8

9

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

10 preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

11

71. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant has deprived and

12 continues to deprive Plaintiffs and the class of the minimal civilized measure of life’s

13 necessities, and has violated their basic human dignity and their right to be free from cruel

14 and unusual conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

15 for each of the reasons set forth below.

16

A. Deprivation of Basic Human Need

17

72. First, the effect of prolonged confinement constitutes a serious deprivation of

18 at least one basic human need, including, but not limited to, normal human contact,

19 environmental and sensory stimulation, mental and physical health, physical exercise,

20 fresh air, sunlight, and meaningful activity.

21

B. Imposition of Serious Psychological and Physical Injury, Pain and Suffering

22

73. Second, prolonged exposure to these deprivations of basic human needs is

23 currently imposing permanent psychological and physical injury on Plaintiffs and the class

24 they represent.

25

74. In addition to Plaintiffs’ current psychological and physical pain, the

26 likelihood that Plaintiffs and the class will remain in solitary confinement for the

27

28 19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 21 of 25

1 foreseeable future subjects Plaintiffs and the class they represent to a significant risk of

2 debilitating and permanent mental illness and physical harm.

3

C. Deprivation of Human Dignity in Violation of Contemporary Standards of

Human Decency

4

5

75. Third, Defendant’s continuation of class members’ solitary confinement for

6 many months or years under the debilitating and extreme conditions strips human beings

7 of their basic dignity and humanity in violation of contemporary standards of human

8 decency and constitutes cruel and unusual conditions prohibited by the Fourteenth

9 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

10

D. Unlawful Punishment

11

76. Fourth, Defendant has no legitimate penological interest in retaining

12 Plaintiffs and the class indefinitely in the debilitating conditions of solitary confinement

13 simply because of their charges, gang status, or minor rules violations. Accordingly,

14 Defendant’s policy of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement constitutes unlawful

15 punishment of individuals who have not been convicted.

16

E. Defendant’s Deliberate Indifference

17

77. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to

18 be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

19 concert under color of state law, in their official capacity.

20

78. Defendant has been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of

21 herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

22

79. It should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the

23 conditions imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

24 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly been

25 made aware, through administrative grievances and written complaints, that class members

26 are currently experiencing, or are at risk of, significant and lasting injury. Defendant has

27 been deliberately indifferent to the class members’ pain and suffering.

28 20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 22 of 25

1

Second Cause of Action (Fourteenth Amendment – Procedural Due Process)

2

3

80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

4 Paragraphs 1-69 as if set forth fully herein.

5

81. Defendant’s policy of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement subjects

6 Plaintiffs and the class to a significant deprivation of liberty without any procedural

7 safeguards.

8

82. Plaintiffs and the class have a liberty interest, conferred by statewide

9 regulations, in not being confined in solitary confinement unless it is necessary to ensure

10 the safety and security of staff and other individuals. See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, §§

11 1050, 1053.

12

83. The conditions and the duration of Defendant’s placement of Plaintiffs and

13 class members in solitary confinement constitute an atypical and significant hardship as

14 compared with the ordinary incidents of jail life because of the harsh and isolated

15 conditions and the lengthy duration of confinement in those conditions. People in solitary

16 confinement, as compared to other individuals in the jail, have significantly less or no

17 access to social interaction, environmental stimulation, programs and activities, physical

18 exercise, personal property, sunlight, and fresh air. They are also subjected to, as

19 compared to other individuals in the jail, significantly more oppressive security measures,

20 including cell searches, strip searches, and restraints.

21

84. Because prolonged placement in solitary confinement constitutes a

22 significant and atypical hardship, by the policies and practices described herein, Defendant

23 has deprived Plaintiffs and class members of a liberty interest without due process of law

24 by denying them (1) a hearing with advance written notice before initial placement in

25 solitary confinement, (2) the opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence,

26 (3) written reasons for the decision, (4) counsel-substitute for an illiterate or disabled

27 individuals or in a case with complex issues, and (5) meaningful and timely periodic

28 review of their continued long-term and indefinite detention in solitary confinement and

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 23 of 25

1 meaningful notice of what they must do to earn release, in violation of the Fourteenth

2 Amendment to the United States Constitution.

3

85. The costs to Defendant of providing such procedural safeguards would be

4 minimal, and any such costs are outweighed by the great risk of erroneous deprivation of

5 liberty that exists under Defendant’s current policies and practices.

6

86. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to

7 be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

8 concert under color of state law, in their official capacity.

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10

87. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to

11 redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will

12 continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies,

13 and practices of the Defendant as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief

14 they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under

15 the Constitution of the United States.

16

88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the class they

17 represent, request that this Court grant them the following relief:

18

A. Declare the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of

19 Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

20

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices

21 of Defendant and its agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the rights of

22 Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

23 Constitution;

24

C. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

25 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon

26 as practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious harm that Plaintiffs and

27 members of the class suffer due to Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people in

28 22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 24 of 25

1 their cells for 22 hours or more a day for three weeks or longer, to ensure that people are

2 not housed in restrictive housing without a legitimate penological purpose, and to provide

3 a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to challenge classification decisions resulting in

4 solitary confinement. Defendant’s plan must include at a minimum the following:

5

1. Elimination of the conditions of confinement for people in solitary confinement

6 so that individuals are no longer incarcerated under conditions of isolation, sensory

7 deprivation, lack of social and physical human contact, unsanitary conditions, and

8 environmental deprivation;

9

2. The release from restricted housing for those individuals who do not pose a

10 legitimate security threat;

11

3. Standardized classification policies and procedures based on objective and

12 quantitative factors that focus on individuals’ in-jail behavior; and

13

4. Provision of (1) a hearing with advance written notice before initial placement in

14 solitary confinement, (2) the opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence,

15 (3) written reasons for the decision, (4) counsel-substitute for an illiterate or disabled

16 person or in a case with complex issues, and (5) meaningful and timely periodic review of

17 their continued long-term and indefinite detention in solitary confinement.

18

E. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the costs of this suit and

19 reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;

20

F. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendant has fully complied with the

21 orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendant will continue to

22 comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

23

G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

24

25

26

27

28 23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 25 of 25

1 Dated: November 18, 2015

PRISON LAW OFFICE

2

By: /s/ Kelly Knapp 3
DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)

4

KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)

1917 Fifth Street

5

Berkeley, California 94710

Telephone: (510) 280-2621

6

Fax: (510) 280-2704

7

COOLEY LLP

8

By: /s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria

9

JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA

(SBN 220934)

10

JEFFREY W. WALKER (SBN 280505)

3175 Hanover Street

11

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 843-5000

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
124180252
19

By: /s/ Kendall Dawson Wasley
KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY (SBN 252294) PMB 233 1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615 Telephone: (408) 827-5024
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 34

1

DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com

2 KELLY KNAPP (SBN 252013)

kknapp@prisonlaw.com 3 PRISON LAW OFFICE

4 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710

5 Telephone: (510) 280-2621

6 Fax: (510) 280-2704

7 JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA

(SBN 220934) jsantamaria@cooley.com 8 JEFFREY W. WALKER (SBN 280505)

9 jwalker@cooley.com ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374)

10 alitton@cooley.com

11

COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street

12 Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 843-5000 13

KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY(SBN 14 252294) kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com

15 PMB 233 1520 E. Covell Blvd.

16 Davis, CA 95615

17 Telephone: (408) 827-5024

18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian Chavez
and Brandon Bracamonte 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21

22 BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON 23 BRACAMONTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly 24 situated,

25 26 v.

Plaintiffs,

27 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

28 Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-NJV
CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 34

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. Santa Clara County isolates hundreds of men and women in tiny, filthy

3 concrete jail cells as small as six by seven feet, and keeps them locked in these cells for 22

4 to 24 hours of every day, permitting them scant human contact, sunlight, fresh air,

5 exercise, and environmental stimulation for months or even years at a time. The County

6 does not only impose these harsh conditions on people who have been sentenced to jail

7 terms; it also subjects people who have not been convicted and are simply awaiting a court

8 date to the same treatment.

9

2. The County locks up, indefinitely, hundreds of individuals in these cramped

10 jail cells at any given time. The County only allows them to go to small “yards” that are

11 enclosed within tall, solid concrete walls and steel mesh for a few hours a week, which is

12 their only access to fresh air and sunlight. For almost all of the remaining hours, the

13 County forces individuals to sit idle locked in their cells, often for 47 or more hours at a

14 time.

15

3. Santa Clara County, by its policy and practice of isolating people in these

16 inhumane conditions, is subjecting individuals to serious psychological and physiological

17 harm. Many individuals are already experiencing perceptible harm, including anxiety,

18 depression, social withdrawal, paranoia, agitation, and suicidal ideation. People with pre-

19 existing mental illness are suffering from more acute symptoms as a result of these policies

20 and practices. Jail officials have consistently denied or ignored individuals’ administrative

21 grievances and written requests to be removed from isolation. The County is deliberately

22 indifferent to the serious risk of harm caused by these conditions.

23

4. Santa Clara County has no legitimate justification for these inhumane

24 conditions. The classification system that the County uses to identify which individuals to

25 isolate in “solitary confinement” is, in the words of the County’s own consultants,

26 unreliable, invalid, and without integrity. Many people currently in solitary confinement

27 have not violated jail rules in years, if ever, and the County has never provided any

28 meaningful explanation for housing them in these harsh conditions.

1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 34

1

5. Santa Clara County also, by policy and practice, subjects individuals to

2 significant harm from the excessive use of force. Correctional officers inflict serious

3 physical injury on people under their supervision, sometimes leading to their death, when

4 it is not necessary to control their behavior or maintain order in the jails. These patterns of

5 excessive force occur because the County’s policies and procedures, supervision, training,

6 investigation, and discipline are deficient.

7

6. The County, by policy and practice, fails to provide adequate medical,

8 mental health, and dental care to people in the jails. There are intolerable delays in clinical

9 appointments and medication delivery, there is no therapy for people with serious mental

10 illness, the suicide prevention measures are dangerously ineffective, and the only readily

11 available dental services are tooth extractions and temporary fillings. These deficiencies

12 and others result in preventable injuries and death.

13

7. Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte, and the class they

14 represent, seek a declaration that Santa Clara County’s ongoing practices violate their

15 constitutional rights, and seek injunctive relief compelling Defendant to cease holding

16 people in the inhumane conditions of solitary confinement for prolonged periods, to

17 provide individuals with meaningful notice and opportunities to challenge decisions to

18 place them in solitary confinement, to provide constitutionally adequate healthcare, and to

19 cease the unnecessary and excessive use of force.

20

JURISDICTION

21

8. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth

22 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with

23 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

24 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

25

9. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

26 1343, and 1367. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343,

27 2201, and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

28

2
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 34

1

VENUE

2

10. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

3 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

4 brought by Plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District and Defendant is located

5 in this District.

6

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7

11. Assignment to any division within this district is proper pursuant to Civil

8 L.R. 3-2(c) since this is a prisoner civil rights action. The events giving rise to this claim

9 arise in the County of Santa Clara.

10

PARTIES

11 Plaintiffs

12

12. Plaintiff Brian Chavez is a pretrial detainee in the Santa Clara jails in

13 custody of Defendant Santa Clara County. He was arrested in November 2011 on

14 narcotics and conspiracy charges, and has been subsequently indicted on conspiracy,

15 narcotics, and gang charges. He has not been convicted of any of these charges.

16 Defendant has never charged Mr. Chavez with any serious jail infractions, and he has not

17 engaged in any violent behaviors since he came to the jail four years ago. Santa Clara

18 officials housed him in various locations within the jail facilities, and appointed him a jail

19 “trustee.” Jail officials appoint as trustees only those individuals who have consistently

20 demonstrated good behavior, and give them special privileges and more time out of their

21 cells than other people. He remained a trustee until November 2014 when, without any

22 explanation, notice, hearing, or opportunity to challenge the decision, Defendant stripped

23 Mr. Chavez of his assignment as jail trustee and moved him to solitary confinement in the

24 South Jail Third West Maximum Unit (“Third West Max”). Mr. Chavez stayed in Third

25 West Max until November 4, 2015, when Defendant moved him to another solitary

26 confinement unit in the North Jail again without any explanation. In response to Mr.

27 Chavez’s administrative grievances requesting to be moved to less restrictive housing,

28 Defendant has told him only that he is “properly housed” and that his file will be reviewed

3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 34

1 every 30 days. Defendant has never allowed Mr. Chavez to participate in such reviews, if,

2 indeed, they have happened, or informed him of their outcome.

3

13. Plaintiff Brandon Bracamonte is a convicted prisoner in the Santa Clara jails

4 in custody of Defendant Santa Clara County. He was arrested in April 2012 for carjacking

5 and was subsequently indicted on conspiracy, robbery, and gang charges. Mr. Bracamonte

6 was convicted of carjacking, and is awaiting trial on the remaining charges. The County

7 has housed him in various locations and security levels within the jail facilities, including

8 in dorms and with cellmates, and has never found him guilty of any serious rule violations

9 or violent behaviors. Like Mr. Chavez, jail officials appointed Mr. Bracamonte as a jail

10 “trustee.” In August 2013, the County alleged that Mr. Bracamonte participated in a “gang

11 assault,” but did not formally charge him with a violation of jail rules. Similarly, the

12 district attorney’s office concluded there was no credible evidence supporting the

13 allegations, and so dismissed all charges in a related criminal case. One to two months

14 after that unsubstantiated incident, Defendant moved him to Second East Maximum

15 without any explanation, notice, or opportunity to challenge the decision. From November

16 2014 until November 4, 2015, Defendant locked him in solitary confinement in Third West

17 Max. On November 4, 2015, Defendant moved him to another solitary confinement unit

18 in the North Jail without any explanation. In response to Mr. Bracamonte’s administrative

19 grievances requesting to be moved to less restrictive housing, Defendant told him that he

20 must be housed in solitary confinement because of the alleged “gang assault” in August

21 2013 for which he was never found guilty, and which he had no opportunity to challenge.

22

14. From November 2014 until November 4, 2015, Defendant locked Mr.

23 Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte in separate six by seven foot windowless cells for at least 23

24 hours a day in Third West Max. The County exacerbated the conditions of these

25 exceedingly small cells by failing to keep them clean, thereby forcing Mr. Bracamonte and

26 Mr. Chavez to live in areas covered in filth and grime. Defendant typically only allowed

27 them out of their cells every other day, which means they often spent more than 48

28 consecutive hours locked down. Defendant never took them to the “yard,” and denied

4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 34

1 them any access to natural light or fresh air, for seven months (November 2014 - June

2 2015). In July 2015, Defendant allowed them one hour a week in a caged enclosure on the

3 “yard” before sunrise.

4

15. Though the County only allowed them visits from their families infrequently,

5 when it did permit such visits, Defendant took Mr. Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte out of

6 their cells for a maximum of two hours a week for non-contact visits through a glass

7 window, speaking over a phone. The only other time the County allowed them out of their

8 cells was when correctional officers moved them, alone, to another six by seven foot

9 empty cell and adjacent stand-up shower every other day for one hour. Defendant always

10 chained and shackled them and regularly strip searched them before they returned to their

11 cells.

12

16. On November 4, 2015, Defendant moved Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bracamonte, and

13 a number of other individuals from Third West Max to another solitary confinement unit 14 (4C) in the North Jail.1 The cells in this unit measure approximately eight by ten feet.

15 Within a few days of this action being filed, Defendant began occasionally letting Mr.

16 Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte out of their cells into the dayroom for three-hour blocks of

17 time a few times a week where there are no activities or furniture other than a plastic chair.

18 This three-hour block of time is often offered from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. when there is nothing

19 to do but sit in silence to avoid waking others who are sleeping. Individuals in other North

20 Jail solitary confinement units, and some individuals in Unit 4C, only receive one hour out

21 of their cells every 48 hours.

22

17. As a result of his prolonged isolation in solitary confinement, Mr. Chavez is

23 suffering from debilitating psychological damage. Although he is only 35 years old, he is

24 preoccupied with fears of dying alone and unnoticed in his cell. He withdraws from his

25
26 1 This move occurred three days before members of a Blue Ribbon Commission were scheduled to
tour the jail on November 7, 2015. The Blue Ribbon Commission was formed by the County
27 Board of Supervisors to improve custody operations after three correctional officers were charged,
on September 8, 2015, with murdering a mentally ill pretrial detainee held in the North Jail.
28

5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 34

1 rare opportunities for social interaction, including when his family and friends attempt to

2 emotionally connect with him through occasional jail visits and letters. He is quickly and

3 easily irritated by minor noises such as someone tapping their fingers on a nearby surface.

4 He is often disoriented and confused about the time of day. Defendant has failed to

5 provide Mr. Chavez with any mental health treatment to treat these symptoms.

6

18. As a result of his prolonged isolation in solitary confinement, Mr.

7 Bracamonte is also suffering from debilitating psychological and physiological damage.

8 He suffers from insomnia and chronic fatigue. He suffers from anxiety that causes him to

9 pace back and forth, to the extent possible, in his small cell. Before the County sent Mr.

10 Bracamonte to solitary confinement, he passed the time by reading books. Now he cannot

11 read more than a few paragraphs without losing focus and needing to start over. He is

12 hypervigilant about certain noises; for instance, he jumps to his feet when he hears alarms,

13 officers running, or cell doors popping open because he fears someone is coming to assault

14 him. He feels numb and distant when he speaks to his family, and he is no longer able to

15 emotionally connect with his wife and children. Mr. Bracamonte submitted a written

16 request for mental health care to treat these symptoms in May 2015, but Defendant failed

17 to review and respond to his request until seven months later. To date, he has not received

18 any meaningful mental health treatment.

19

19. Mr. Chavez and Mr. Bracamonte have exhausted available administrative

20 remedies. They brought grievances challenging the conditions in solitary confinement,

21 and their assignment to solitary confinement, but Defendant denied these grievances.

22 Defendant

23

20. Defendant County of Santa Clara operates three jail facilities – the Main Jail

24 Facility (including the South and North Jails), Elmwood Women’s Correctional Complex,

25 and the Elmwood Men’s Correctional Complex – that incarcerate over 3,500 individuals.

26 The County is responsible for ensuring that the basic human needs of individuals in its

27 custody are met, and for ensuring that individuals are not at risk of serious harm, including

28 by providing appropriate funding, oversight, and corrective action to ensure adequate

6
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 8 of 34

1 conditions. The County is also responsible for ensuring that jail policies and practices do

2 not violate individuals’ substantive and procedural due process rights.

3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4 I. Santa Clara County Locks People in Inhumane Conditions for Months or

5

Years at a Time.

6

21. Defendant, by policy and practice, locks hundreds of people in small cells for

7 at least 23 hours a day for months or years at time. The United States Department of

8 Justice defines “solitary confinement” as the “state of being confined to one’s cell for

9 approximately 22 hours per day or more, alone or with other prisoners, that limits contact 10 with others.”2 Over the last several decades, mental health and correctional experts have

11 documented the harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement. Prolonged solitary 12 confinement is defined as any period of time over three to four weeks.3 Common side-

13 effects of prolonged solitary confinement include anxiety, panic, withdrawal,

14 hallucinations, self-mutilation, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Davis v. Ayala, 135

15 S.Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of

16 Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 325 (2006)). Defendant is deliberately

17 indifferent to the substantial and obvious risk of harm caused by its policy and practice of

18 locking people in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time.

19

A. Defendant locks people in cramped cells for at least 23 hours a

day. 20

21

22. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement (including Plaintiffs Chavez

22 and Bracamonte) in various areas of the jail, including the maximum security,

23

24

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of State Correctional Institution at Cresson, May 13, 2013, Attachment #7, p. 5, available at

25

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf (last viewed on October 15, 2015).

26 3 American Psychiatric Association, Position statement on segregation of people with mental
illness (2012), available from
27 http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/Position-2012-Prisoners-
Segregation.pdf. (last viewed on November 2, 2015).

28

7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 9 of 34

1 administrative segregation, and psychiatric housing units, for 23 hours or more a day.

2 Most of these individuals are locked alone in gray concrete cells that vary in size from

3 approximately six by seven to eight by ten feet. Defendant locks some of these individuals

4 in these tiny cells with a cellmate.

5

23. In the South Jail, which was built in 1956, the cells have no windows. The

6 doors to most of the cells are bars, but there is no visibility from one cell into another cell.

7 The cells only have room for a bed, writing table and stool, and a combined toilet and sink.

8 The cells have no access to fresh air or natural light, and no clocks.

9

24. In the more modern North Jail and Elmwood facilities, the gray concrete

10 cells are slightly bigger (eight by ten feet) and have the same limited furnishings, but some

11 have small windows to the outside. The doors are solid metal with a food port and a small

12 rectangular window with a view toward a dayroom. There is no fresh air in the cells and

13 only minimal natural light filters through the glass in the exterior window.

14

25. Conditions in the Third West Maximum Unit (“Third West Max”), located in

15 the antiquated and worn down South Jail, are even more austere. This unit has the smallest

16 cells, and there is no room for a writing table or stool. The doors are solid metal, with a

17 small rectangular window and food port that faces out to a dim, narrow hallway. There is

18 no access to fresh air or natural light, and there are no clocks.

19

26. Defendant typically only allows people in solitary confinement out of their

20 cells for “recreation” three hours a week; a few units periodically receive four hours a

21 week. “Recreation” consists of time spent in a dayroom, “yard,” or another cell.

22 Defendant prohibits them from attending any structured group recreational, religious,

23 educational, or vocational programs.

24

27. In the South Jail, the only access to fresh air and natural light is on the

25 “sundeck,” where Defendant locks individuals alone in cages that measure approximately

26 seven by fifteen feet. The cages are located in an area completely enclosed by tall concrete

27 walls and steel mesh overhead. An individual on the “sundeck” can see the sky and the

28 tops of nearby buildings, but nothing else. There is nothing in the cages – no place to sit,

8
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 10 of 34

1 no exercise equipment, no toilet, and no access to water. Additionally, there is no

2 accommodation for rain; therefore, when it is raining the individual sits in the rain with no

3 access to dry clothes upon returning to his cell. Nonetheless, some individuals choose to

4 go to this “yard” just to get out of their cells and to interact with people in the other cages.

5 There are no dayrooms.

6

28. In the North Jail, people can go alone to a “yard,” which is entirely enclosed

7 by concrete walls and steel mesh, with no seating, equipment, or activities. In the “yards”

8 connected to the dayrooms, individuals can move freely back and forth during the

9 regularly scheduled time they are allowed out of their cells, always alone. In the units

10 where the “yards” are separate from the dayrooms, people must ask the housing unit

11 officers to go to the “yard” during their out-of-cell time. If the housing unit officers decide

12 to grant their requests, the individuals must be chained and shackled pursuant to the

13 County’s policies, and, as such, Defendant sometimes denies their requests because

14 transporting them is burdensome. People in the North Jail units are only given 25 minutes

15 to one hour of out-of-cell time a day, and within this time they must also shower, make

16 phone calls, and use grooming supplies (e.g., razors, nail clippers, hair clippers, etc.). This

17 is also the only time Defendant allows individuals to interact face-to-face with other

18 people through the glass windows of closed cell doors. Thus, many individuals do not use

19 the “yard” because there is not enough time to go there and fulfill their other basic needs.

20

29. In many of the Elmwood cell-units, the outdoor “yards” are similar in design

21 to those in the North Jail. Defendant allows people out of their cells to use the “yard” and

22 dayroom one hour every other day.

23

30. All but a few of the Elmwood and North Jail dayrooms are stark and bare.

24 They do not have any tables, seating, or recreational activities other than televisions.

25

31. In Elmwood, an instructor comes once a week to teach yoga to women in

26 solitary confinement. However, the women are not let out of their cells for this class.

27 Instead, the instructor stands in the dayroom.

28

32. From November 2014 until the end of June 2015, Defendant never took

9
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 11 of 34

1 individuals in Third West Max, including Plaintiffs, to a “yard” or “sundeck.” Instead,

2 Defendant gave them “recreation” time in an empty cell the individuals in solitary

3 confinement have named “The Box.” The Box is a six by seven foot windowless cell that

4 is empty except for a phone and a toilet. The door to the cell is left open so that

5 individuals can come and go into the small stand-up shower immediately adjacent to the

6 cell. There is no place to sit, not enough room to do any meaningful exercise, and the cell

7 and shower are filthy. Defendant took people to The Box every other day for one hour,

8 which was their only time to shower and use the phone. However, due to the schedule

9 created and maintained by correctional officers, the single hour in The Box was regularly

10 late at night. When offered at this time, people sometimes refused because they could not

11 call their families or attorneys at that late hour, and when they were done showering there

12 was nothing left to do but stand there and wait until the hour was up.

13

33. On June 25, 2015, the Prison Law Office sent a letter to the Sheriff notifying

14 her, among other things, that she was obligated to provide outdoor time to people in Third

15 West Max. After receiving the June 25, 2015 letter, the County began taking people from

16 this unit to the “sundeck” one hour a week. Before that, these individuals had not been

17 outside in seven months.

18

34. On November 4, 2015, Defendant moved Plaintiffs and a number of other

19 individuals to other solitary confinement units, including Unit 4C in the North Jail, and 20 Second West Maximum and the “E Dorms”4 in the South Jail.

21

35. People in solitary confinement, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte,

22 have submitted administrative grievances requesting to receive more out-of-cell time,

23 including time on the “yards.” Defendant denied these requests, telling Mr. Bracamonte

24 that the one hour of outdoor time he received each week in Third West Max was a

25 “courtesy,” and he will not receive any additional time outdoors.

26
27 4 The “E Dorms” are not actually dorms. The unit consists of single cells similar in design to
those in Third West Max.
28

10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 12 of 34

1

B. Conditions in Solitary Confinement Are Unduly Harsh.

2

36. The impact on people of being locked down in their cells nearly all of the

3 time is compounded by the harsh conditions and severe restrictions on all aspects of their

4 lives.

5

37. People in solitary confinement eat all of their meals inside their cells, usually

6 sitting on their beds.

7

38. Defendant shackles them every time they have contact with officers outside

8 of their cells. Officers frequently strip search them, in plain sight of other people,

9 sometimes up to six times a day. Their cells are thoroughly searched and their property is

10 strewn about by officers a few times a week.

11

39. Most people are locked in single-occupancy cells and cannot have normal

12 human conversations with other individuals. Their only avenues of communication are to

13 speak through the vents in their cells, or to yell loudly enough for people to hear through

14 the cell walls and doors. Any communication with another suspected gang member, even

15 just a greeting, may be and has been used by Defendant to justify retention in solitary

16 confinement.

17

40. While some people are double-celled, being locked up with a cellmate in a

18 fifty square foot cell does not compensate for the severe isolation in solitary confinement.

19 Instead, double-celling requires two strangers to live around-the-clock in intolerably

20 cramped conditions, in a cell barely large enough for a single human being to stand or sit.

21

41. The units are loud – guards’ conversations echo throughout the unit all

22 day. Guards also open and close doors, and walk the unit with rattling keys and chains at

23 least every hour for count, safety checks, or to transport individuals. People yell from cell

24 to cell in an attempt to communicate, and individuals with mental illness yell and scream

25 incoherently or bang and rattle their cell doors.

26

42. When family visits do occur, Defendant limits them to a total of two hours

27 each week. Defendant does not allow any physical contact whatsoever; visits occur behind

28 a glass window, speaking over a telephone. This means that individuals are prohibited

11
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 13 of 34

1 from hugging or holding hands with visiting family members, children, or other loved

2 ones.

3

43. Despite the non-contact nature of family visits, Defendant strip searches

4 people in some of the solitary confinement units before and after each visit.

5

44. Property is tightly restricted. Defendant allows individuals a total of only

6 five books or magazines that family members can purchase for them, but correctional

7 officers make it difficult, or impossible, for people to swap those books out when they are

8 finished with them. Defendant only allows them one to two cubic feet of property.

9

45. Defendant prohibits people in solitary confinement from using a broom,

10 mop, sponge, rag, or clean towel to clean their cells, and does not itself maintain sanitary

11 conditions. Defendant issues a bathing towel to each individual. People who wish to keep

12 their cell clean must use their sole personal bathing towel to wipe down the floors and

13 surfaces, but they are reluctant to do so because correctional officers will not allow them to

14 exchange the towel for a clean one until the regularly scheduled laundry exchange that

15 occurs no more than once or twice a week. In addition, as a result of being locked in

16 solitary confinement, some people with mental illness throw or smear feces or urine.

17 When that happens, officers walk through and track feces and urine throughout the unit.

18 Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to maintain sanitary conditions, Plaintiffs

19 are forced to live in areas covered in dirt, hair, blood, feces, urine, food remnants, and

20 vermin, including large cockroaches.

21

46. Defendant, through its policies and practices, is directly responsible for these

22 harsh conditions and the related risk of harm.

23

C. Defendant is Deliberately Indifferent to the Harmful Effects of Solitary

24

Confinement.

25

47. Penological and psychological experts have documented for over a century

26 that people held in solitary confinement suffer from damaging physiological and

27 psychological consequences. All individuals are at risk of harm from these consequences,

28 not just those with pre-existing health conditions.
12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 14 of 34

1

48. The most widely documented consequences of solitary confinement are its

2 psychological effects. These effects include (1) anxiety, ranging from persistent low-level

3 stress to full-blown panic attacks; (2) depression, ranging from flat/low mood to major

4 depression and feelings of hopelessness; (3) increased anger, ranging from irritability to

5 outbursts of violence; (4) cognitive disturbances, ranging from decreases in concentration

6 to total disorientation; (5) perceptual distortions, ranging from hypersensitivity to

7 hallucinations affecting all five senses; (6) paranoia and psychosis, ranging from obsessive

8 thoughts to full blown psychosis; and (7) increased risk of suicide and self-harm. These

9 effects frequently begin to manifest within hours or days of placement in solitary

10 confinement, worsening with time and causing permanent damage to individuals,

11 especially those who linger in lockdown settings for months or years. These effects are

12 caused by the three main factors inherent in solitary confinement – social isolation,

13 enforced idleness and inactivity, and the oppressive security and surveillance procedures

14 (and the weapons, hardware, and other paraphernalia that go along with them).

15

49. The physiological consequences are partly due to physical manifestations of

16 mental stress, and partly due to the extreme periods of inactivity, lack of natural light, and

17 lack of fresh air in solitary confinement. These consequences include gastro-intestinal and

18 cardiovascular problems, migraine headaches, profound fatigue, deteriorating eyesight,

19 back and joint pain, and aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions.

20

50. People with mental health problems or intellectual disabilities are especially

21 susceptible to harm by prolonged isolation in solitary confinement. These individuals are

22 more sensitive and reactive to psychological stressors and emotional pain, and the direct

23 negative psychological effects of solitary confinement mimic already existing symptoms of

24 mental illness. As a result, solitary confinement worsens their conditions and intensifies

25 mental health related symptoms (including depression, psychosis, and self-harm). In

26 recognition of these well accepted facts, many correctional systems prohibit the placement

27 of people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement, or at least

28 limit its use to only when absolutely necessary (and only as a last resort) for a strictly

13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 15 of 34

1 limited timeframe that is augmented with significant amounts of out-of-cell time and

2 increased access to mental health care.

3

51. In light of the well-documented harms described above, there is an

4 international consensus that the type of prolonged solitary confinement practiced by

5 Defendant violates international human rights norms and civilized standards of humanity

6 and human dignity. International human rights organizations and bodies, including the

7 United Nations, have condemned indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement as a human

8 rights abuse that can amount to torture.

9

52. People in the Santa Clara County jails are suffering from the harms described

10 above as a result of Defendant’s policy and practice of locking them down 22 to 23 hours a

11 day without adequate access to social interaction, fresh air, natural light, exercise, and

12 stimulation. Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, for example, are suffering from symptoms

13 including hyper-sensitivity to stimuli, paranoia, anxiety, social withdrawal, emotional

14 numbness, and feelings of overall deterioration.

15

53. People with mental illness or intellectual disabilities are especially

16 vulnerable to the harms caused by solitary confinement and, therefore, should be excluded

17 from those units. Defendant fails to screen individuals for mental illness or intellectual

18 disabilities before locking them in solitary confinement. Defendant also fails to provide

19 adequate mental health services to any individuals housed in solitary confinement.

20 Consequently, people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities are experiencing

21 suicidal ideation, hallucinations, delusions, and are acting out by making suicidal gestures,

22 yelling and screaming, and smearing feces. Instead of reducing the risk of harm by

23 removing them from solitary confinement, correctional officers, in accordance with

24 Defendant’s policies and procedures, place them in restraint chairs and/or increase the

25 amount of time they are locked in their cells.

26

54. Individuals, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, who have managed

27 to avoid complete mental decompensation have done so thus far by developing harmful

28 responses that deaden feelings and emotions, and suppress anger. They attempt to

14
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 16 of 34

1 suppress that rage in order to avoid self-destruction, irresponsible acts of violence, or a

2 mental breakdown. Plaintiffs’ attempts at suppression, in combination with their isolation,

3 have led them to increasingly withdraw into themselves and become emotionally numb to

4 the point of feeling “non-human.”

5

55. Defendant is aware of the risk of harm caused by its actions. On June 25,

6 2015, the Prison Law Office sent a letter describing the risk of harm to individuals from

7 Defendant’s policies and practices related to solitary confinement, and requested a

8 meeting. The Sheriff and other jail managers met with the Prison Law Office, but did not

9 agree to significantly ameliorate the harmful conditions in solitary confinement. The

10 Prison Law Office sent another letter to Defendant on August 5, 2015, again describing the

11 risk of harm.

12

56. Numerous individuals, including Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte, have

13 also repeatedly requested, through internal jail request forms and grievances, to be

14 removed from solitary confinement because of harm caused by the inhumane conditions.

15 Defendant has not moved any people out of solitary confinement in response to these

16 requests. Community organizations, including family members, have met with and

17 contacted Sheriff’s Department staff and members of the Board of Supervisors repeatedly

18 about conditions in solitary confinement. Defendant has not ameliorated the harsh

19 conditions in response to their concerns.

20 II. 21

People are Locked in Solitary Confinement Even Though They Pose No Threat to Safety or Security and Have No Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge Their Placement.

22

57. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement for indefinite terms based on

23 a classification system that its own consultants have called “questionable” because it lacks

24 validity, reliability, and integrity. Defendant does not make decisions about where

25 individuals should be housed using standardized classification policies and procedures.

26 Valid and reliable classification policies and procedures are based on quantitative and

27 objective factors, focused on people’s behaviors, that identify their custody and security

28 requirements. Defendant does not use such classification policies and procedures.

15
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 17 of 34

1

58. In July 2014, Defendant hired a correctional consulting firm, MGT of

2 America, Inc. (MGT), to evaluate jail conditions and systems. In December 2014, MGT

3 produced a report that, among other things, excoriated Defendant’s jail classification

4 system. It found the system to be exceptionally complicated and highly subjective and

5 concluded that jail staff is not appropriately trained on the system. MGT warned that the

6 system “creates a potential risk of costly mistakes.” MGT also found that Defendant does

7 not consider individuals’ actual institutional behaviors when classifying them. For

8 example, nearly 20% of people identified as maximum security are classified that way due

9 only to their criminal charges and not their behaviors in the jail, which MGT found to be

10 unacceptable.

11

59. Defendant maintains this system even though there is no penological basis

12 for doing so. Defendant locks people in solitary confinement who pose no legitimate

13 security threat to staff or other prisoners. For example, Mr. Chavez has been in custody

14 since 2011, but has never been violent or charged with any serious rule violations in the

15 jail. Defendant has housed him in various locations with varying levels of restrictions

16 throughout the jail without incident. Indeed, for two years, jail officials gave him special

17 privileges as a jail trustee because of his good behavior. Then, in November 2014,

18 Defendant moved him to solitary confinement in Third West Max and stripped him of his

19 trustee assignment even though he continued to remain discipline free.

20

60. Other jurisdictions, including the California Department of Corrections and

21 Rehabilitation (CDCR), have ended the practice of housing prisoners in solitary

22 confinement just because they are suspected gang members. CDCR prisoners housed in

23 the most restrictive settings have significantly more out-of-cell time than people in

24 Defendant’s solitary confinement cells.

25

61. Defendant also has a policy and practice of locking people in solitary

26 confinement who have only been charged with minor rules violations that do not justify

27 such restrictive housing. For example, the County locked a woman in solitary confinement

28 for two and a half years even though her most serious offenses were talking back to

16
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 18 of 34

1 correctional officers or yelling and banging on her cell door with other individuals in the

2 unit.

3

62. Defendant also has a policy and practice of locking people in solitary

4 confinement without notice, explanation, written reasons for the decision, or an

5 opportunity to present witnesses or documentary evidence to challenge the decision. For

6 example, correctional officers told Mr. Bracamonte that he was housed in Third West Max

7 because of his participation in an alleged “gang assault” over two years ago, where his

8 only involvement was being present in the dayroom when the purported assault took place.

9 Defendant has not presented Mr. Bracamonte with any evidence that he assaulted, or

10 planned to assault, another person, and has denied him any opportunity to challenge his

11 placement.

12

63. There is no meaningful avenue to contest an incorrect placement decision.

13 Several people, including Plaintiffs, have attempted to challenge classification decisions

14 through the grievance system, and the County’s only response is that they have been

15 “properly housed” and they will not be moved. The County has told others that their

16 classification status will be reviewed every 30 days, but individuals cannot participate in

17 this review process and the reviews rarely, if ever, result in changes to classification status

18 for those in solitary confinement. Such reviews are therefore meaningless.

19

64. Defendant’s policy and practice retains people in solitary confinement

20 arbitrarily despite their good behavior, in reliance on opaque classification decisions, and

21 without reasonable penological justification.

22 III. Santa Clara County Seriously Injures People Through the Excessive Use of Force.
23

24

65. Defendant has a policy and practice of using excessive force in the jails that

25 subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious injury. Correctional officers

26 repeatedly kick, punch, push, stomp, slam, or restrain individuals when it is not necessary

27 to ensure safety and security. These assaults result in broken bones, head injuries,

28 hemorrhaging, swelling, bruising, and even death. Individuals in the jail are routinely sent

17
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 19 of 34

1 to the emergency room after groups of correctional officers have beaten them in response

2 to minor provocations.

3

66. Defendant has a pattern of using force as a first resort in reaction to any

4 behavior that might possibly be interpreted as aggressive. Force is used on people who are

5 deemed, correctly or not, to have disrupted jail operations, disobeyed jail rules, complained

6 about conditions, or disrespected jail staff. In many instances, the use of force is

7 completely unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the jails. In some

8 instances, the use of force may be necessary initially, but after the need for force has

9 passed, the individual is subjected to retaliatory assault.

10

67. These patterns of excessive force occur because Defendant does not

11 adequately train, supervise, and discipline correctional officers. Defendant also fails to

12 investigate complaints regarding the use of force. Since 2010, people in the jail have filed

13 more than 300 complaints against correctional officers. Defendant only formally

14 investigated 14 of those complaints.

15

68. These patterns of excessive force also occur because Defendant’s written

16 policies and procedures are inadequate. All people in the jail, including Plaintiffs Chavez

17 and Bracamonte, are at risk of harm due to Defendant’s policies and practices regarding

18 the use of force.

19 IV. Santa Clara County Fails to Provide Adequate Health Care.

20

69. Defendant subjects all people confined in the jails, including Plaintiffs

21 Chavez and Bracamonte, to a substantial risk of injury or death by failing to provide

22 adequate medical, mental health, and dental care. Individuals in the jails are entirely

23 dependent on Defendant for their basic healthcare needs. Defendant has a policy and

24 practice of inadequately screening for serious healthcare conditions and disabilities,

25 delaying access to clinicians and medications, understaffing healthcare professionals,

26 denying specialty care, and failing to provide the full array of services necessary to meet

27 minimum standards of care. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm

28 caused by these serious healthcare deficiencies.

18
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 20 of 34

1

A. Mental Health Care Is Inadequate.

2

70. Defendant’s mental health care delivery system is deficient in staffing,

3 screening, therapeutic treatment, suicide prevention, crisis intervention, medication

4 management, and timely evaluations. There are not enough psychiatrists and therapists to

5 meet the demands of the current jail population. The intake screening does not include

6 essential questions about mental status, recent psychiatric hospitalizations, community

7 treatment providers, or intellectual disabilities. People who are experiencing severe mental

8 health symptoms are chained to chairs for hours in the booking area. “Treatment” consists

9 primarily of medication management, which is poorly administered, and Defendant does

10 not provide individual or group counseling to help people cope with their mental health

11 symptoms. Individuals who are prescribed psychiatric medications in the community often

12 wait weeks or months, while suffering from severe symptoms, before receiving

13 medications in jail.

14

71. Defendant does not properly identify, evaluate, house, monitor, or treat

15 people who are suicidal, resulting in preventable deaths and injuries. Ten people have

16 committed suicide while incarcerated in Santa Clara County in the last five years. From

17 2007 to 2012, Santa Clara County had the third highest suicide rate amongst the state’s

18 largest jail systems, more than doubling the suicide rates in Los Angeles, Orange,

19 Alameda, and Fresno Counties. Some of these individuals committed suicide in solitary

20 confinement, where mental health staff do not monitor people or provide enhanced mental

21 health services despite the well-known risks inherent in locking people alone in their cells

22 for prolonged periods of time.

23

72. Defendant fails to hospitalize the most acutely mentally ill people. Instead,

24 Defendant sends them to Unit 8A in the North Jail where they are housed in solitary

25 confinement. Unit 8A is not a licensed hospital and there is nothing therapeutic about the

26 environment; it is indistinguishable from other jail units. Psychiatrists meet with patients

27 briefly and infrequently through cell doors, or in the dayroom, without any confidentiality.

28 There are no rehabilitation programs, activities, or therapy. Defendant inappropriately

19
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 21 of 34

1 secludes, restrains, and involuntarily medicates people in Unit 8A when there is no

2 imminent danger, and without following proper procedures, in violation of their due

3 process rights. Defendant also fails to involuntarily medicate people when the reasonable

4 standard of care would require, such as when they are gravely disabled and incompetent to

5 refuse medications. Defendant’s treatment plans are ineffective, and people with severe

6 mental illness perpetually cycle in and out of this unit.

7

73. Defendant does not appropriately respond to people in mental health crisis.

8 Indeed, Defendant’s initial response is often the use of force. For example, in September

9 2015, Walter Roches, who had a history of refusing psychiatric medications to treat his

10 serious mental illness, began to severely decompensate. He became catatonic and stopped

11 showering. Due to his acute mental health symptoms, he sat passively on his bed, unable

12 to comply with correctional officers’ orders to leave his cell. Correctional officers’ first

13 response was to shoot a series of chemical agents and plastic bullets at his torso through

14 the food port of his cell door. After Defendant forcibly removed him from his cell, Mr.

15 Roches refused all medical and mental health care, although he was likely incompetent to

16 make treatment decisions. Defendant failed to involuntarily medicate or treat him. He

17 died a week later. Defendant conducted the autopsy, and found bruises and abrasions all

18 over Mr. Roches’ body, as well as significant head trauma that is not explained by the

19 video or reports from the use of force incident. Defendant’s autopsy also concluded that

20 his death was caused by a urinary tract infection and mental illness, and was unrelated to

21 his head trauma or other use of force injuries.

22

74. Defendant does not have a functioning system to ensure timely access to

23 mental health care. Individuals must submit “white cards” to request care, but clinicians

24 do not respond for weeks or months, if they respond at all. For example, Mr. Bracamonte

25 submitted a white card on May 16, 2015, stating “I have not had fresh air or sunlight in 6

26 months and it is effecting [sic] my anxiety level I’m stressed out always anxious and

27 jumpy. . . .” Defendant did not respond until seven months later, and then only in writing

28 to tell him he would be later scheduled to see a psychiatrist. To date, Mr. Bracamonte has

20
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 22 of 34

1 not been seen by a psychiatrist or received adequate mental health care to treat the

2 symptoms related to being locked in solitary confinement.

3

B. Medical Care is Inadequate.

4

75. Defendant’s medical care delivery system is dangerously deficient. At least

5 40 people have died in the jails since 2010. Some were men and women under the age of

6 50 who died of treatable medical conditions such as sleep apnea or alcohol withdrawal.

7 Others died of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure, which is

8 emblematic of an inadequate chronic disease management program. Medical care is also

9 deficient in many of the same ways as mental health care: insufficient staffing levels,

10 unreasonable delays in responding to white cards describing serious symptoms, and

11 excessive delays in verifying and starting essential medications prescribed by community

12 providers. In addition to preventable deaths, these deficiencies result in needless

13 emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

14

76. Defendant fails to provide timely access to specialty care. For example,

15 Defendant does not provide optometry services or prescription eyeglasses. There are

16 countless people in the jail who are suffering from vision problems, including pretrial

17 detainees who cannot meaningfully participate in their defense, because Defendant denies

18 them optometry services.

19

C. Dental Care is Inadequate.

20

77. Defendant does not provide the full range of dental services that is necessary

21 to maintain dental health. It does not, for example, provide permanent fillings, teeth

22 cleanings, or dental floss, even for those people who will be incarcerated for several years.

23 Instead, Defendant offers to extract teeth that might otherwise be saved with appropriate

24 treatment alternatives. Defendant has a policy and practice of performing only the first

25 stage of a root canal and instructing individuals to finish the procedure upon release, even

26 if the release date is unknown, as with pretrial detainees. This practice leaves people who

27 are incarcerated for long periods of time at risk of infection, pain, and further

28 complications. Defendant also fails to timely respond to white cards describing serious

21
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 23 of 34

1 dental symptoms.

2 V. 3

Santa Clara County Discriminates Against People with Disabilities in the Use of Force and Solitary Confinement.

4

78. Defendant violates the rights of people with psychiatric and/or intellectual

5 disabilities by housing them in solitary confinement; by failing to accommodate their

6 particular vulnerability to the conditions of solitary confinement; by denying them access

7 to programs and services because they are housed in solitary confinement based on

8 behaviors related to their disabilities; and by using force to control behaviors associated

9 with untreated mental illness or lower cognitive functioning.

10

79. Defendant automatically houses people with disabilities who need the

11 highest level of mental health care in units where they are locked down at least 22 to 24

12 hours a day for prolonged periods, regardless of whether their crimes or behavior warrant

13 solitary confinement, solely due to their mental illness or intellectual disability.

14

80. As described in Section I.C. above, the stressful conditions of solitary

15 confinement are more traumatic for people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities.

16 Defendant has not modified its policies and procedures to accommodate them so that they

17 do not suffer harm from solitary confinement.

18

81. Defendant locks people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in

19 solitary confinement for nonconforming and erratic behaviors related to their conditions,

20 some of which could have been avoided if Defendant provided adequate mental health care

21 or accommodations. The harsh conditions and the lack of mental health care or

22 accommodations cause them to continue and escalate these symptomatic behaviors. In

23 response, Defendant locks them in solitary confinement for longer periods of time.

24

82. Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people with psychiatric and/or

25 intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement, based on their disabilities, inappropriately

26 deprives them of access to programs, services, and activities that are only available in less

27 restrictive settings.

28

83. Defendant has a policy and practice of responding to behaviors related to

22
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 24 of 34

1 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities with force. Defendant uses such force without

2 regard to the traumatic impact of such measures, and without first attempting clinical

3 intervention.

4

84. Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding the use of solitary

5 confinement and force against people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities is a

6 direct violation of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

7 VI. Class Allegations

8

85. Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte bring this action on their

9 own behalves and, pursuant to Rule 23(a), b(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

10 Procedure, on behalf of all people who are or will in the future be incarcerated in the Santa

11 Clara Jail.

12

86. All class members are at risk of harm due to the following policies and

13 practices:

14

(a) Denying at least one basic human need, including physical exercise, fresh

15 air, sunlight, normal human contact, meaningful activity, and environmental stimulation,

16 by locking people in solitary confinement;

17

(b) Locking people in solitary confinement for no legitimate security

18 purpose, and/or without (1) a hearing with advance written notice (except in case of a

19 genuine emergency) before initial placement, and/or (2) the opportunity to present

20 witnesses and documentary evidence, and/or (3) written reasons for the decision, and/or (4)

21 counsel-substitute for an illiterate or disabled inmate or in a case with complex issues,

22 and/or (5) meaningful review of their placements;

23

(c) Using force that subjects people to serious injury or the risk of serious

24 injury even when it is unnecessary to control behavior or maintain order in the jails; and

25

(d) Denying minimally adequate healthcare including identification and

26 monitoring of serious conditions, sufficient staffing levels, timely access to appropriate

27 clinicians and medications, effective suicide prevention practices, appropriate crisis

28 intervention services, and the complete range of healthcare services necessary to maintain

23
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 25 of 34

1 health.

2 People with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities also face the additional risk of

3 disability discrimination due to Defendant’s policies and practices regarding solitary

4 confinement and the use of force.

5

87. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including whether

6 Defendant by its policy and practice of (1) denying individuals’ basic human needs by

7 locking them in their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day for periods of three weeks or longer

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

9 Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (2) locking people in solitary confinement

10 for minor rules violations or because they are suspected gang members violates the Due

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

12 Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (3) locking people in solitary confinement without a

13 hearing, written notice, an opportunity to defend themselves through witness or

14 documentary evidence, or meaningful review of their placements, violates the Due Process

15 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) denying minimally adequate mental health,

16 medical, and dental care violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

17 and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (5) using

18 excessive force violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the

19 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; (6) locking people with

20 psychiatric disabilities and/or intellectual disabilities in solitary confinement based on their

21 disabilities violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (7) using force

22 on people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities without clinical intervention or

23 regard for the traumatic impact of such force violates the ADA and Section 504 of the

24 Rehabilitation Act.

25

88. Since there are thousands of class members, separate actions by individuals

26 would in all likelihood result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in turn would

27 result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

28

89. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds that apply generally to the

24
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 26 of 34

1 class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting

2 the class as a whole.

3

90. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class, since their claims

4 arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct and their claims are based

5 on the same theories of law as the class’s claims.

6

91. The named Plaintiffs, through counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the

7 interests of the class. Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the plaintiff class.

8 Plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and

9 omissions of Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil

10 rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.

11

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

12

First Cause of Action

(Fourteenth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 13

14

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

15 preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

16

93. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant has deprived and

17 continues to deprive Plaintiffs and the class of the minimal civilized measure of life’s

18 necessities, and has violated their basic human dignity and their right to be free from cruel

19 and unusual conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

20 for each of the reasons set forth below.

21

A. Solitary Confinement

22

94. The effect of prolonged confinement constitutes a serious deprivation of at

23 least one basic human need, including, but not limited to, normal human contact,

24 environmental and sensory stimulation, mental and physical health, physical exercise,

25 fresh air, sunlight, and meaningful activity.

26

95. Prolonged exposure to these deprivations of basic human needs is currently

27 imposing permanent psychological and physical injury on Plaintiffs and the class they

28 represent. In addition to Plaintiffs’ current psychological and physical pain, the likelihood

25
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 27 of 34

1 that Plaintiffs and the class will remain in solitary confinement for the foreseeable future

2 subjects Plaintiffs and the class they represent to a significant risk of debilitating and

3 permanent mental illness and physical harm.

4

96. Defendant’s continuation of class members’ solitary confinement for many

5 months or years under the debilitating and extreme conditions strips human beings of their

6 basic dignity and humanity in violation of contemporary standards of human decency and

7 constitutes cruel and unusual conditions prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

8 United States Constitution.

9

97. Defendant has no legitimate penological interest in retaining Plaintiffs and

10 the class indefinitely in the debilitating conditions of solitary confinement simply because

11 of their charges, alleged gang status, or minor rules violations. Accordingly, Defendant’s

12 policy of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement constitutes unlawful punishment of

13 individuals who have not been convicted.

14

B. Inadequate Healthcare

15

98. Defendant is deliberately indifferent to the serious health care needs of

16 Plaintiffs and the class. Defendant subjects Plaintiffs and the class to a substantial risk of

17 serious harm and injury from inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care.

18

C. Excessive Use of Force

19

99. Defendant uses excessive force, often when unnecessary to maintain and

20 restore discipline, causing serious injuries to class members. Defendant subjects Plaintiffs

21 and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the use of excessive and

22 unnecessary force.

23

D. Defendant’s Deliberate Indifference

24

100. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to

25 be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

26 concert under color of state law, in their official capacity.

27

101. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained of

28 herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

26
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 28 of 34

1

102. It should be obvious to Defendant and to any reasonable person that the

2 conditions imposed on class members for many months or years cause tremendous mental

3 anguish, suffering, and pain to such individuals. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly been

4 made aware, through administrative grievances and written complaints, that class members

5 are currently experiencing, or are at risk of, significant and lasting injury. Defendant has

6 been deliberately indifferent to the class members’ pain and suffering.

7

Second Cause of Action

(Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

8

9

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

10 preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

11

104. By the policies and practices described herein, Defendant subjects Plaintiffs

12 and the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the use of solitary

13 confinement, inadequate healthcare, and excessive force, and has violated their right to be

14 free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States

15 Constitution. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by

16 Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert under

17 color of state law, in their official capacity, and are the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’

18 and the class’s ongoing deprivation of rights secured under the Eighth Amendment.

19

105. Defendant has been and is aware of all of the deprivations complained of

20 herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.

21

Third Cause of Action

(Fourteenth Amendment – Procedural Due Process, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 22

23

106. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

24 Paragraphs 1-91 as if set forth fully herein.

25

107. Defendant’s policy of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement subjects

26 Plaintiffs and the class to a significant deprivation of liberty without any procedural

27 safeguards.

28

108. Plaintiffs and the class have a liberty interest, conferred by statewide

27
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 29 of 34

1 regulations, in not being confined in solitary confinement unless it is necessary to ensure

2 the safety and security of staff and other individuals. See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, §§

3 1050, 1053.

4

109. The conditions and the duration of Defendant’s placement of Plaintiffs and

5 class members in solitary confinement constitute an atypical and significant hardship as

6 compared with the ordinary incidents of jail life because of the harsh and isolated

7 conditions and the lengthy duration of confinement in those conditions. People in solitary

8 confinement, as compared to other individuals in the jail, have significantly less or no

9 access to social interaction, environmental stimulation, programs and activities, physical

10 exercise, personal property, sunlight, and fresh air. They are also subjected to, as

11 compared to other individuals in the jail, significantly more oppressive security measures,

12 including cell searches, strip searches, and restraints.

13

110. Because prolonged placement in solitary confinement constitutes a

14 significant and atypical hardship, by the policies and practices described herein, Defendant

15 has deprived Plaintiffs and class members of a liberty interest without due process of law

16 by denying them (1) a hearing with advance written notice before initial placement in

17 solitary confinement, (2) the opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence,

18 (3) written reasons for the decision, (4) counsel-substitute for illiterate or disabled

19 individuals or in a case with complex issues, and (5) meaningful and timely periodic

20 review of their continued long-term and indefinite detention in solitary confinement and

21 meaningful notice of what they must do to earn release, in violation of the Fourteenth

22 Amendment to the United States Constitution.

23

111. The costs to Defendant of providing such procedural safeguards would be

24 minimal, and any such costs are outweighed by the great risk of erroneous deprivation of

25 liberty that exists under Defendant’s current policies and practices.

26

112. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to

27 be implemented by Defendant and its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

28 concert under color of state law, in their official capacity.

28
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 30 of 34

1

Fourth Cause of Action

(Americans with Disabilities Act) 2

3

113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

4 Paragraphs 1-91 as if set forth fully herein.

5

114. Plaintiff Bracamonte and other class members with psychiatric and/or

6 intellectual disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in the ADA.

7 They have a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,

8 they have a record of such impairment, or they are regarded as having such an impairment.

9 All people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the jails meet the essential

10 eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or

11 activities provided by Defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

12

115. Defendant is a public entity as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A).

13

116. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to ensure that people with psychiatric

14 and/or intellectual disabilities have access to, are permitted to participate in, and are not

15 denied the benefits of, programs, services, and activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §

16 35.152(b)(1).

17

117. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to make “reasonable modifications in

18 policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid

19 discrimination on the basis of disability . . . .” 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(7).

20

118. Defendant violates the ADA by failing to “ensure that inmates or detainees

21 with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the

22 individuals.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(2).

23

119. Plaintiff Bracamonte and other class members with psychiatric and/or

24 intellectual disabilities do not pose a direct threat to others and housing them in solitary

25 confinement is not a legitimate safety requirement necessary for the safe operation of

26 services, programs, or activities. 35 C.F.R. § 35.139.

27

28

29
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 31 of 34

1

Fifth Cause of Action

(Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 2

3

120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

4 Paragraphs 1-91 as if set forth fully herein.

5

121. Plaintiff Bracamonte and other class members with psychiatric and/or

6 intellectual disabilities are qualified individuals with disabilities as defined in Section 504

7 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

8

122. Defendant receives federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation

9 Act.

10

123. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating

11 against people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities solely on the basis of their

12 disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

13

124. Defendant violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to

14 reasonably accommodate people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in its

15 facilities, programs, activities, and services.

16

125. Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating against people with

17 psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities in the use of solitary confinement is not

18 reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because (1) it worsens their

19 psychiatric conditions; (2) there are no alternative means for them to access programs,

20 services, and activities; (3) there are alternative means to safely and cost-effectively house

21 them in the jails; and (4) it is an exaggerated response as they do not require restrictive

22 housing on the basis of their disabilities.

23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24

126. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to

25 redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will

26 continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies,

27 and practices of the Defendant as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief

28 they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under

30
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 32 of 34

1 the Constitution of the United States, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

2

127. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the class they

3 represent, request that this Court grant them the following relief:

4

A. Declare the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of

5 Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (2);

6

B. Adjudge and declare that the conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices

7 of Defendant and its agents, officials, and employees are in violation of the rights of

8 Plaintiffs and the class they represent under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the

9 U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

10

C. Enjoin Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

11 concert under color of state law or otherwise, from continuing the unlawful acts,

12 conditions, and practices described in this Complaint;

13

D. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

14 concert with them under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon

15 as practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious harm that Plaintiffs and

16 members of the class suffer due to Defendant’s policy and practice of locking people in

17 their cells for 22 hours or more a day for three weeks or longer, to ensure that people are

18 not housed in restrictive housing without a legitimate penological purpose, and to provide

19 a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to challenge classification decisions resulting in

20 solitary confinement. Defendant’s plan must include at a minimum the following:

21

1. Elimination of the conditions of confinement for people in solitary

22 confinement so that individuals are no longer incarcerated under conditions of isolation,

23 sensory deprivation, lack of social and physical human contact, unsanitary conditions, and

24 environmental deprivation;

25

2. The release from restricted housing for those individuals who do not pose a

26 legitimate security threat;

27

3. Standardized classification policies and procedures based on objective and

28 quantitative factors that focus on individuals’ in-jail behavior;

31
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 33 of 34

1

4. Provision of (1) a hearing with advance written notice before initial placement

2 in solitary confinement, (2) the opportunity to present witnesses and documentary

3 evidence, (3) written reasons for the decision, (4) counsel-substitute for an illiterate or

4 disabled person or in a case with complex issues, and (5) meaningful and timely periodic

5 review of their continued long-term and indefinite detention in solitary confinement;

6

E. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

7 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide minimally adequate mental health,

8 medical, and dental care, including but not limited to sufficient staffing, timely access to

9 appropriate clinicians, timely prescription and distribution of appropriate medications and

10 supplies, timely and competent responses to health care emergencies; timely access to

11 competent care for chronic diseases; timely access to competent therapy, inpatient

12 treatment, and suicide prevention;

13

F. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

14 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to develop and implement, as soon as

15 practical, a plan to eliminate the excessive use of force. Defendant’s plan at a minimum

16 must address deficiencies in use of force policies and procedures, training, supervision,

17 investigations, and disciplinary practices;

18

G. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

19 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to provide equal access to programs,

20 services, and activities for people with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities, including

21 but not limited to housing them in the least restrictive and most integrated settings

22 appropriate to their needs;

23

H. Order Defendant, its agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in

24 concert under color of state law or otherwise, to modify its use of force policies and

25 practices to ensure appropriate clinical intervention and measures to minimize the

26 traumatic impact of the use of force on people with psychiatric and/or intellectual

27 disabilities;

28

I. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 12205, and

32
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 1:15-cv-05277-NJV Document 9 Filed 01/20/16 Page 34 of 34

1 12133, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses;

2

J. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendant has fully complied with the orders

3 of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendant will continue to comply in

4 the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

5

K. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6 Dated: January 20, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PRISON LAW OFFICE
By: /s/ Kelly Knapp DONALD SPECTER KELLY KNAPP 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704
COOLEY LLP
By: /s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA JEFFREY W. WALKER ADDISON M. LITTON 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000
By: /s/ Kendall Dawson Wasley KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY PMB 233 1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615 Telephone: (408) 827-5024
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

33
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)
1 dspecter@prisonlaw.com MARGOT MENDELSON (SBN 268583)
2 mmendelson@prisonlaw.com
PRISON LAW OFFICE
3 1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
4 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA
(SBN 220934) jsantamaria@cooley.com
6 JEFFREY W. WALKER (SBN 280505)
jwalker@cooley.com
7 ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374)
alitton@cooley.com
8 COOLEY LLP
3175 Hanover Street
9 Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-5000
10

JAMES R. WILLIAMS, Acting County Counsel (S.B. #271253) ARYN PAIGE HARRIS, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 208590) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240
Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY(SBN 252294)
11 kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com
PMB 233
12 1520 E. Covell Blvd.
Davis, CA 95615
13 Telephone: (408) 827-5024

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

15

BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON BRACAMONTE

16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-NJV

20 BRACAMONTE, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

21

Plaintiffs,

[PXXRXOXXPXOXSXEXXDX] ORDER CERTIFYING

22 v.

ACTION AS CLASS ACTION

23 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 24 Defendant.

Hearing Date: October 25, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Nandor J. Vadas

25

26

27

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING ACTION AS CLASS ACTION CASE NO. 1:15-CV-05277-NJV

1

On October 25, 20016 at 10:00 a.m., the Court took under submission the Parties’ Joint

2 Motion for Class Certification under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

3 Civil Procedure. Having reviewed the submitted papers, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

4 ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

5

1. The numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a)

6 are satisfied.

7

2. The requirements under both Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.

8

3. The Action is hereby certified as a class action as to all claims and defenses at issue

9 in the Complaint pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

10 Procedure.

11

4. The Class is defined as:

12

All people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa

13

Clara County jails.

14

5. This class action also includes a Subclass, which is defined as:

15

All people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara

County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined

16

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and

17

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

18

6. Plaintiffs Chavez and Bracamonte will serve as representatives of the Class, and

19 Plaintiff Bracamonte will serve as a representative of the Subclass.

20

7. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A), the parties shall submit a proposed notice to the class

21 and the method of distribution of that notice within 14 days of this Order.

22

8. Cooley LLP, the Prison Law Office, and Kendall Dawson Wasley are appointed as

23 class counsel to represent the interests of the plaintiff class.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

26 Dated: September 20, 2016 27

Hon. Nandor J. Vadas U.S. Magistrate Judge

28 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER CERTIFYING ACTION AS CLASS ACTION CASE NO. 1:15-CV-05277-NJV

 
 Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 77 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 4

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)

JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County

dspecter@prisonlaw.com

Counsel (SBN 271253)

2 THOMAS M. NOSEWICZ (SBN 317849) DOUGLAS M. PRESS, Assistant

tom@prisonlaw.com

County Counsel (SBN 168740)

3 PRISON LAW OFFICE

ARYN PAIGE HARRIS, Deputy

1917 Fifth Street

County Counsel (SBN 208590)

4 Berkeley, California 94710

LING YANG LEW, Deputy County

Telephone: (510) 280-2621

Counsel (SBN 271200)

5 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY

COUNSEL

6 JESSICA VALENZUELA

70 West Hedding Street

SANTAMARIA (SBN 220934)

East Wing, Ninth Floor

7 jsantamaria@cooley.com

San Jose, California 95110-1770

ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374) Telephone: (408) 299-5900

8 alitton@cooley.com

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240

MARK A. ZAMBARDA (SBN 314808)

9 mzambarda@cooley.com

Attorneys for Defendant

COOLEY LLP

Santa Clara County

10 3175 Hanover Street

Palo Alto, CA 94304

11 Telephone: (650) 843-5000

12 KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY (SBN 252294)
13 kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com PMB 233, 1520 E. Covell Blvd.
14 Davis, CA 95615 Telephone: (408) 827-5024
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EUREKA DIVISION

20 BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON 21 BRACAMONTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly 22 situated,
Plaintiffs,
23

24

v.

25 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE AND NOTICE TO THE CLASS
Date: November 27, 2018 Time:10:00 AM

26

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman

27

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 1:15-CV-
05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 77 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 4

1

Plaintiffs in this action, Brian Chavez, Brandon Bracamonte, and a class of all

2 people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County

3 jails, and a subclass of all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in

4 the Santa Clara County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability,

5 as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,

6 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, allege that conditions in the

7 Jails violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution

8 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to

9 injunctive relief to address their claims.

10

The parties have entered into a Consent Decree that was filed with their Joint

11 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class, which

12 would settle all claims in this case. The parties have submitted a proposed notice to the

13 class, as well as a proposed order regarding the distribution of the notice to the plaintiff

14 class. This Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and

15 has reviewed all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed

16 the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class

17 along with the Consent Decree and supporting documents, and has considered the

18 parties’ arguments concerning the proposed settlement of this class action. The Court

19 has determined that inquiry should be made regarding the fairness and adequacy of this

20 proposed settlement.

21

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

22

1. A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if it “appears

23 to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious

24 deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or

25 segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Tableware

26 Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation marks and

27 citations omitted). The Court finds that this standard is met in this case, as the proposed

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

settlement is the product of arms-length, serious, informed, and non-collusive

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

1.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 1:15-CV-

05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 77 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 4

1 negotiations between experienced and knowledgeable counsel who have actively

2 prosecuted and defended this litigation.

3

2. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met because this

4 action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against policies and practices that risk

5 harm and discriminatory treatment to the class.

6

3. The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of 18

7 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary

8 approval and incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class members to

9 challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Consent Decree.

10

4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court approves the

11 substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the

12 “Notice”) filed by the parties, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the

13 Notice meets all due process and other legal requirements and is the best notice

14 practicable under the circumstances.

15

5. By December 18, 2018, the County is directed to post the Notice in

16 English, Spanish, and Vietnamese in all housing units in such a manner as to make the

17 notice visible to all inmates. The County shall hand deliver a copy of the Notice to each

18 inmate in administrative management. The Notice shall be posted and delivered for

19 thirty days.

20

6. The County is also directed to provide a copy of this Order, the full

21 Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees to inmates

22 who complete an inmate request form and request the documents. Defendant must file

23 and serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was published as

24 required in this order.

25

7. A fairness hearing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. on February 27, 2019 in

26 Courtroom 14, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

27 California, to determine whether the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

conditions provided for in the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

2.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 1:15-

CV-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 77 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 4

1 should be finally approved by the Court. The hearing may be continued from time to

2 time without further notice to the class. Any further briefing from the parties in advance

3 of the hearing shall be filed no later than February 13, 2018.

4

8. Any member of the class may enter an appearance on his or her own behalf

5 in this action through that class member’s own attorney (at their own expense), but need

6 not do so. Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys

7 will be represented by class counsel. Alternatively, any member of the class may write

8 to the Court about whether the settlement is fair.

9 9. The Court will consider written communications when deciding whether to

10 approve the settlement. Comments regarding the fairness of the settlement must include

11 at the top of the first page the case name (Chavez v. County of Santa Clara) and the case

12 number (N.D. Cal. No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI). A written comment must contain the

13 author’s full name and must include all objections and the reasons for them, must

14 include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs, written

15 evidence, and declarations), and must be signed by the class member. A class member

16 who desires to comment but who fails to comply with the above objection procedure

17 and timeline shall be deemed to have not objected and the objection shall not be heard

18 or considered at the hearing. Comments must be postmarked by January 17, 2019, and

19 must be sent to the following address:

20

Clerk of the Court

21

United States District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

22

San Francisco, CA 94102

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: November 27, 2018
25

26

27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO

188894774 v2

_____________________________ The Honorable Robert M. Illman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

3.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. 1:15-

CV-05277-RMI

 
 Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 15

DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com 2 THOMAS M. NOSEWICZ (SBN 317849) 3 tom@prisonlaw.com PRISON LAW OFFICE 4 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710 5 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 6 JESSICA VALENZUELA 7 SANTAMARIA (SBN 220934) jsantamaria@cooley.com 8 ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374) alitton@cooley.com 9 MARK A. ZAMBARDA (SBN 314808) mzambarda@cooley.com 10 COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street 11 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 12 KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY 13 (SBN 252294) kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com 14 PMB 233, 1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615 15 Telephone: (408) 827-5024

JAMES R. WILLIAMS (SBN 271253), County Counsel DOUGLAS M. PRESS (SBN 168740), Assistant County Counsel) ARYN PAIGE HARRIS (SBN 208590), Deputy County Counsel OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 Attorneys for Defendant Santa Clara County

16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EUREKA DIVISION

20

BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON BRACAMONTE, on behalf of

21

themselves and all others similarly situated,

22

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

23

v.

Date: Time:

March 14, 2019 1:00 PM

24 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman

25

Defendant.

26

27

28
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 15

INTRODUCTION
2 In October 2018, after engaging in extensive settlement negotiations, the parties
3 4 entered into a Consent Decree to settle class claims for injunctive relief in this suit
5 concerning conditions in the Santa Clara County Jails (“Jails”). The Court granted

6 preliminary approval of the Consent Decree on November 27, 2018. Plaintiffs and

7 Defendant, by and through their counsel, now respond to class-member comments

8 about the settlement and request final approval of the Consent Decree. If the Court

9 grants final approval, the Consent Decree will dispose of all class claims in the case.
10

11

The Court should grant final approval of the Consent Decree because, as the

12 Court has already ruled, “the proposed settlement is the product of arms-length,

13 serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and

14 knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.”
15 Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class 16
at 1–2, ECF No. 77. Further, the Consent Decree adequately addresses the class 17 18 claims for injunctive relief because it includes a detailed forty-six page Remedial Plan
19 addressing dental, medical and mental health care, suicide prevention, non-mobility

20 disability accommodations, restrictive housing, and use of force. See Consent Decree,

21 ECF No. 74, Ex. 1. The Remedial Plan requires Defendant to remedy the deficiencies

22 alleged in the class action complaint. See First Amended Class Action Complaint for

23 Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, ECF No. 9.
24

25

The Court has received thirteen letters commenting on the proposed settlement,

26 including two from non-class members. The comments support the need to settle this

27 case and provide timely relief to address the systemic inadequacies in Defendant’s

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

1

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 15

medical, dental, and mental health care system, safety and security practices,

2 accommodations for persons with non-mobility disabilities, and use of restrictive

3 housing. None of these comments show that the Consent Decree is not the product of

4 good-faith negotiations conducted at arm’s-length.
5

6

There is also no evidence that the Consent Decree will fail to achieve the

7 primary objectives of the class claims for injunctive relief — constitutionally adequate

8 dental, medical, and mental healthcare, reasonable accommodations for people with

9 non-mobility disabilities, the adoption of a comprehensive use of force policy, and
10 reforms to the use of restrictive housing. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel will vigorously 11
enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. The Court should therefore grant final 12 13 approval of the settlement.

14

BACKGROUND

15

16

As explained in the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree,

17 Plaintiffs are inmates who are or have been incarcerated in the Santa Clara County

18 Jails (hereinafter, “Jails”) representing a class of “[a]ll people who are now, or in the
19 future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails” and a subclass of “[a]ll 20
people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County 21 22 jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under the 23 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504

24 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.” Order Certifying Action as Class Action,

25 at 1, ECF No. 34. Defendant is the County of Santa Clara, which is responsible for the
26 operation of the jails. 27

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

2

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 15

This action was filed on November 18, 2015. A First Amended Complaint was

2 filed on January 20, 2016, alleging that conditions in the Jails violated inmates’
3 constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 4
States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the County does not provide 5 6 inmates with access to adequate medical, dental, or mental health care; fails to prevent
7 unnecessary and excessive use of force against inmates; imposes on inmates the

8 harmful and excessive use of solitary confinement; and discriminates against inmates

9 with non-mobility disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
10 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 11
On February 19, 2016, Defendant filed its answer to the First Amended 12 13 Complaint denying the material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. The
14 parties’ Joint Motion for Class Certification was granted on September 20, 2016.

15

The parties agreed to suspend discovery for the purpose of settlement

16 negotiations. Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed that the experts who had been hired by
17 Defendant before the initiation of this action were appropriate ones to investigate and 18
opine on the adequacy of dental, medical, and mental health care delivered in the 19 20 Santa Clara County Jails, as well as the extent and propriety of use of force against
21 inmates incarcerated by Defendant and other issues raised by the action. The six

22 experts were Todd Wilcox, M.D., as the expert on medical care; Bruce Gage, M.D., as

23 the expert on mental health care; Jay Shulman, D.M.D., M.A., M.S.P.H., as the expert
24 on dental care; Lindsay M. Hayes, M.S., as the expert on suicide prevention; Jeffrey 25
Schwartz, Ph.D., as the expert for use of force in the jails; and James Austin, Ph.D., as 26 27 the expert for the jail classification system.

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

3

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 15

The proposed Consent Decree, which incorporates the Remedial Plan, was

2 submitted to the County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2018. The Board of
3 Supervisors approved the Consent Decree on that date. 4
On November 27, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion seeking 5 6 preliminary approval of the Consent Decree and found that it was “the product of
7 arms-length, serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced

8 and knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this

9 litigation.” Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Approval of Consent Decree and Notice
10 to the Class at 1–2, ECF No. 77. The Court directed Defendant “to post the Notice in 11
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese in all housing units in such a manner as to make the 12 13 notice visible to all inmates.” Id. at 2. The Court set a hearing regarding final approval
14 of the Consent Decree for February 27, 2019, id. at 2–3, and later continued the

15 hearing to March 14, 2019. ECF No. 98.

16

On December 20, 2018, Captain Amy Le and Lieutenant Mark Padget filed

17 declarations affirming the Defendant’s compliances with the Court’s November 27, 18 19 2018 order. See ECF Nos. 83 & 84. Additionally, Defendant has filed 20 contemporaneous declarations with this motion updating the Court that the tri-lingual

21 Notice of Class Action was posted for more than 30 days and will remain posted until

22 at least April 1, 2019. See Declarations of Captain Amy Le and Lieutenant Mark

23 Padget. The Class Notice described the key terms of the settlement and the proposed

24 agreement regarding attorneys’ fees and advised class members that the Court would 25
consider written comments when deciding whether to approve the settlement. See ECF 26 27 No. 74 at 63–64. Defendant also provided copies of the Court’s order granting

28 preliminary approval of the settlement, the full Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan,

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

4

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 6 of 15

and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to individuals

2 who requested them. See Declarations of Captain Amy Le & Lieutenant Mark Padget
3 at ¶¶ 4–5. 4
To date, 13 letters have been filed with the Court. See ECF Nos. 85–97. Each 5 6 letter is addressed below.

7

SUMMARY OF KEY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TERMS

8

9

The following are some of the key terms of the Consent Decree:

10 1. Based on the reports of the experts, the parties have agreed on a detailed

11 Remedial Plan that Defendant will be required to implement. The Remedial Plan
12 provisions cover all the substantive areas in dispute: medical care, dental care, mental 13 health care, the use of force, the use of solitary confinement, and discrimination 14 15 against people with non-mobility disabilities. The Remedial Plan is attached to the 16 Consent Decree as Exhibit A. Among other things, it requires the County to (a)

17 provide constitutionally-sufficient medical and mental health care, (b) provide

18 additional safeguards to reduce suicides by people in custody, (c) update its dental
19 care policies, (d) identify people with non-mobility disabilities and ensure they receive 20
appropriate accommodations, (e) limit the use and duration of restrictive housing, (f) 21 22 and implement a revised use of force policy. 23 2. The parties will agree on joint neutral experts who will monitor compliance

24 with the Remedial Plan and assist in dispute resolution. The experts will complete

25 comprehensive reviews of Defendant’s progress and will have reasonable access to all

26 parts of the Jails, including confidential, voluntary interviews with any staff and

27 inmates, and documents on request.
28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

5

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 7 of 15

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will also monitor compliance with the Consent Decree and

2 the Remedial Plan. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be able to inspect the Jails at least twice per
3 year and have reasonable access to relevant information, including documents as well 4
as interviews with staff and inmates. 5 6 4. In the event of a dispute, the parties have agreed on an informal dispute
7 resolution process, including involvement of a mediator as appropriate. The Court will

8 retain jurisdiction to address motions to enforce compliance should the dispute

9 resolution process fail.
10 5. The County has agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $1,600,000 for merits fees and 11
expenses and $200,000 per year for monitoring fees and expenses. 12

13

ANALYSIS

14

A. The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

15

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the settlement

16 of class actions. In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008); Class 17

18 Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Courts must give

19 “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the parties.” Hanlon v.

20 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998). “[S]ettlement [is] the preferred

21 means of dispute resolution” and that “is especially true in complex class action

22 litigation.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir.

23 1982).

24

25

In reviewing proposed class-action settlement agreements, there is an initial

26 presumption of fairness when a proposed class settlement was negotiated at arm’s

27 length by counsel for the class. Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08–5198 EMC,

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

6

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 8 of 15

2011 WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). “Although Rule 23 imposes strict

2 procedural requirements on the approval of a class settlement, a district court’s only

3 role in reviewing the substance of that settlement is to ensure that it is ‘fair, adequate, 4
and free from collusion.’” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) 5 6 (citation omitted).

7

Other factors courts consider in assessing a settlement proposal include: “[1] the

8 strength of the plaintiffs’ case; [2] the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of

9 further litigation; [3] the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; [4]
10 the amount offered in settlement; [5] the extent of discovery completed and the stage 11
of the proceedings; [6] the experience and views of counsel; [7] the presence of a 12 13 governmental participant; and [8] the reaction of the class members to the proposed
14 settlement.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026; see also In re Oracle Sec. Litig., 829 F. Supp.

15 1176, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 1993). The district court must explore these factors

16 comprehensively to satisfy appellate review, but “the decision to approve or reject a

17 settlement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d

18 at 1026.
19

20

“[T]he court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement

21 negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to

22 reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or

23 overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement,

24 taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d 25
at 1027 (citing Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625). Thus, a district court’s decision 26 27 to approve a class-action settlement may be reversed “only upon a strong showing that

28 the district court’s decision was a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (citation omitted).

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

7

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 9 of 15

Here, the Court already found that the settlement is “the product of arms-length,

2 serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and
3 knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.” 4
Order Granting Mot. for Prelim. Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class 5 6 at 1–2, ECF No. 77. Thus, the Consent Decree is entitled to a presumption of fairness.
7 Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at *8.

8

The Court should grant the Consent Decree final approval because it provides

9 substantial equitable relief to class members. Defendant has agreed to settlement terms
10 that directly address the class claims in this case, including the delivery of minimally 11
adequate dental, medical, and mental health care, reasonable accommodations for 12 13 persons with non-mobility disabilities, improvements to restrictive housing, and the
14 implementation of a revised use of force policy. See Remedial Plan, ECF No. 74, Ex.

15 A of Ex. 1. The settlement was reached after several years of negotiations between the

16 parties, who were zealously represented by their experienced counsel throughout this
17 litigation. Decl. of Donald Specter in Supp. of Pls.’ Unopposed Mot. for Attorneys’ 18
Fees and Expenses at ¶¶ 2–6, ECF No. 81. The settlement was also reached after 19 20 experts inspected Defendant’s jails and opined on the adequacy of dental, medical,
21 and mental health care delivered in the Santa Clara County Jails, as well as the extent

22 and propriety of use of force against inmates incarcerated by Defendant and other

23 issues raised by the action.

24

Further, the outcome of the litigation and the extent of any relief that the class

25 might be awarded if the case went to trial is uncertain. Plaintiffs faced substantial
26

27 burdens in demonstrating a current and ongoing violation of inmates’ constitutional

28 rights on a system-wide basis. And proceeding through pre-trial motions, trial, and

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

8

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 10 of 15

probable appeal would impose risks, costs, and a substantial delay in the

2 implementation of any remedy in this matter. Given the relief achieved and the risks
3 and costs involved in further litigation, the Consent Decree represents a fundamentally 4
“fair, reasonable, and adequate” resolution of the disputed issues and should be given 5 6 final approval. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e)(2).

7

B. None of the comments refute the presumption that the settlement is fair,

8

reasonable, and adequate.

9

Thirteen letters were submitted to the Court. Two class members each wrote

10 twice, ECF Nos. 88 and 89 (letters of Joey Oaxaca Martinez); 87 and 92 (letters of

11 Mark Weber), including one that was on behalf of “the inmates of housing unit 7B.” 12 ECF No. 92. Another letter was signed by three class members. ECF No. 91. Two 13 14 community members also submitted letters. ECF Nos. 94 (letter of Christine Clifford) 15 and 96 (letter of Jose Valle of Silicon Valley De-Bug).1

16

Most letters did not provide substantive comments on the terms of the Consent

17 Decree or Remedial Plan. Four of the letters were either a request for the plan, ECF

18 Nos. 86, 88, or did not address the settlement directly. ECF Nos. 89, 97. Another letter 19 asked for cash awards to be given to people in Defendant's jails. ECF No. 91. Other 20 21 letters reported individual experiences at Defendant’s jails and briefly addressed 22 various aspects of how the plan should be implemented. ECF Nos. 85, 87, 93, 95. Two

23

24

25

1 Though the authors of these two letters are not members of the class here, it is appropriate to address them here because they express concerns on behalf of the class.

26 Ms. Clifford’s son is incarcerated by Defendant and Silicon Valley De-Bug is a well-

27

known advocacy group for people in the jails. See, e.g., De-Bug San Jose, Bring Civilian Oversight to the Jails, available at http://www.debugsanjose.org/#/bring-

28 civilian-oversight-to-the-jails/

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

9

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 11 of 15

letters asked that the settlement address Defendant’s classification system. ECF Nos.

2 90, 92.

3

The two letters from non-class members took different approaches. The letter

4 from Christine Clifford asked for the settlement to cover additional areas and that the
5

6 Court should include in the settlement “more measured and reliable systems for

7 identifying and reporting on interventions, and to seek far more involvement and

8 feedback from detainees, their families, and the community.” Ms. Clifford also asked

9 that the settlement include “more detailed steps for classification, more accountability

10 for grievances, more inclusion of meaningful programming for all detainees, and more 11
attention to identifying and serving people with disabilities as defined by IDEA.” ECF 12 13 No. 94.

14

The other non-class member letter, from Jose Valle of Silicon Valley De-Bug,

15 included a detailed review of the administrative management section of the Remedial

16 Plan and results of surveys taken after hunger strikes in Defendant’s jails. ECF
17 No. 96.2 18
None of these letters is a basis for rejecting the settlement. The letters that 19 20 reported problems with conditions at the jails underscore the need for the agreed-upon

21

22 2 In addition to these letters, Plaintiffs’ counsel received a phone call about the

23

settlement from class member Jason Carl Smith, COE221, on January 15, 2019. Mr. Smith indicated that he did not object to the settlement, but asked that it cover more

24 ground, including the schedule for serving food in the special management unit for

25

people with serious mental illness, that leftover and extra food be given to people in that unit because they lack money to go to canteen, that canteen orders for people with

26 serious mental illness not be cancelled for including items with caffeine, that the jail

27

provide earplugs to ameliorate noise in the units, and to ensure that grievances by people in the special management unit for serious mental illness be submitted to an

28 ADA coordinator.
10

Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 12 of 15

remedy in this case. And the letters addressing classification outside of restrictive

2 housing raise issues that have never been part of this case. In addition, the letter
3 asking for damages to be paid to class members should not prevent approval of the 4
settlement here: the class only sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 5 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and the settlement does not bar class
7 members from pursuing individual damage claims. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d

8 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he general rule is that a class action suit seeking only

9 declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual damage claims by
10 class members, even if based on the same events.”). 11
Finally, suggestions that the settlement does not go far enough are not a basis 12 13 for rejecting it. “Of course it is possible, as many of the objectors’ affidavits imply,
14 that the settlement could have been better. But this possibility does not mean the

15 settlement presented was not fair, reasonable or adequate. Settlement is the offspring

16 of compromise; the question we address is not whether the final product could be
17 prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate and free from collusion.” 18 19 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027. The settlement here is fair, reasonable, and adequate and 20 this Court should approve it.

21

C. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses should be

22

granted.

23

Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and out of pocket

24 expenses in the amount of $1,600,000. This amount — which reimburses Plaintiffs’

25 counsel for some but not all of their actual hours spent and out-of-pocket expenses —

26 is fair and reasonable in light of the extraordinary results obtained through this

27

28 litigation, the lengthy and detailed settlement negotiations, and the difficulty and

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

11

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 13 of 15

complexity of the issues involved. There have been no objections from class members

2 to the proposed attorneys’ fees and expenses. Accordingly, the Court should grant
3 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, ECF No. 79, 4
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(h). 5

6

CONCLUSION

7

8

As the Court has already ruled, the Consent Decree is the produce of arm’s-

9 length, serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and

10 knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended this litigation.

11 Thus, it is entitled to a presumption of fairness. Further, the comments by class
12 members fail to demonstrate that the Consent Decree does not fairly, reasonably, and 13 adequately resolve the class’s claims for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the parties 14 15 request that the Court grant final approval of the Consent Decree and grant Plaintiffs’ 16 Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

17

Respectfully submitted,

18

19 Dated: February 27, 2019

Cooley LLP

20

/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria

21

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)

22

Addison M. Litton (305374) Mark A. Zambarda (314808)

23

24 Dated: 25
26
27

February 27, 2019

Prison Law Office
/s/ Donald Specter Donald Specter (83925) Thomas M. Nosewicz (317849)

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

12

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 14 of 15

Dated: 2 3 4 5 6 Dated: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

February 27, 2019 February 27, 2019

Kendall Dawson Wasley
/s/ Kendall Dawson Wasley Kendall Dawson Wasley (252294)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Aryn Paige Harris, Deputy County Counsel
/s/ Aryn Paige Harris Aryn Paige Harris (208590) Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant County of Santa Clara

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

13

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 99 Filed 02/27/19 Page 15 of 15

ATTESTATION
2 I hereby attest that I have on file the holograph signature of the signature
3 4 indicated by a “confirmed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

5 Dated: February 27, 2019

Cooley LLP

6

/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria

7

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joint Motion for Final Approval of

14

Class Action Settlement

Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-RMI

 
 Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7

8

BRIAN CHAVEZ, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

Case No. 15-cv-05277-RMI CONSENT DECREE

11

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

12

Defendant.

13

14

A. INTRODUCTION

15

1. The parties to this Consent Decree are Plaintiffs Brian Chavez, Brandon Bracamonte,

16 and the class and subclass of people they represent (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand; and

17 Defendant County of Santa Clara (“Defendant”), on the other hand. The parties enter into this

18 Consent Decree to ensure the provision of constitutional medical, dental, and mental health care; to

19 ensure non-discrimination for inmates with non-mobility disabilities; and to address use of force

20 and restrictive housing in the Santa Clara County Jails.1

21

2. Plaintiffs filed this action on November 18, 2015, and filed an Amended Complaint

22 on January 20, 2016. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant fails to provide minimally

23 adequate medical, dental, and mental health care to the people incarcerated in its jails; fails to

24 prevent unnecessary and excessive use of force against inmates; imposes on inmates the harmful

25 and excessive use of solitary confinement in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

26

27
1 For the purposes of this Consent Decree, references to the Santa Clara Jails include the Main Jail and Elmwood
28 Correctional Complex and any new structures designated to house prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara
County Sheriff subsequent to the date of this Consent Decree.

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the United States Constitution; and discriminates against inmates with non-mobility disabilities in

2 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

3 Defendant has denied liability. On September 20, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion

4 for class certification.

5

3. The Plaintiff class consists of “[a]ll people who are now, or in the future will be,

6 incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails” and a subclass of “[a]ll people who are now, or in the

7 future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or

8 intellectual disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §

9 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.”

10

4. Before the initiation of this action, Defendant had hired six (6) experts to assess

11 conditions at the Santa Clara County jails. Once the action was initiated and settlement discussions

12 began, Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed that the already-hired experts were the appropriate ones to

13 investigate and opine on the adequacy of dental, medical, and mental health care delivered in the

14 Santa Clara County Jails, as well as the extent and propriety of uses of force against inmates

15 incarcerated by Defendant and other issues raised by the action. The six experts were Todd Wilcox,

16 M.D., as the expert on medical care; Bruce Gage, M.D., as the expert on mental health care; Jay

17 Shulman, D.M.D., M.A., M.S.P.H., as the expert on dental care; Lindsay M. Hayes, M.S., as the

18 expert on suicide prevention; Jeffrey Schwartz, Ph.D., as the expert for use of force in the jails; and

19 James Austin, Ph.D., as the expert for the jail classification system.

20

5. The experts conducted extensive tours and reviews of the jail facilities, policies and

21 procedures, and interviewed staff and inmates. They drafted preliminary reports setting forth their

22 findings and recommendations, and both parties were given the opportunity to review the reports

23 and make comments. The experts thereafter submitted their final reports setting forth their respective

24 findings and making recommendations for remedial action.

25

6. With respect to alleged discrimination against inmates with disabilities and policies

26 governing restrictive housing in the jails, the parties engaged in direct discussions without benefit

27 or need of joint experts or expert reports or findings.

28 2

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 3 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

7. The parties thereafter negotiated individual remedial plans pertaining to the matters

2 alleged in the action and those individual plans have been incorporated into a single, global

3 Remedial Plan, attached as Exhibit A.

4

8. Each party to this Consent Decree was represented by counsel during its negotiation

5 and execution. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class and subclass are represented by Donald Specter and

6 Thomas M. Nosewicz of the Prison Law Office; Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Addison M. Litton,

7 and Mark A. Zambarda of Cooley LLP; and Kendall Dawson Wasley. Defendant is represented by

8 the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara.

9

9. Through this Consent Decree, Defendant agrees to implement the measures set forth

10 in the Remedial Plan, subject to monitoring by the experts named in Section C below and Plaintiffs’

11 counsel, negotiation between the parties, and if necessary, enforcement by the Court.

12

B. REMEDIAL PLAN

13

10. Defendant shall fully implement all of the remedial measures set forth in the

14 Remedial Plan. The Remedial Plan is designed to meet the minimum level of health care necessary

15 to fulfill Defendant’s obligations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to ensure that

16 unlawful force is not utilized in the jails, to avoid the unlawful use of segregated or restrictive

17 housing in the jails, and to ensure compliance with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

18 Act for inmates with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities.

19

11. Defendant shall, in consultation and collaboration with Plaintiffs’ counsel, develop

20 or amend appropriate and adequate plans, policies, and practices to ensure compliance with the

21 Remedial Plan. Defendant shall implement those plans, policies, and practices. At least 30 days

22 prior to finalizing or implementing any new plans or policies developed to meet the terms of the

23 Remedial Plan, Defendant will submit such plans or policies to Plaintiffs’ counsel for their review

24 and comments. Disagreements about the adequacy of such plans or policies shall be resolved

25 pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Paragraph 28, below.

26

12. Not less than 90 days, and not more than 180 days, after this Consent Decree is

27 approved by the Court, Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the experts a Status Report

28 stating whether it is complying with the terms of this Consent Decree. The Status Report shall 3

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 4 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 include a description of the steps that Defendant has taken to implement the Remedial Plan. Not

2 later than the end of each subsequent 180-day period during the term of this Consent Decree,

3 Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the experts a Status Report addressing each item

4 of the Remedial Plan and shall specify whether it believes it is or is not in substantial compliance

5 with each component of the Remedial Plan.

6

C. EXPERTS

7

13. The parties agree that Lisa Pratt, M.D., shall serve as an expert to advise the parties

8 on the Defendant’s compliance or non-compliance with various parts of the Remedial Plan, to assist

9 with dispute resolution matters addressed in Paragraph 29, and to provide testimony, if required, in

10 any proceedings before the Court. Dr. Pratt shall serve as the expert on medical and dental care. The

11 parties agree that other experts are necessary to monitor mental health care, suicide prevention, and

12 use of force. The parties agree to select mutually agreeable experts as soon as reasonably possible.

13 Within 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree, and then every 180 days thereafter during the

14 term of this Consent Decree, the experts shall each complete comprehensive reviews and reports

15 (“180-Day Reports”) to advise the parties and if necessary, the Court, on Defendant’s compliance

16 or non-compliance with the Remedial Plan.

17

14. The 180-Day Reports shall be considered separate and apart from any evaluations

18 and reports prepared as part of the dispute resolution process described below and shall be

19 admissible in evidence in any proceedings before the Court.

20

15. The experts shall be entitled to reasonable compensation, which shall be paid by

21 Defendant.

22

16. With appropriate notice, the experts shall have reasonable access to all parts of any

23 Santa Clara County Jail, and such access to the facilities will not be unreasonably restricted. The

24 experts shall have access to correctional and health care staff and inmates, including confidential

25 and voluntary interviews as they deem appropriate. The experts shall also have access to documents,

26 including budgetary, custody, and health care documents, and institutional meetings, proceedings,

27 and programs to the extent the experts determine such access is needed to fulfill their obligations.

28 4

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 5 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 The experts’ tours and review of documents shall be undertaken in a manner that does not

2 unreasonably interfere with jail operations as reasonably determined by jail administrators.

3

17. The parties agree that they are each entitled to engage in ex parte communications

4 with the experts. However, all of the experts’ findings and recommendations shall be set forth in

5 writing in their respective reports.

6

18. If, for any reason, a designated expert can no longer serve or the parties wish to

7 engage any additional expert(s), the parties shall attempt to agree on who shall be appointed to serve

8 as a new or additional expert. If the parties are unable to agree, Defendant and Plaintiffs’ counsel

9 shall each nominate and submit two potential experts for the Court’s consideration and selection.

10

D. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

11

19. Defendant shall post notices to class members of this action in a manner agreed upon

12 by the parties. Such notices shall include a brief statement that includes a description of Plaintiffs’

13 claims, the definition of the class and subclass, notice that the parties have entered into this Consent

14 Decree, a description of the subject areas covered by the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan, and

15 contact information for the Prison Law Office to allow inmates to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel.

16

E. PLAINTIFFS’ MONITORING AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION

17

20. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall monitor Defendant’s compliance with the Remedial Plan.

18 Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with all such access to Santa Clara County Jail facilities,

19 documents, records, and staff that Plaintiffs’ counsel believes in good faith is necessary to monitor

20 Defendant’s compliance with the Remedial Plan subject, where applicable, to the protective order

21 agreed upon by the parties, entered by the Court on March 15, 2016. From and after the date this

22 Consent Decree is entered by the Court, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with access to

23 such information within 21 calendar days of their request. If Defendant believes that the information

24 requested by Plaintiffs is not necessary to monitor compliance with the Remedial Plan, the parties

25 shall engage in the dispute resolution process described in Paragraph 28, below, before seeking any

26 relief from the Court.

27

21. With reasonable notice to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ counsel and their consultants shall

28 be permitted the opportunity to conduct tours of the Santa Clara County Jails for the purpose of 5

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 6 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 monitoring compliance with the Remedial Plan at reasonable intervals but not less than three per

2 year.

3

22. Monitoring tours shall include reasonable access to all of the jail facilities, including

4 all housing units, facilities where health care services are provided, facilities where inmates with

5 disabilities are or may be housed and provided programming, and any other facilities where services

6 are provided pursuant to the Remedial Plan. During the tours, Defendant shall make available for

7 interview any supervisory, clinical, custodial, and program staff that have direct or supervisory

8 responsibility for health care and disability accommodations. Defendant shall provide a Sheriff’s

9 Office contact person to ensure cooperation of institution staff with Plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining

10 information they request during the tours. However, Defendant’s counsel shall be present during

11 staff interviews, and staff may decline to participate in any interview conducted by Plaintiffs’

12 counsel. During the tours, Defendant shall permit and facilitate Plaintiffs’ counsel having

13 confidential and voluntary discussions with any inmate identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Upon

14 request by Plaintiffs and pursuant to the protective order entered in this case, Defendant shall make

15 available for inspection and/or copying the health care and/or custody files of specified inmates.

16 Disputes that may arise over Plaintiffs’ counsel’s access to jail information or personnel shall be

17 addressed in the first instance by the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 28, below,

18 before the parties may seek relief from the Court.

19

23. If Plaintiffs form the good faith belief that Defendant is not substantially compliant

20 with any component of the Remedial Plan, Plaintiffs shall so inform Defendant and any relevant

21 expert of the alleged noncompliance and identify the component of the Remedial Plan alleged to be

22 noncompliant.

23

24. Defendant shall investigate the alleged noncompliance and provide Plaintiffs with a

24 response in writing within 30 calendar days. Either party shall have the option of requesting an

25 investigation and opinion from the relevant expert.

26

25. Plaintiffs’ counsel retain the ability to interview their clients pursuant to regular

27 attorney-client visiting procedures established by the Sheriff’s Office. The parties will establish an

28 efficient means to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to interview clients and conduct confidential telephonic 6

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 7 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 interviews with individual inmates, with reasonable notice, in a manner that does not disrupt jail

2 operations.

3

26. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be allowed to send postage pre-paid envelopes to their clients

4 in the Santa Clara County Jails.

5

F. INDIVIDUAL ADVOCACY

6

27. Plaintiffs may bring individual inmates’ health care, use of force, restricted housing

7 or disability accommodation concerns to the attention of Defendant’s counsel, or their designees,

8 who shall respond in writing within 14 days.

9

G. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

10

28. If a dispute arises about compliance with the Remedial Plan, the parties shall meet

11 and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If that process is not successful, either party may

12 seek to mediate the dispute with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Cousins or if he is unavailable

13 another magistrate judge or mediator.

14

H. ENFORCEMENT

15

29. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree and

16 shall have the power to enforce the agreement through specific performance and all other remedies

17 permitted by law until Defendant fulfills its obligations under this Consent Decree.

18

I. DURATION AND TERMINATION

19

30. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect until Defendant is in substantial

20 compliance with the Remedial Plan for one year. Upon agreement of the parties, that Defendant is

21 in substantial compliance with any of the medical, mental health, suicide prevention, disability, use

22 of force, or administrative management plans, or any part of such plans, Defendant shall begin to

23 self-monitor that plan or part of such plan. If after one year of self-monitoring, Defendant is still in

24 substantial compliance with that part of the Remedial Plan, it shall be subject to termination.

25

J. COSTS AND FEES

26

31. The parties agree that, by entry of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs shall be

27 considered the prevailing party in this litigation. Subject to Court approval, Defendant has agreed

28 to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $1,600,000 as their reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 7

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 8 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 incurred from the date of filing of the Complaint in this action through final court approval of this

2 Consent Decree.

3

32. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be compensated $200,000 per year for their reasonable

4 time and reasonable expenses (the sum of which includes the costs of any consultants Plaintiffs

5 may reasonably retain) relating to monitoring this Consent Decree and Remedial Plan, including

6 any reasonable time and expenses incurred in connection with the resolution of any dispute

7 pertaining to such monitoring. Two years after the approval of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs may

8 request that the annual attorney’s fees and expenses should be increased. That request shall be

9 subject to the dispute resolution process, and, if necessary, resolution by the Court. The yearly cap

10 on fees and expenses described in the previous sentence shall not apply to any fees and costs that

11 Plaintiffs may incur in enforcing or defending the Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan in court.

12

K. EFFECT OF CONSENT DECREE IN OTHER ACTIONS

13

33. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree nor any statement of claims contained herein

14 shall be used in any other case, claim, or administrative proceedings, except that Defendant and its

15 employees and agents may use this Consent Decree and any statement contained herein to assert

16 issue preclusion or res judicata.

17

L. LIABILITY AND NECESSITY FOR RELIEF

18

34. The parties agree for the purpose of this lawsuit only that the relief contained herein

19 is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of the Federal rights

20 at issue, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of the Federal rights.

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

28 // 8

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 9 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

ORDER

2

The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated Consent Decree and the record in this

3 case, hereby approves and adopts the Consent Decree as the Order of the Court and, in so doing,

4 finds that the relief contained herein is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to ensure

5 the protection of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs, and is the least intrusive

6 means necessary to accomplish those objectives.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: March 20, 2019

9

10

11

ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge

12 By their signatures below, the Parties respectfully consent to the entry of this Consent Decree.
13

Dated: March 18, 2019 14

PRISON LAW OFFICE

15

By: /s/ Donald Specter

DONALD SPECTER

16

THOMAS M. NOSEWICZ

17
18 19 Dated: March 18, 2019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs COOLEY LLP

20

By: /s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria

JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA

21

ADDISON M. LITTON

MARK A. ZAMBARDA

22

3175 Hanover Street

23

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 843-5000

24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25

26

27

28 9

Case 1:15-cv-05277-RMI Document 109 Filed 03/22/19 Page 10 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

Dated: March 18, 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dated: March 18, 2019 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY By: /s/ Kendall Dawson Wasley KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY PMB 233 1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615 Telephone: (408) 827-5024 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES R. WILLIAMS SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL By: /s/ Aryn Paige Harris ARYN PAIGE HARRIS DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Attorneys for Defendant County Of Santa Clara
10

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 1 of 12
CLOSED,CONSENT,PrisSpecClosed,REFSET−NC
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Eureka) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−05277−RMI

Chavez et al v. County of Santa Clara Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Date Terminated: 03/25/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner: Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Brian Chavez

represented by Donald H. Specter Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710−1916 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: dspecter@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Jean Knapp Stebner and Associates 870 Market Street Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 4153629800 Fax: 4153629801 Email: kelly@stebnerassociates.com TERMINATED: 06/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Addison Mills Litton Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304−1130 (650) 843−5112 Email: alitton@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Michael Walker Cooley LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306−2155 650−843−5769 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: jwalker@cooley.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2017

Kendall Dawson Wasley 1520 E. Covell Blvd. B5−233 Davis, CA 95616 408−827−5024 Email: kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margot Knight Mendelson Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 2 of 12

Plaintiff Brandon Bracamonte

50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Anthony Zambarda Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 650−843−5360 Fax: (650) 849−7400 Email: mzambarda@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rita Katherine Lomio Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 280−2621 Email: rlomio@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth St. Berkeley, CA 94710−1916 510−280−2621 Fax: 510−280−2704 Email: snorman@prisonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Nosewicz Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Email: tom@prisonlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/23/2020
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 650−843−5000 Fax: 650−849−7400 Email: jsantamaria@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald H. Specter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Jean Knapp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Linda Norman

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 3 of 12
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Addison Mills Litton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Michael Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2017
Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Anthony Zambarda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rita Katherine Lomio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Nosewicz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2020
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Santa Clara

represented by Aryn Paige Harris Office of County Cousel, Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95112 408− 299−5900 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Michael Press Office of the County Counsel 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299−5900 Fax: (408) 292−7240 Email: douglas.press@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily L Fedman Office of the County Counsel 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5987 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: emily.fedman@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 4 of 12

Miscellaneous David Cole

Ling Yang Lew Santa Clara County Counsel's Office 70 West Hedding Street East Wing 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900 Email: Ling.Lew@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Adrienne Ells Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/18/2015
11/19/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 12/01/2015 01/15/2016 01/20/2016 01/25/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against County of Santa Clara ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−10002259.). Filed byBrian Chavez, Brandon Bracamonte. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 11/18/2015) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
2 Proposed Summons. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 11/18/2015) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.
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. by 12/2/2015. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
4 Summons Issued as to County of Santa Clara. (msr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald H. Specter (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Jean Knapp (Knapp, Kelly) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez.. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 12/1/2015) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Addison Mills Litton (Litton, Addison) (Filed on 1/15/2016) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byBrian Chavez, Brandon Bracamonte. (Knapp, Kelly) (Filed on 1/20/2016) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez re 4 Summons Issued (Litton, Addison) (Filed on 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 5 of 12

02/02/2016 02/02/2016
02/02/2016 02/16/2016 02/19/2016 02/23/2016
02/25/2016 03/11/2016 03/15/2016 03/29/2016 03/30/2016 04/01/2016 04/27/2016 04/28/2016 04/28/2016

11 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by County of Santa Clara.. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
12 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement due by 2/16/2016. Case Management Conference set for 2/23/2016 02:00 PM in Eureka/McKinleyville. Parties may appear by phone by dialing 888−684−8852 and entering access code 1868782. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Kendall Dawson Wasley (Wasley, Kendall) (Filed on 2/2/2016) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
14 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT −Joint filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 2/16/2016) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
15 ANSWER to Amended Complaint byCounty of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 2/19/2016) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/23/2016. Bench Trial is set for May 8, 2017 at 9:00 am. Final Pretrial March 21, 2017 at 10:00 am. Further Case Management Conference is set for June 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm. Parties may appear by phone. Initial disclosure and discovery is stayed until experts have reports on conditions and parties have exchanged their reports. Parties will discuss magistrate judge settlement conference at June further case management conference.Plaintiff Attorneys Donald Specter and Jessica Valenzuela SantaMaria by phone. Defendant Attorney Aryn Harris by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/23/2016) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
Set/Reset Hearing re 16 Case Management Conference − Initial,,, Bench Trial set for 5/8/2017 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Case Management Conference set for 6/14/2016 02:00 PM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/21/2017 10:00 AM. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2016) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
17 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER − Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation filed by County of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 3/11/2016) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
18 Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 17 Stipulation.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2016) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
19 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INMATE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by County of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 3/29/2016) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
20 Proposed Order re 19 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INMATE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER by County of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 3/30/2016) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
21 Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 19 Stipulation.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2016) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
22 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins for Settlement. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 4/27/2016. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2016) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2016) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Settlement conference initiated; discussions continuing; parties to contact Magistrate Judge Cousins to schedule in person conference; Magistrate Judge Cousins to contact defendants' counsel to schedule facilities visit. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Don Specter, Addison Litton. Defendant's Attorney: Aryn Paige Harris.

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 6 of 12

06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/14/2016
09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/19/2016
09/20/2016 09/20/2016
09/22/2016 10/04/2016 10/06/2016

(FTR Time Not recorded.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/28/2016) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
24 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Walker, Jeffrey) (Filed on 6/7/2016) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Margot Knight Mendelson (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 6/7/2016) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
26 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Margot Knight Mendelson (Mendelson, Margot) (Filed on 6/7/2016) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/14/2016.FTR Time 2:21−2:27. Plaintiff Attorneys Donald Specter, Jeff Walker, Kendall Wasley, all by phone. Defendant Attorney Aryn Harris by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/14/2016) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
28 Joint MOTION to Certify Class filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2016 10:00 AM in Eureka before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Responses due by 9/23/2016. Replies due by 9/30/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 9/9/2016) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
29 STIPULATION re 28 Joint MOTION to Certify Class (Joint Stipulation of Facts) filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 9/9/2016) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
30 Declaration in Support of 28 Joint MOTION to Certify Class of Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E, # 2 Exhibit F through H, # 3 Exhibit I through L)(Related document(s) 28 ) (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 9/9/2016) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
31 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 28 Joint MOTION to Certify Class filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 28 ) (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 9/9/2016) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
32 Declaration of Kendall Dawson in Support of 28 Joint MOTION to Certify Class filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 28 ) (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 9/9/2016) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
33 CLERK'S NOTICE (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Telephonic Conference set for 9/20/2016 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. The parties shall attend by dialing 888−684−8852 and entering access code 1868782. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2016) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
34 Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 28 Motion to Certify Class.(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2016) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 9/20/2016. Court will sign class certification. Status Conference set for 1/17/2017 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear by phone using the previously provided phone instructions. FTR Time 1:05−1:19. Plaintiff Attorneys Addison Litton, Jeffrey Walker, Donald Specter and Kendall Wasley all by phone. Defendant Attorney Aryn Harris by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/20/2016) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Rita Katherine Lomio for Plaintiffs (Lomio, Rita) (Filed on 9/22/2016) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
37 Proposed Order APPROVING CLASS NOTICE by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Litton, Addison) (Filed on 10/4/2016) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
38 ORDER Approving Class Notice. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 10/6/2016. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2016) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 7 of 12

11/28/2016
11/29/2016 11/29/2016 12/05/2016
01/17/2017
01/20/2017 01/24/2017 02/03/2017 03/20/2017 04/04/2017
04/11/2017
05/23/2017 05/24/2017 05/24/2017

39 Erroneous Entry−−Please Ignore−−See Below for Correct Document MOTION to Relate Case 16−cv−06594−LHK filed by David Cole. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related)(Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 11/28/2016) Modified on 11/30/2016 (msr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/28/2016)
Electronic filing error. Incorrect Case Number [err201]Please re−file in its entirety. Re: 39 MOTION to Relate Case 16−cv−06594−LHK filed by David Cole (msr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2016) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
40 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Decline to relate cases filed by David Cole. Responses due by 12/5/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Ells, Lisa) (Filed on 11/29/2016) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
41 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 40 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Decline to relate cases ) − JOINT RESPONSE OF CHAVEZ PARTIES REQUESTING THAT THE CHAVEZ AND COLE CASES BE RELATED AND ASSIGNED TO A SINGLE JUDGE filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 12/5/2016) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 1/17/2017. Parties to prepare stipulation and proposed order vacating the trial date, staying motions practice and setting further case management conference in June. Stipulation due by end of this week.FTR Time 2:10−2:27. Plaintiff Attorneys Addison Litton, Rita Romeo, Kendall Wasley all by phone. Defendant Attorney Eryn Harris by phone. This is a text only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/17/2017) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Vacate Trial Date and Stay Related Motions Practice Until Further CMC filed by Brian Chavez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Litton, Addison) (Filed on 1/20/2017) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
44 ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 43 Stipulation. Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2017 02:00 PM.. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2017) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
45 Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas terminating 40 Administrative Motion Regarding Relating Cases.(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
46 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Set Trial Date filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 3/20/2017) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
47 CLERK'S NOTICE : Status Conference regarding setting of trial date set for 4/11/2017 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear by phone by dialing 888−684−8852/Access Code 1868782. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2017) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Status Conference held on 4/11/2017. Status Conference re status of consent decree set for 9/19/2017 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Parties may appear by phone using previously−provided instructions. FTR Time 1:43−1:48. Plaintiff Attorneys Donald Specter by phone, Addison Litton by phone. Defendant Attorney Aryn Harris by phone. This is a text−only Minute Entry (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/11/2017) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Vacate June 6, 2017 Case Management Conference filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 5/23/2017) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
50 Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 49 Stipulation.(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
Set/Reset Hearing re 50 Order on Stipulation. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 8 of 12

06/16/2017
09/18/2017 09/18/2017 09/19/2017

51 REMARK: The Court will be visiting Santa Clara County main jail and Elmwood on June 23, 9:00 AM; If counsel for the parties (limited to two attorneys per side) would like to join for the portion of tour of facilities relevant to the trial in this case, they must alert Courtroom Deputy via email at lili_harrell@cand.uscourts.gov by noon June 20; Counsel must also alert Litigation Coordinator at SVSP and return forms by that same deadline. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2017). (Entered: 06/16/2017)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Linda Norman (Norman, Sara) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
53 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Anthony Zambarda (Zambarda, Mark) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
54 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas: Telephone Conference held on 9/19/2017.

FTR Time: 1:01−1:04. Total Time in Court: 11 minutes.

Plaintiff Attorney: Addison M. Litton, Esq., Sara L. Norman, Esq., Mark A. Zambarda, Esq. Defendant Attorney: Aryn P. Harris, Deputy County Counsel.

Attachment: Telephonic Status Conference held. Further Telephonic Status Conference scheduled for January 9, 2018, at 1:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Robert Illman. See attached minutes for phone conference number.

09/19/2017 09/19/2017 11/06/2017
12/08/2017 01/09/2018 01/09/2018
01/22/2018 01/23/2018 03/06/2018

(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
Set/Reset Hearing re 54 Telephone Conference: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/9/2018, at 01:00 PM, in Eureka/McKinleyville Courthouse before Magistrate Judge Robert Illman. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
55 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Mark Anthony Zambarda (Zambarda, Mark) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
56 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robert M Illman for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by the Executive Committee on 11/6/17. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017) Modified on 11/6/2017 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/06/2017)
57 ORDER re 40 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Decline to relate cases filed by David Cole. The Court finds that the cases are not related. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2017) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by Ling Yang Lew (Lew, Ling) (Filed on 1/9/2018) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman: Status Conference held on 1/9/2018. Status Conference set for 3/6/2018 01:00 PM in Eureka before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The parties may appear by phone using the same telephone instructions as provided previously. FTR Time: 1:18−1:27. Plaintiff Attorneys: Donald Specter, Addison Litton and Mark Zambarda all by phone. Defendant Attorney: Ling Lew by phone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/9/2018) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
60 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by County of Santa Clara.. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
61 ORDER Denying Request for Reassignment. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 1/23/2018. (rmilc1s, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman: Status Conference held on 3/6/2018. Bench Trial set for 2/4/2019 09:00 AM before

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 9 of 12

03/20/2018 04/24/2018
05/01/2018 06/01/2018 06/11/2018
06/20/2018 06/21/2018 06/22/2018
10/05/2018

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman, Courtroom D, San Francisco. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/15/2019 02:30 PM in McKinleyville. Parties may appear by phone for pretrial and should seek instructions from the court to do so. Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2018 10:00 AM in McKinleyville before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. Dispositive motion filing date 9/4/2018. Opposition due 10/3/2018. Reply 10/22/2018. Settlement Conference with Judge Cousins to be held within 90 days. FTR Time: 1:17−1:38. Plaintiff Attorneys: Donald Specter, Mark Zambarda, Addison Litton, Thomas Nosewicz all by phone. Defendant Attorney: Aryn Harris by phone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/6/2018) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
63 NOTICE AND ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference set for 4/23/2018 09:30 AM. The parties will meet at the Santa Clara County Jail, 150 W. Hedding Street, San Jose. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/20/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Settlement Conference held on 4/24/2018: Discussions continue; Further conference contemplated for June 11 or 12, to be confirmed. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Donald Specter, Thomas Nosewicz, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Mark Zambarda, Kendall Wasley. Defendant's Attorneys: Aryn Harris, Ling Lew. (FTR Time: Not recorded.) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/24/2018). (Entered: 04/24/2018)
65 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING Further Settlement Conference for 6/11/2018 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Cousins in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor. Parties to submit and exchange updated settlement statements (with proposed agenda, and current draft of any settlement proposals) by 6/7/2018. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2018) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas Michael Press (Press, Douglas) (Filed on 6/1/2018) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Further Settlement Conference held on 6/11/2018: Response to proposal and updated settlement status report due 6/22. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Donald Specter, Thomas Nosewicz, Addison Litton, Mark Zambarda, Kendall Wasley. Defendant's Attorneys: Aryn Harris, Douglas Press. (FTR Time: Not recorded.) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily L Fedman (Fedman, Emily) (Filed on 6/20/2018) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
69 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas M. Nosewicz (Nosewicz, Thomas) (Filed on 6/21/2018) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
70 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Settlement Conference session held on 6/22/2018: discussions continue; Further status report due to be submitted (not filed) by 7/13. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Donald Specter, Thomas Nosewicz, Addison Litton. Defendant's Attorneys: Aryn Harris, Douglas Press. (FTR Time: Not reported.) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/22/2018) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
71 CLERK'S NOTICE Further Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2018 02:00 PM in McKinleyville. The parties may appear by phone by dialing

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 10 of 12

10/16/2018 10/23/2018 10/23/2018 10/23/2018
10/25/2018 11/27/2018
11/27/2018 11/27/2018 12/14/2018 12/14/2018

888−684−8852/Access Code 1868782. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2018) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
72 CLERK'S NOTICE The Further Case Management Conference previously set for 10/16/2018 is reset to 10/23/2018 02:00 PM in McKinleyville. Phone instructions remain the same. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2018) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
73 Joint MOTION for Settlement Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2018 10:00 AM in McKinleyville before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. Responses due by 11/6/2018. Replies due by 11/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
74 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 73 Joint MOTION for Settlement Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 73 ) (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
75 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/23/2018. The parties advised the court on their joint notice of settlement and discussed dates. The court will vacate the trial date and attendant deadlines. FTR Time: 2:06−2:14. Plaintiff Attorneys: Don Specter, Addison Litton and Mark Zambarda all by phone. Defendant Attorneys: Aryn Harris and Douglas Press both by phone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
76 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 73 Joint MOTION for Settlement Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 73 ) (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 10/25/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
77 Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 73 Motion for Settlement. NOTICE − the parties requested that the Final Approval Hearing be held in San Jose for the convenience of the parties and any persons wishing to attend or be heard at the hearing. While the court endeavored to accommodate the request, as it turns out, the San Jose courthouse will be undergoing extensive renovations to the courtrooms in 2019, leaving a shortage of available courtrooms and no video−telephonic capabilities. Accordingly, the court has set the matter for hearing at the San Francisco courthouse. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2018) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
Set/Reset Hearing re 77 Order on Motion for Settlement, Motion Hearing, Final Approval Hearing, set for 2/27/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 14, 18th Floor before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. (glmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2018) Modified on 11/27/2018 (glmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/27/2018)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman: Motion Hearing held on 11/27/2018. Final Approval Hearing scheduled for 2/27/2019. FTR Time: 10:05−10:26. Plaintiff Attorneys: Donald Specter and Thomas Nosewicz by phone and Kendall Wasley by phone. Defendant Attorney: Aryn Harris by phone. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/27/2018) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 14, 18th Floor before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. Responses due by 12/28/2018. Replies due by 1/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
80 Declaration of Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria in Support of 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 79 )

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 11 of 12

12/14/2018 12/14/2018 12/20/2018 12/20/2018 12/24/2018 12/26/2018 12/26/2018 12/26/2018 12/31/2018 01/16/2019 01/17/2019 01/17/2019 01/18/2019 01/24/2019 01/24/2019 01/24/2019 01/28/2019 02/07/2019

(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
81 Declaration of Donald Specter in Support of 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byBrandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Specter, Donald) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
82 Declaration of Kendall Dawson Wasley in Support of 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byBrian Chavez. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Wasley, Kendall) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
83 Declaration of CAPTAIN AMY LE AFFIRMING COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2018 filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 12/20/2018) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
84 Declaration of LT. MARK PADGET AFFIRMING COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2018 filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 12/20/2018) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
85 Letter from Jose Eduardo Perez "Objection To Class Action Settlement." (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2018) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
86 Letter from Raymond Vasquez requesting copy of Consent Decree and other issues. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2018) Modified on 12/27/2018 (msrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2018)
87 Objections to Class Action Settlement by Mark Weber (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
88 Request for copy of Decree and Remedial Plan and copy of Motion for Fees by Joey Oaxaca Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
89 Objection to Class Action Settlement by Joey Oaxaca−Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
90 Comments/Feedback on The Remedial Plan by Matthew Jonathan Clifford. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2019) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
91 Opposition to Class Action Settlement by James R. Potter ll, Carlos Guerrero, Dana P. Doyutis (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2019: # 1 Envelope) (msrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2019)
92 Objections to Class Action Settlement by Mark Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2019) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
93 Comments/Feedback on Settlement Agreement by Michael F. Reichel (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2019) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
94 Concerns regarding Consent Decree and Remedial Plan by Christine Clifford. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
95 Letter Objections to Class Action Settlement by James Cramer. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
96 Comments on the Chavez V. County of Santa Clara Remedial Plan by Silicon Valley De−Bug. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
97 Letter from Mario A Rodriguez concerning improvements to Jail and other concerns. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2019) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
98 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing and Final Approval Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees . Motion Hearing and Final Approval Hearing set for 3/14/2019 01:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom D, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The parties shall proceed with notice

Case: 1:15-cv-5277 As of: 08/04/2020 06:09 PM PDT 12 of 12

02/27/2019
02/28/2019 02/28/2019 03/14/2019 03/14/2019 03/14/2019 03/14/2019
03/20/2019 03/20/2019 03/20/2019
03/22/2019 03/25/2019 04/04/2019 04/04/2019 01/23/2020

procedures as discussed at the 2/6/2019 conference call. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2019) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
99 Joint MOTION for Settlement [Final Approval of Class Action Settlement] filed by Brandon Bracamonte, Brian Chavez. Motion Hearing set for 3/14/2019 01:00 PM in McKinleyville before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. Responses due by 2/28/2019. Replies due by 3/7/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Santamaria, Jessica) (Filed on 2/27/2019) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
100 Declaration of Lieutenant Mark Padget in Support of 99 MOTION for Settlement filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 2/28/2019) Modified on 2/28/2019 (msrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2019)
101 Declaration of Captain Amy Le in Support of 99 MOTION for Settlement (Updated) filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 79 ) (Harris, Aryn) (Filed on 2/28/2019) Modified on 2/28/2019 (msrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2019)
102 Letter from Shannon Tyree regarding prison condition reform. (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
103 Letter from Fernando Lopez regarding prison death of brother. (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
104 Letter from Joseph Vega regarding Settlement and Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. (msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman: Motion Hearing held on 3/14/2019. re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Brian Chavez, Brandon Bracamonte and Final Approval Hearing. The court will issue a written Order. Parties shall submit an updated proposed Consent Decree no later than Monday, 3/18/2019. FTR Time: 1:03−1:50. Plaintiff Attorneys: Donald Specter, Thomas Nosewicz, Kendall Dawson Wasley and Addison Litton. Defendant Attorney: Aryn Harris. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (glmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
106 Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 99 Motion for Settlement. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2019) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
107 Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 79 Motion for Attorney Fees. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2019) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
108 Erroneous Entry−−Please Ignore−−See Below For Correct Document ORDER − CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 03/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Remedial Plan) (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2019) Modified on 3/22/2019 (msrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2019)
109 ORDER − CONSENT DECREE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Remedial Plan) (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2019) (Entered: 03/22/2019)
110 ORDER − Pursuant to the Consent Decree, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively close this case. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2019) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
111 Letter from Joey Oaxca Martinez regarding related case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2019) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
112 Letter from Joey Oaxaca Martinez regarding related case. (Redacted) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(msrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2019) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
113 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Thomas M. Nosewicz (Nosewicz, Thomas) (Filed on 1/23/2020) (Entered: 01/23/2020)