Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page1 of 30

1 Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. # 101967]

Josh Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364] 2 Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. [S.B. #280152]

3

HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP

4 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103

5 Telephone: (626) 585-9600

6

Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com

7

jps@hadsellstormer.com

mtajsar@hadsellstormer.com

8

[Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs continued on next page] 9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12

Estate of JOSHUA CLAYPOLE, deceased, by and through SILVIA

13

GUERSENZVAIG, as Administrator; SILVIA GUERSENZVAIG,

Case No: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

1. Failure to Provide Medical Care in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment;

16 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO;

17

SHERIFF GREG MUNKS, in his individual and official capacity;

2. Failure to Protect from Harm in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment;
3. Deprivation of Substantive Due

18

COUNTY OF MONTEREY; SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER, in his

19

individual and official capacity; SERGEANT E. KAYE, in his

Process in Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments; 4. Medical Malpractice;

20 21

individual and official capacity; CITY OF MONTEREY; MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF PHILIP PENKO, in his individual and

5. Failure to Furnish Medical Care; 6. Negligent Supervision, Training,
Hiring, and Retention;

22

official capacity; BRENT HALL, in his individual and official capacity;

7. Wrongful Death.

23

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP; DR. TAYLOR FITHIAN, in DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

24

his individual and official capacity; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF

25

MONTEREY PENINSULA; and DOES 1 through 30,

26

Defendants.

27

28

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page2 of 30
1 [Additional Counsel] 2 Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. # 244081] 3 RIFKIN LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 19169 4 Oakland, CA 94619
Telephone: (415) 685-3591 5 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page3 of 30

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. On May 4, 2013, 20-year-old Joshua Claypole committed suicide in a

3 cell at Monterey County Jail by hanging himself from a bed sheet. Three days prior,

4 Claypole had been arrested for the fatal stabbing of Daniel Garcia Huerta, a taxi

5 driver, during a bipolar episode. These two tragic deaths should not have

6 happened—and would not have happened—if Defendants in this case had fulfilled

7 their duties as public safety agencies and followed policies and procedures that are

8 standard in their fields and required by law.

9

2. Defendants are California municipalities, Sheriffs’ departments,

10 health care providers, and their employees. Each Defendant entity had multiple

11 contacts with Claypole in the days before his death. Had Defendants followed

12 standard protocols and training, they would have identified Claypole’s acute mental

13 health crisis and risk factors, and intervened to protect him and the public.

14 However, Defendants did not have the appropriate policies and procedures in place,

15 and ignored the obvious warning signs. As a result, two families lost their loved

16 ones.

17

3. The Estate of Joshua Claypole and Claypole’s mother, Silvia

18 Guersenzvaig, bring this action for damages against Defendants for violations

19 arising out of Defendants’ deliberate indifference and negligence that caused the

20 needless suffering and death of Joshua Claypole.

21

JURISDICTION

22

4. This Complaint seeks damages for violations of the civil rights,

23 privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of

24 the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and for

25 violations of California state law.

26

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27 §§ 1331 and 1343.

28 ///

-1-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page4 of 30

1

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

2 asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the claims form part of the

3 same case or controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal

4 law.

5

VENUE

6

7. Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the Counties of San Mateo and Monterey,

7 California. Venue therefore lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28

8 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

9

8. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3-2(e)

10 authorizes assignment to this division because a substantial part of the events or

11 omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the counties served by this

12 division.

13

PARTIES

14

9. Plaintiff Silvia Guersenzvaig, as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua

15 Kannon Claypole, brings this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

16 §§ 377.10 et seq. At the time of his death, Joshua Claypole was a 20-year-old

17 citizen of the United States and resident of the County of Monterey in the State of

18 California. The survival causes of action in this matter are based on violations of

19 Joshua Claypole’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and on

20 violations of California state law.

21

10. Silvia Guersenzvaig is the mother of Joshua Claypole. She is suing

22 individually for violations of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth

23 Amendments and California state law.

24

11. Defendant County of San Mateo is a public entity, duly organized and

25 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

26 County of San Mateo operates and manages the Maguire Correctional Facility and

27 is and was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or

28 inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the San Mateo

-2-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page5 of 30

1 County Sheriff’s Department and the Maguire Correctional Facility, and each

2 entity’s respective employees and/or agents. San Mateo County Sheriff’s

3 Department operates the Maguire Correctional Facility, and is and was responsible

4 for ensuring the provision of emergency and medical and mental health care

5 services to all Maguire Correctional Facility inmates.

6

12. Defendant Greg Munks is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

7 herein, the Sheriff of the County of San Mateo, the highest position in the San

8 Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Munks is and was

9 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

10 counseling, and control of all San Mateo Sheriff’s Department custodial employees

11 and/or agents and Does 1 through 10. Defendant Munks is and was charged by law

12 with the administration of the Maguire Correctional Facility, with the assistance of

13 a small group of executive officers. Defendant Munks also is and was responsible

14 for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the

15 practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s

16 Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant Munks is being sued in his

17 individual and official capacities.

18

13. Defendant County of Monterey is a public entity, duly organized and

19 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

20 County of Monterey operates and manages Monterey County Jail and is and was at

21 all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or inactions and

22 the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the Monterey County Sheriff’s

23 Department and Monterey County Jail, and each entity’s respective employees

24 and/or agents. Monterey County Sheriff’s Department operates Monterey County

25 Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the provision of emergency and

26 medical and mental health care services to all Monterey County Jail inmates.

27

14. Defendant Scott Miller is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

28 herein, the Sheriff of the County of Monterey, the highest position in the San Mateo

-3-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page6 of 30

1 County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Miller is and was responsible

2 for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and

3 control of all San Mateo Sheriff’s Department custodial employees and/or agents

4 and Does 11 through 20. Defendant Miller is and was charged by law with the

5 administration of the Monterey County Jail, with the assistance of a small group of

6 executive officers. Defendant Miller also is and was responsible for the

7 promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs

8 pursuant to which the acts of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department alleged

9 herein were committed. Defendant Miller is being sued in his individual and

10 official capacities.

11

15. Defendant E. Kaye is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein,

12 a Sergeant in the County of Monterey’s Sheriff’s Department. As a Sergeant,

13 Defendant Kaye is a supervisor at the Monterey County Jail. On May 1, 2013,

14 Defendant Kaye was the on-duty Sergeant at the Monterey County Jail who

15 received notice from a subordinate deputy that Joshua Claypole was suicidal. She

16 had direct control over the placement of Claypole in a safety cell, and for ensuring

17 he was placed on suicide watch during his detention at Monterey County Jail. Her

18 failure to ensure adequate protection and monitoring of Claypole led to his suicide.

19 Defendant Kaye is being sued in her individual capacity.

20

16. Defendant City of Monterey is a municipality duly organized and

21 existing under the laws of the State of California. The Monterey Police Department

22 is a duly formed agency of the City of Monterey. Under its authority, Defendant

23 City of Monterey is and was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for

24 the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of

25 the Monterey Police Department and its respective employees and/or agents. City

26 of Monterey police officers arrested and detained Joshua Claypole on May 1, 2013,

27 and were privy to numerous suicidal statements made by Claypole while in their

28 custody.

-4-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page7 of 30

1

17. Defendant Philip Penko is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

2 herein, the Chief of the Monterey Police Department, the highest position in the

3 Department. As Chief, Defendant Penko is and was responsible for the hiring,

4 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all

5 Monterey Police Department employees and/or agents and Does 21 through 30.

6 Defendant Penko also is and was responsible for the promulgation of the policies

7 and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts

8 of the Monterey Police Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant

9 Penko is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

10

18. Defendant Brent Hall is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

11 herein, an Officer of the Monterey Police Department. According to police records,

12 Defendant Hall responded to the crime scene in Monterey on May 1, 2013, and

13 transported Joshua Claypole to the Monterey County Jail, where Claypole was

14 booked into the facility. Defendant Hall is being sued in his individual and official

15 capacities.

16

19. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”) is a

17 California corporation headquartered in Monterey, California. CFMG is a private

18 correctional health care provider that services approximately 65 correctional

19 facilities in 27 California counties. The County of Monterey contracts with CFMG

20 to provide medical, mental health, and dental services for the Monterey County Jail.

21 At all relevant times mentioned herein, CFMG was responsible for the health

22 services provided to Joshua Claypole during his detention in the Monterey County

23 Jail.

24

20. Defendant Taylor Fithian is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

25 herein, the co-founder, President, and Medical Director for Defendant CFMG.

26 Defendant Fithian is a Board-certified psychiatrist and oversees the delivery of

27 medical, mental health and dental care in all CFMG-served facilities, including

28 standards of medical care and utilization review. Dr. Fithian is also listed on the

-5-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page8 of 30

1 website of the Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula as an affiliated doctor.

2 Defendant Fithian is and was responsible for the promulgation of the policies and

3 procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of

4 CFMG alleged herein were committed. In addition, Defendant Fithian personally

5 evaluated Joshua Claypole on at least one occasion while he was held at Monterey

6 County Jail, and was involved in the decision to remove Claypole from suicide

7 watch on May 4, 2013. Defendant Fithian is sued in his individual capacity.

8

21. Defendant Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (“CHOMP”) is

9 a California non-profit health care provider based in Monterey, California. It

10 encompasses a main hospital, a mental health clinic, laboratories, and a short-term

11 nursing facility, among others, that provide services spanning a range of health care

12 needs, including primary care, cardiology, oncology, behavioral health, and

13 emergency care. CHOMP provided outpatient mental health care to Joshua

14 Claypole from approximately March 2012 through August 2012. Medical records

15 indicate CHOMP-affiliated doctors were involved in prescribing medication to

16 Claypole as late as October 2012.

17

22. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 1 through 10 are

18 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 1

19 through 10 was employed by the County of San Mateo and/or the San Mateo

20 County Sheriff’s Department at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs

21 allege that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10 was deliberately indifferent to

22 Joshua Claypole’s medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary psychiatric

23 care to him or take other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide, violated

24 his civil rights, wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled

25 and/or ordered other defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege

26 that Defendants Does 1 through 10 violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth

27 Amendment rights and rights under California state law. Plaintiffs further allege

28 that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10 was responsible for the hiring,

-6-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page9 of 30

1 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of

2 medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or agents involved in the

3 conduct alleged herein.

4

23. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 11 through 20 are

5 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 11

6 through 20 was employed by County of Monterey, and/or the Monterey County

7 Sheriff’s Department, and/or California Forensic Medical Group at the time of the

8 conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 11 through

9 20 was deliberately indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s medical needs and safety,

10 failed to provide necessary psychiatric care to him or take other measures to prevent

11 him from attempting suicide, violated his civil rights, wrongfully caused his death,

12 and/or encouraged, directed, enabled and/or ordered other defendants to engage in

13 such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Does 11 through 20 violated

14 Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and rights under California state

15 law. Plaintiffs further allege that each of Defendants Does 11 through 20 was

16 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

17 counseling, and control of medical, mental health, and jail custody employees

18 and/or agents involved in the conduct alleged herein.

19

24. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 21 through 30 are

20 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 21

21 through 30 was employed by the City of Monterey and/or the Monterey Police

22 Department at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of

23 Defendants Does 21 through 30 was deliberately indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s

24 medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary psychiatric care to him or take

25 other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide, violated his civil rights,

26 wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled and/or ordered

27 other defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that

28 Defendants Does 21 through 30 violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth

-7-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page10 of 30

1 Amendment rights, and rights under California state law. Plaintiffs further allege

2 that each of Defendants Does 21 through 30 was responsible for the hiring,

3 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of

4 medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or agents involved in the

5 conduct alleged herein.

6

25. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names

7 and identities of Defendants Does 1 through 30 have been ascertained.

8

26. Defendants Greg Munks, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, Philip Penko, Brent

9 Hall, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30 engaged in the acts or omissions

10 alleged herein under color of state law.

11

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

12 mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents, employees, servants,

13 joint venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other Defendants named in

14 this Complaint and that at all times, each of the Defendants was acting within the

15 course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

16 EXHUASTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES FOR STATE LAW

17

CLAIMS

18

28. Plaintiffs filed governmental tort claims with the State and Defendant

19 County of Monterey, including on behalf of the Estate of Joshua Claypole, on

20 October 28, 2013. By correspondence dated December 13, 2013, the County of

21 Monterey rejected the governmental tort claims on behalf of Joshua Claypole.

22

29. By correspondence dated March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs notified

23 Defendants County of Monterey, Sheriff Miller, CFMG, and Dr. Taylor Fithian of

24 their intention to file suit against them based on their negligence in providing

25 professional health care services, as required by Section 364 of the California Code

26 of Civil Procedure.

27 ///

28 ///

-8-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page11 of 30

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2 I. History of Inadequate Mental Health Care in Monterey County Jail

3

30. County of Monterey and CFMG have been on notice that their

4 provision of mental health care to inmates at the Monterey County Jail is

5 inadequate and results in needless harm since at least 2007, when the Monterey

6 County Sheriff’s Office and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors hired an

7 outside consulting firm to perform a needs assessment for the Jail.

8

31. The independent assessment was updated in 2011 and found County of

9 Monterey and CFMG’s policies and practices for screening, supervising, and

10 treating prisoners at risk for suicide inadequate. (See Exhibit 1.) The 2011

11 Assessment identified structural and design flaws of cells and dormitories that do

12 not minimize suicide hazards in the facilities and fail to prevent self-harm. (See

13 Exhibit 1 at EX.3.) The Assessment also found that Monterey County Jail’s

14 physical facilities lack sufficient treatment space and therefore prevent adequate

15 delivery of medical and mental health care. (Exhibit 1 at EX.3, A.3.)

16

32. In addition to the Jail’s structural issues the Assessment found that

17 chronic understaffing hinders County of Monterey’s ability to provide medical care,

18 classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain inmate safety and security,

19 and transport inmates to and from outside agencies. (Exhibit 1 at G.1–G.3, J.2–J.3.)

20 In addition, understaffing and overcrowding at the Jail creates what the Assessment

21 called “an indirect supervision facility,” which impairs the Jail’s ability to

22 “recognize, manage and treat” mental health issues among the inmate population

23 (as opposed to direct supervision from experienced physicians and psychologists).

24 (Id. at EX.3.)

25

33. These deficiencies are even more troubling in light of the

26 Assessment’s finding that approximately 15–20% of the Jail’s inmates suffer from

27 mental health issues. (Exhibit 1 at A.3 n. 4.)

28 ///

-9-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page12 of 30

1

34. The Assessment’s findings were confirmed in a 2013 draft report by an

2 expert hired by County of Monterey, Dr. Richard Hayward (“Hayward Report”).

3 (See Exhibit 2.) The County tasked Dr. Hayward with evaluating mental health care

4 at Monterey County Jail in response to a federal class action lawsuit challenging

5 County of Monterey’s provision of medical and mental health care at the Jail. See

6 Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 13-cv-2354-PSG (N.D. Cal. filed May 23,

7 2013). The Hayward Report, dated December 6, 2013, affirmed that understaffing

8 of mental health professionals led to inadequate mental health care for inmates (see

9 Exhibit 2 at 5), compounding the 2011 Assessment’s findings of problems

10 associated with crowded and space-limited clinics at the Jail.

11

35. In addition, the Hayward Report identified other serious deficiencies in

12 the delivery of mental health care at the Monterey County Jail, including:

13

a. Lack of a complete mental health screening process that leads to

14 inadequate identification of arrestees with a potential for self-harm or a history of

15 mental disorders. (Exhibit 2 at 2.)

16

b. Lack of mental health questions on intake forms that could

17 adequately log an inmate’s symptoms and treatment history, prior providers, past

18 diagnoses and medications, and history of self-harm. (Exhibit 2 at 4.)

19

c. County of Monterey employs only a total of four mental health

20 professionals, which the Hayward Report concluded was “insufficient to meet the

21 mental health needs of the inmates.” (Exhibit 2 at 5.)

22

d. Lack of mental health care clinicians assigned to the jail on

23 weekends “results in insufficient services to mentally ill inmates,” relevant because

24 Claypole committed suicide on a Saturday. (Exhibit 2 at 2.)

25

e. Inadequate supervision of inmates placed on suicide watch in

26 designated “Safety Cells,” including delays of up to an hour or more between

27 checks of designated inmates who should be monitored twice each thirty minutes.

28 (Exhibit 2 at 12.)

-10-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page13 of 30

1

36. County of Monterey’s failures to timely identify, adequately treat, or

2 effectively monitor prisoners at risk for suicide have had tragic consequences.

3 According to the allegations contained in the Hernandez v. County of Monterey

4 complaint, there had been three completed and over a dozen attempted suicides in

5 the four years prior to Claypole’s suicide. According to that complaint, the rate of

6 completed suicides at the Monterey County Jail is nearly twice the national average

7 for jail facilities.

8

37. Moreover, on April 15, 2013, prior to Joshua Claypole’s death, County

9 of Monterey was again specifically put on notice of the serious problems with

10 mental health treatment in the jail, as well as its disproportionately high suicide

11 rate, in a letter written by Hernandez class counsel. (See Exhibit 3.)

12 II. Joshua Claypole’s Detentions and Suicide

13

A. Claypole’s Mental Health History

14

38. Joshua Claypole was born in Monterey, California, and was raised

15 primarily in Big Sur, California, by his mother Silvia Guersenzvaig.

16

39. Starting in or around his junior year in high school, Claypole began

17 struggling with substance abuse and exhibiting symptoms of mental illness,

18 including anxiety, panic disorders, and bipolar disorder. He eventually dropped out

19 of high school in December of his senior year.

20

40. Guersenzvaig sought help for Claypole from numerous mental health

21 therapists and practitioners from approximately 2010 through 2013.

22

41. During this period, Claypole was treated by at least one psychiatrist at

23 CHOMP, Dr. Marshal Alan Blatt. Dr. Blatt worked with Claypole between March

24 2012 and August 2012, but abruptly terminated his relationship with Claypole with

25 no follow up care or referral to another care provider.

26

42. In this time, Claypole would fluctuate between normative behavior and

27 his more agitated, disturbed periods. When on his prescribed medications, he was

28 funny, loving, creative, and thoughtful, often talking openly about his growth as a

-11-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page14 of 30

1 young adult and the lessons he learned from his past experience and from others.

2 During periods of instability, however, he struggled with anxiety, aggression, and

3 substance abuse. This behavior led to two arrests, one for a DUI and vandalism and

4 the other for minor possession of cocaine. As part of his sentences for these arrests,

5 Claypole successfully completed several rehabilitation programs.

6

B. First Detention in San Mateo County

7

43. Joshua Claypole’s mental health issues came to a head in April 2013.

8 On April 24, Silvia Guersenzvaig scheduled Claypole to see his treating

9 psychiatrist, Dr. John R. Donaldson, on May 2. By approximately April 27,

10 Claypole stopped sleeping, believed he had telepathy, and thought that others were

11 communicating to him through their thoughts.

12

44. Five days before the May 2 appointment with his psychiatrist, Joshua

13 Claypole experienced a psychotic episode. On April 28, 2013, while at his

14 mother’s home, Claypole began acting strangely, exhibited aggressive and paranoid

15 behavior, and left the home without telling Guersenzvaig where he was going.

16

45. Claypole traveled to the home of friends that evening, but did not sleep

17 the entire night. During the night, he told them he thought the singer of the music

18 they were listening to was going to come out of the music to kill him.

19

46. The next day, Claypole returned to his mother’s home, collected his

20 belongings, and left without answering her questions about where he was going. He

21 appeared agitated and paranoid.

22

47. Worrying about her son’s health, Silvia Guersenzvaig called Joshua

23 Claypole’s psychiatrist Dr. Donaldson on April 29 and spoke with his office staff

24 about Claypole’s behavior. She asked Dr. Donaldson’s staff to provide further

25 assistance to Claypole in his upcoming May 2 appointment.

26

48. Guersenzvaig called Dr. Donaldson’s office again on April 30, 2013,

27 to confirm that Claypole would be receiving assistance and treatment from Dr.

28 Donaldson at his appointment in two days. -12-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page15 of 30

1

49. After leaving his mother’s home on April 29, records reflect that

2 Joshua Claypole was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence at 1:00

3 a.m. on the morning of April 30, 2013, by California Highway Patrol officers in

4 Redwood City, California. According to San Mateo Sheriff’s Department records,

5 he was booked and detained at the Maguire Correctional Facility operated by

6 County of San Mateo at approximately 4:30 a.m., and his car was impounded. A

7 jail property slip indicates that he was arrested with medication in his possession,

8 among other items.

9

50. California Highway Patrol records indicate that CHP officers

10 performed a narcotics test on Claypole, but San Mateo records do not reflect any

11 review by San Mateo personnel of the test or its results.

12

51. Although the San Mateo Arrest Report/Booking Sheet for Claypole

13 noted that he was under the influence and his speech was slow and slurred, and the

14 San Mateo Correctional Health Services Intake Sheet notes that his arrest was

15 primarily for drug intoxication, San Mateo staff’s medical examination of Claypole

16 checked “no” for “any signs of alcohol/drug intoxication and/or withdrawal” and

17 failed to check the box noting slurred speech.

18

52. San Mateo’s medical records also indicate that Claypole reported his

19 psychiatric history and prescriptions for medications including Adderall (prescribed

20 primarily for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and Klonopin (prescribed to

21 treat anxiety disorders, panic disorders, and psychosis) to the screening nurse at

22 Maguire Correctional Facility. Adderall and Klonopin are known to have side

23 effects including irritability and aggression, cognitive impairments and

24 hallucinations, depression, suicidal thoughts, and mood swings. According to San

25 Mateo’s medical records, staff then prescribed Claypole three psychotropic

26 medications: Hydroxyzine, Quetiapine, and Lithium Carbonate. All three

27 medications are used to treat bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, psychosis, and mania.

28 However, no referral for further medical health monitoring or treatment appears to

-13-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page16 of 30

1 have been made.

2

53. Despite notice of Claypole’s serious mental illness, erratic behavior,

3 and the dangerous mix of narcotics and psychotropic medication he was suspected

4 to have consumed, County of San Mateo released Joshua Claypole on April 30,

5 2013, at 11:24 a.m. on the condition that he promise to appear for his DUI

6 arraignment.

7

C. Claypole’s Repeated Visits to the CHOMP Facility Where He Had

8

Previously Received Treatment

9

54. After his release from San Mateo, Joshua Claypole traveled south to

10 Monterey.

11

55. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on May 1, 2013, Joshua Claypole arrived

12 at the Hartnell Professional Center, which houses CHOMP. He had been treated by

13 CHOMP between March and August 2012, and that morning went to the outpatient

14 behavioral health clinic on the second floor where he had previously been a patient.

15 Despite CHOMP’s prior relationship with Claypole and his obvious symptoms of a

16 mental health crisis, CHOMP personnel did not provide medical or mental health

17 treatment to Claypole. Rather, they directed Claypole to leave, and called the

18 Monterey Police Department. By the time police officers arrived, Claypole had

19 already left.

20

56. Joshua Claypole returned to CHOMP later that same morning at

21 approximately 11:00 a.m. He again visited CHOMP’s behavioral health clinic. This

22 time, CHOMP personnel responded by deploying their internal security officers to

23 escort him out of the building, again failing to examine or treat Claypole. Despite

24 their physical custody of Claypole, and awareness of his troubled mental state,

25 CHOMP personnel refused to treat him, examine him, detain him, or provide any

26 medical or mental health assistance to him. Instead, CHOMP security officers threw

27 Claypole out of the building and again called the Monterey Police Department.

28 ///

-14-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page17 of 30

1

57. Immediately after CHOMP security officers physically ejected him,

2 Claypole went to a local Wells Fargo bank branch in Monterey, presumably to

3 obtain money for a rental car so he could return to Redwood City for his

4 impounded car. Wells Fargo employees confirmed that his strange behavior was

5 clearly observable, later telling Monterey Police Department officers that Claypole

6 appeared to be “on a substance,” “very unstable,” “out of it,” and “in and out of

7 consciousness.” They stated that Claypole displayed mood changes and would at

8 times be unresponsive to conversation. At the register of the bank, he did not talk

9 and made strange movements with his head. After withdrawing money from a bank

10 account he shared with his mother, Claypole requested Wells Fargo staff hale him a

11 taxi cab.

12

D. Detention in Monterey County

13

58. According to Monterey Police Department reports, Claypole got into a

14 taxi shortly thereafter outside of the Wells Fargo branch, and, at approximately 1:10

15 p.m., fatally stabbed the taxi driver, Daniel Garcia Huerta, outside an Enterprise

16 Rent-A-Car Company location on Del Monte Avenue in Monterey, California.

17 Claypole was then detained by Seaside Police Department officers a short distance

18 away in a stolen pickup truck. Monterey Police Department officers arrived at the

19 scene thereafter and took custody of Claypole. After the owner of the pickup truck

20 identified Claypole, Monterey Police Department personnel arrested him.

21

59. According to police reports, when Claypole was seated in the back of

22 Defendant MPD Officer Brent Hall’s squad car, he spontaneously asked Defendant

23 Hall, “Can you ask for the [lethal] injection?” He also told Defendant Hall, “I had

24 to do it.”

25

60. During the booking process, Claypole asked Defendant Hall “Should I

26 go? I should just take the injection.”

27

61. While waiting to be interviewed by a detective, Joshua Claypole asked

28 Hall “Is my mom going to get my remains?” Claypole again told Hall that he

-15-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page18 of 30

1 wanted to die by lethal injection and that he wanted to have his body cremated.

2

62. Despite these suicidal comments, neither Defendant Hall nor

3 Defendant Monterey Police Department informed the Monterey County Sheriff’s

4 Department that Joshua Claypole was acting strangely or a suicide risk. Rather than

5 assessing his mental health issues adequately, or notifying the County of Monterey,

6 his subsequent custodian, Defendants Hall and City of Monterey failed to take any

7 appropriate or necessary action in the face of a clearly paranoid and suicidal

8 detainee.

9

63. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on May 1, Joshua Claypole met with his

10 criminal defense lawyer, John Klopfenstein. During the meeting, Claypole appeared

11 paranoid and talked about killing himself. Klopfenstein then spoke to Officer Candi

12 McGregor at the jail at approximately 8:45 p.m. and requested that Claypole be

13 placed on suicide watch, per a memorandum drafted by McGregor. McGregor

14 noted that she immediately contacted Defendant Sergeant E. Kaye, the on-duty

15 Sergeant. Sergeant Kaye advised McGregor that she would follow up on the

16 situation.

17

64. According to County of Monterey records, an “Intake Health

18 Screening” of Joshua Claypole was conducted at 9:05 p.m. on May 1, 2013. During

19 the screening, Claypole told the screening deputy that he was taking medication for

20 anxiety. However, the screening form used to document the examination did not

21 indicate that any questions were asked regarding Claypole’s history of mental

22 health diagnoses or prior mental health treatment. Despite Claypole’s suicidal

23 statements to the transporting police officers and reports from Claypole’s lawyer to

24 jail staff that Claypole was unstable and talked about killing himself, the Intake

25 Health Screening shows the “no” box checked for “Does behavior suggest a danger

26 to self or others?” Similarly, despite Claypole’s self-report that he took anxiety

27 medications, the Intake Health Screening does not reflect any referral of Claypole

28 to a psychiatrist or other mental health staff. -16-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page19 of 30

1

65. County of Monterey Sheriff’s personnel also completed a form entitled

2 “Classification Inmate Intake Screening Questionnaire,” dated May 1, 2013, at 9:05

3 p.m. Notwithstanding the recent events, Claypole’s statements to the police

4 officers, Claypole’s psychiatric history, and his attorney’s report of suicidal

5 symptoms and request to have him placed on suicide watch, the Questionnaire

6 indicates that Claypole had not shown any bizarre behavior and that he was not now

7 nor had he ever been under psychiatric care.

8

66. Monterey County Jail staff failed to place Claypole on suicide watch

9 on May 1, 2014, despite his attorney’s direct report of suicidal symptoms and

10 request for such precautions.

11

67. On May 2, Klopfenstein visited Claypole at the Jail. During this

12 second meeting, Claypole asked Mr. Klopfenstein to have his mother bring his

13 medications to the jail.

14

68. On May 3, Joshua Claypole made his first appearance in court

15 regarding the criminal charges. That same day, Claypole exhibited severe mental

16 instability, believing that others were speaking to him telepathically through his

17 thoughts. Mr. Klopfenstein assumed that the Jail had responded appropriately to his

18 request to place Claypole on suicide watch.

19

69. However, the medical records from County of Monterey reflect that it

20 was not until 2:35 p.m. on May 3, two days after Klopfenstein first requested

21 suicide watch, that Defendants finally placed Claypole on suicide watch and

22 transferred Claypole to a safety cell where he was supposed to be observed by Jail

23 staff.

24

70. Fewer than twenty-four hours later, at approximately 6:30 a.m. on May

25 4, Defendants inexplicably released Claypole from suicide watch without any

26 further suicide risk precautions.

27

71. At approximately 1 p.m. on May 4, 2013, Silvia Guersenzvaig arrived

28 at Monterey County Jail to visit her son and to bring him his psychotropic

-17-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page20 of 30

1 medications, per his request. However, Jail staff refused to allow her to see her son,

2 telling her that Claypole had been moved to a different housing unit and visitation

3 hours for that unit had not begun. Guersenzvaig gave Claypole’s medications to a

4 Jail nurse summoned by the on-duty officer. Denied the ability to visit her son,

5 Guersenzvaig said to the nurse, “Please tell Josh I love him regardless of what

6 happened.”

7

72. On information and belief, Jail staff did not provide the medications

8 brought by Silvia Guersenzvaig to Joshua Claypole.

9

73. At a “welfare check” conducted at approximately 2:30 p.m. on May 4,

10 2013, Monterey County Deputy Sheriff Raymond Gordano found Joshua Claypole

11 hanging from a cloth noose made of torn bed sheets inside his cell.

12

74. According to the declaration of Dr. Pablo Stewart, an expert whose

13 declaration was filed by plaintiffs in Hernandez v. County of Monterey, Jail staff

14 failed to appropriately and timely respond to Claypole’s suicide. Rather than

15 immediately open the cell to cut down the ligature, Gordano requested back up by

16 custody and medical staff. (See Exhibit 4 at ¶ 96.) Staff did not open Claypole’s cell

17 and begin to assist him until other staff arrived on the scene. (Id.) Jail personnel

18 eventually cut the ligature using a knife, with some difficulty. (Id.)

19

75. At the time of his suicide, Claypole was housed in A Pod, an

20 administrative segregation housing unit. The cell included a set of sturdy metal

21 braces on the wall, which are suicide hazards in cells used for inmates in mental

22 health crisis. Claypole tied the sheet he used to hang himself to these metal braces.

23

76. Jail records reflect the failure of jail staff to follow their own policies

24 and procedures during and after suicide watch. During the period when Claypole

25 was placed in suicide watch, Jail personnel did not perform the required checks

26 twice every 30 minutes, instead checking on him only once in some one-hour

27 periods. After removing him from suicide watch, Jail personnel did not check on

28 Claypole hourly, as required by Jail policies. County of Monterey’s Hourly Safety

-18-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page21 of 30

1 Check log indicates that at the time staff discovered him hanging, staff had not

2 performed a safety check for Claypole in over 6 hours.

3

77. According to jail policies and procedures, as recounted by Dr.

4 Hayward, no mental health personnel are on site at the Jail on weekends.

5 Nevertheless, County of Monterey removed Claypole from suicide watch on

6 Saturday when, upon information or belief, no mental health care staff were on site

7 at the Jail. Once Claypole was removed from suicide watch and placed back in

8 general population, there were no mental health staff at the jail to monitor his

9 condition, and custody staff failed to perform the required hourly safety checks.

10

78. Defendant’s failure to appropriately staff its jail facility and monitor

11 Claypole despite known and foreseeable suicide risks resulted in Claypole hanging

12 himself just a few hours after his removal from suicide watch.

13

79. After staff discovered him hanging, Joshua Claypole was transferred to

14 the care of emergency room personnel at Natividad Medical Center, then

15 transported to the Trauma Center at San Jose Regional Medical Center via

16 helicopter.

17

80. Shortly after finding his body, Jail deputies found a handwritten

18 suicide letter written by Claypole in his cell. Addressing his mother, Claypole

19 wrote: “I love you mama. I’m sorry for all the pain I have brought you mama. I love

20 you very much. Maybe I will see you again. Love, Joshua.”

21

81. On May 9, 2013, Joshua Claypole was declared dead. A subsequent

22 County of Monterey postmortem examination conducted on May 13, 2013,

23 concluded that he died from asphyxia due to hanging.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27

28

-19-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page22 of 30

1

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2

First Claim for Relief

3

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs in

4 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

5

States (Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

7 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and

8

Does 1 through 20)

9

82. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

10 81 as though fully set forth herein.

11

83. Defendants have inadequate policies, procedures, and practices for

12 identifying inmates in need of medical and mental health treatment and providing

13 appropriate medical and mental health treatment. Defendants also fail to

14 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding the provision of treatment to

15 inmates with medical and mental health issues.

16

84. Defendants have consistently failed to meet their constitutional

17 obligation to provide adequate mental health care to prisoners in their jails. The

18 mental health care provided by Defendants to prisoners in their jails is woefully

19 inadequate and falls far short of all of the minimum elements of a constitutional

20 mental health care system. Defendants’ failure to correct their policies, procedures,

21 and practices, despite notice of significant and dangerous problems, evidences

22 deliberate indifference in the provision of mental health treatment.

23

85. Defendants knew or should have known that there was a strong

24 likelihood that Joshua Claypole posed a threat to himself or others.

25

86. Defendants failed to provide necessary medical and mental health

26 evaluation and treatment to Joshua Claypole while he was held at the Maguire

27 Correctional Facility and Monterey County Jail, despite his history of serious

28 mental illness, obvious symptoms of mental health crisis, and information that he

-20-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page23 of 30

1 was under the influence of narcotics.

2

87. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

3 limited to their failure to provide Joshua Claypole with appropriate medical or

4 psychiatric care and to identify suicide risk, along with the acts and/or omissions of

5 the Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies

6 and procedures in order to identify suicide risk and provide treatment, constituted

7 deliberate indifference to Joshua Claypole’s serious medical needs, health and

8 safety.

9

88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Joshua

10 Claypole experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish

11 over a period of five days, as well as loss of his life and other damages alleged

12 herein.

13

89. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

14 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and

15 punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such

16 conduct in the future.

17

Second Claim for Relief

18 Failure to Protect from Harm in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to

19

the Constitution of the United States (Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

20 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

21 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, City of Monterey, Philip Penko, Brent Hall, California

22

Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30)

23

90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

24 89 as though fully set forth herein.

25

91. Each Defendant could have taken action to prevent unnecessary harm

26 to Joshua Claypole, but refused or failed to do so.

27

92. Defendants failed to have minimally necessary policies and procedures

28 concerning the adequate identification and housing of Claypole, whom they knew

-21-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page24 of 30

1 or should have known to be at risk of self-harm.

2

93. City of Monterey, Philip Penko, and Brent Hall failed to take

3 necessary precautions to ensure that Claypole would not harm himself or others

4 after he communicated clearly suicidal thoughts to Monterey Police Department

5 officers. They also failed to create minimally necessary policies and procedures for

6 ensuring that other entities and municipalities were informed of suicide risks among

7 Monterey Police Department arrestees who are transferred from their custody.

8 Lastly, they failed to adequately train and supervise officers to protect arrestees

9 from harm.

10

94. County Defendants failed to implement minimally sufficient policies

11 and procedures to protect inmates from harm. County Defendants failed to

12 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding identification and handling of

13 detainees at risk of harm. With respect to Joshua Claypole, County Defendants

14 failed to follow even their own suicide prevention procedures to identify, house,

15 and monitor detainees at risk of self-harm.

16

95. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

17 limited to their failure to take appropriate measures to protect Joshua Claypole from

18 harm, along with the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants in failing to train,

19 supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and procedures in order to protect

20 Joshua Claypole from harm, constituted deliberate indifference to Joshua

21 Claypole’s serious medical needs, health, and safety.

22

96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Joshua

23 Claypole experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish

24 over a period of five days, as well as loss of his life and other damages alleged

25 herein.

26

97. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

27 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of exemplary

28 and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter

-22-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page25 of 30

1 such conduct in the future.

2

Third Claim for Relief

3

Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights in Violation of First and

4 Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States – Loss of

5

Parent/Child Relationship (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

7 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, City of Monterey, Philip Penko, Brent Hall, California

8

Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30)

9

98. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

10 97 as though fully set forth herein.

11

99. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

12 deliberatively indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s serious medical needs, health and

13 safety, violating Joshua Claypole’s constitutional rights, and their failure to train,

14 supervise, and/or take other appropriate measures to prevent the acts and/or

15 omissions that caused the untimely and wrongful death of Joshua Claypole

16 deprived Plaintiff Guersenzvaig of her liberty interest in the parent-child

17 relationship in violation of her substantive due process rights as defined by the First

18 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

19

100. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or

20 omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

21

101. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named

22 Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an

23 award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged

24 herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28

-23-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page26 of 30

1

Fourth Claim for Relief

2 Professional Negligence / Medical Malpractice (Survival Actions – California

3

State Law)

4 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

5 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

6

Fithian, and Does 1 through 20)

7

102. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

8 101 as though fully set forth herein.

9

103. Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in the

10 treatment of Joshua Claypole’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately

11 assess and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate

12 and timely suicide prevention measures, prematurely removing Claypole from

13 suicide watch and returning him to an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate

14 mental health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and

15 necessary psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

16

104. Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and ensure

17 the competence of medical staff’s and custody staff’s provision of treatment to

18 Claypole, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that would have

19 prevented such harm to him.

20

105. As a direct and proximate cause of this negligence and failure to meet

21 the professional standards of care, Joshua Claypole and Silvia Guersenzvaig

22 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

23

106. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

24 and scope of their employment.

25

107. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

26 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive

27 damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in

28 the future.

-24-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page27 of 30

1

Fifth Claim for Relief

2 Failure to Furnish / Summon Medical Care (Survival Action – California State

3

Law)

4 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

5 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

6

Fithian, and Does 1 through 20)

7

108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

8 107 as though fully set forth herein.

9

109. Defendants owed Joshua Claypole a duty of care to provide him

10 immediate medical and mental health care.

11

110. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to

12 the facts that Defendants knew or had reason to know that Joshua Claypole was in

13 need of immediate medical and mental health care and that Defendants failed to

14 take reasonable action to summon or provide that care, resulting in Joshua

15 Claypole’s death as alleged herein, violated California state law, including Cal.

16 Govt. Code §§ 844.6 and 845.6.

17

111. Defendants also failed to timely and appropriately respond to Joshua

18 Claypole’s expressions of suicidal ideation, in which he requested that he be killed

19 and stated his desire to kill himself on numerous occasions before hanging himself

20 in his cell.

21

112. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

22 and scope of their employment.

23

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Joshua

24 Claypole and Silvia Guersenzvaig suffered injuries and damages causing great pain

25 and leading to his death, as alleged herein.

26

114. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

27 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive

28 damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in

-25-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page28 of 30

1 the future.

2

Sixth Claim for Relief

3 Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention (Survival Action –

4

California State Law)

5 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

6 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

7

Fithian, and Does 1 through 20)

8

115. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

9 114, as though fully set forth herein.

10

116. Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees

11 and/or agents so that employees and/or agents refrain from the conduct and/or

12 omissions alleged herein.

13

117. Defendants breached this duty, causing the conduct alleged herein.

14 Such breach constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention under

15 the laws of the State of California.

16

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure, Joshua

17 Claypole and Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

18

Seventh Claim for Relief

19

Wrongful Death – California Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60

20 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

21 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

22

Fithian, and Does 1 through 20)

23

119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

24 118, as though fully set forth herein.

25

120. Joshua Claypole’s death was a direct and proximate result of the

26 aforementioned wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

27 Defendants’ acts and/or omissions thus were also a direct and proximate cause of

28 Plaintiff’ injuries and damages, as alleged herein.

-26-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page29 of 30

1

121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or

2 negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff incurred expenses for funeral and burial

3 expenses in an amount to be proved.

4

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or

5 negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the services, society,

6 care, and protection of the decedent, as well as the loss of the present value of his

7 future services to his mother. Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover prejudgment

8 interest.

9

123. Plaintiff Estate of Joshua Claypole is entitled to recover punitive

10 damages against individual Defendants who, with conscious disregard of Joshua

11 Claypole’s rights, failed to provide Joshua Claypole with mental health treatment

12 services meeting the professional standard of practice and failed to adhere to the

13 legal mandates of prisoner supervision.

14

124. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

15 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and

16 punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such

17 conduct in the future.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

20

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each

21 Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial;

22

2. For damages related to loss of familial relations as to Plaintiff Silvia

23 Guersenzvaig;

24

3. Funeral and burial expenses, and incidental expenses not yet fully

25 ascertained;

26

4. General damages, including damages for physical and emotional pain,

27 emotional distress, hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness

28 and trauma and suffering, the loss of the services, society, care and protection of the

-27-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case5:14-cv-02730-PSG Document1 Filed06/12/14 Page30 of 30

1 decedent, as well as the loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the

2 present value of future services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

3

5. Prejudgment interest;

4

6. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named

5 Defendant and CHOMP in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter

6 others from engaging in similar misconduct;

7

7. For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

8 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

9

8. For restitution as the court deems just and proper;

10

9. For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as

11 the Court may deem proper.

12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury in this action.

14 15 Dated: June 12, 2014 16 17 18

Respectfully Submitted, RIFKIN LAW OFFICE HADSELL STORMER
RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP

19

20

By: /s/ Dan Stormer

21

Dan Stormer

Josh Piovia-Scott

22

Mohammad Tajsar

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

-28-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 
 Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page1 of 227

1 Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. # 101967] Josh Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364]

2 Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. [S.B. #280152]

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP 3 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue

4

Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600/Facsimile: (626) 577-7079

5 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com, jps@hadsellstormer.com, and

mtajsar@hadsellstormer.com

6

Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. # 244081] 7 RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

8

P.O. Box 19169 Oakland, California 94619

9 Telephone: (415) 685-3591 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Estate of JOSHUA CLAYPOLE,

Case No: CV 14-02730 BLF

13 deceased, by and through SILVIA

GUERSENZVAIG, as Administrator; [Assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson

14 SILVIA GUERSENZVAIG,

Freeman - Courtroom 3]

15

Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16

vs.

1. Failure to Provide Medical Care in

17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO;

Violation of Fourteenth Amendment;

SHERIFF GREG MUNKS, in his 18 individual and official capacity;

2. Failure to Protect from Harm in

COUNTY OF MONTEREY;

Violation of Fourteenth Amendment;

19 SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER, in his

3. Deprivation of Substantive Due

individual and official capacity; 20 SERGEANT E. KAYE, in his

Process in Violation of First and

individual and official capacity; CITY

Fourteenth Amendments;

21 22

OF MONTEREY; MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF PHILIP PENKO, in his individual and

4. Medical Malpractice; 5. Failure to Furnish Medical Care;

official capacity; BRENT HALL, in his 6. Negligent Supervision, Training,

23 24

individual and official capacity; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP; DR. TAYLOR FITHIAN, in

Hiring, and Retention; 7. Wrongful Death;

his individual and official capacity;

8. Negligence.

25 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF

MONTEREY PENINSULA; and 26 DOES 1 through 30,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Complaint Filed:

June 12, 2014

27

Defendants.

Discovery Cut-Off: By Code

Motion Cut-Off:

By Code

28

TRIAL DATE:

NONE SET

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page2 of 227

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. On May 4, 2013, 20-year-old Joshua Claypole committed suicide in a

3 cell at Monterey County Jail by hanging himself from a bed sheet. Three days prior,

4 Claypole had been arrested for the fatal stabbing of Daniel Garcia Huerta, a taxi

5 driver, during a bipolar episode. These two tragic deaths should not have

6 happened—and would not have happened—if Defendants in this case had fulfilled

7 their duties as public safety agencies and followed policies and procedures that are

8 standard in their fields and required by law.

9

2. Defendants are California municipalities, Sheriffs’ departments, health

10 care providers, and their employees. Each Defendant entity had multiple contacts

11 with Claypole in the days before his death. Had Defendants followed standard

12 protocols and training, they would have identified Claypole’s acute mental health

13 crisis and risk factors, and intervened to protect him and the public. However,

14 Defendants did not have the appropriate policies and procedures in place, and

15 ignored the obvious warning signs. As a result, two families lost their loved ones.

16

3. The Estate of Joshua Claypole and Claypole’s mother, Silvia

17 Guersenzvaig, bring this action for damages against Defendants for violations

18 arising out of Defendants’ deliberate indifference and negligence that caused the

19 needless suffering and death of Joshua Claypole.

20

JURISDICTION

21

4. This Complaint seeks damages for violations of the civil rights,

22 privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of

23 the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and for

24 violations of California state law.

25

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

26 1331 and 1343.

27

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

28 asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the claims form part of the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page3 of 227

1 same case or controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal

2 law.

3

VENUE

4

7. Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the Counties of San Mateo and Monterey,

5 California. Venue therefore lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28

6 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

7

8. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3-2(e)

8 authorizes assignment to this division because a substantial part of the events or

9 omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the counties served by this

10 division.

11

PARTIES

12

9. Plaintiff Silvia Guersenzvaig, as Administrator of the Estate of Joshua

13 Kannon Claypole, brings this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

14 §§ 377.10 et seq. At the time of his death, Joshua Claypole was a 20-year-old

15 citizen of the United States and resident of the County of Monterey in the State of

16 California. The survival causes of action in this matter are based on violations of

17 Joshua Claypole’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and on

18 violations of California state law.

19

10. Silvia Guersenzvaig is the mother of Joshua Claypole. She is suing

20 individually for violations of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth

21 Amendments and California state law.

22

11. Defendant County of San Mateo is a public entity, duly organized and

23 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

24 County of San Mateo operates and manages the Maguire Correctional Facility and

25 is and was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or

26 inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the San Mateo

27 County Sheriff’s Department and the Maguire Correctional Facility, and each

28 entity’s respective employees and/or agents. San Mateo County Sheriff’s

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page4 of 227

1 Department operates the Maguire Correctional Facility, and is and was responsible

2 for ensuring the provision of emergency and medical and mental health care

3 services to all Maguire Correctional Facility inmates.

4

12. Defendant Greg Munks is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

5 herein, the Sheriff of the County of San Mateo, the highest position in the San

6 Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Munks is and was

7 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

8 counseling, and control of all San Mateo Sheriff’s Department custodial employees

9 and/or agents and Does 1 through 10. Defendant Munks is and was charged by law

10 with the administration of the Maguire Correctional Facility, with the assistance of

11 a small group of executive officers. Defendant Munks also is and was responsible

12 for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the

13 practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s

14 Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant Munks is being sued in his

15 individual and official capacities.

16

13. Defendant County of Monterey is a public entity, duly organized and

17 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

18 County of Monterey operates and manages Monterey County Jail and is and was at

19 all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or inactions and

20 the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the Monterey County Sheriff’s

21 Department and Monterey County Jail, and each entity’s respective employees

22 and/or agents. Monterey County Sheriff’s Department operates Monterey County

23 Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the provision of emergency and

24 medical and mental health care services to all Monterey County Jail inmates.

25

14. Defendant Scott Miller is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

26 herein, the Sheriff of the County of Monterey, the highest position in the San Mateo

27 County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Miller is and was responsible

28 for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-3-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page5 of 227

1 control of all San Mateo Sheriff’s Department custodial employees and/or agents

2 and Does 11 through 20. Defendant Miller is and was charged by law with the

3 administration of the Monterey County Jail, with the assistance of a small group of

4 executive officers. Defendant Miller also is and was responsible for the

5 promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs

6 pursuant to which the acts of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department alleged

7 herein were committed. Defendant Miller is being sued in his individual and

8 official capacities.

9

15. Defendant E. Kaye is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein,

10 a Sergeant in the County of Monterey’s Sheriff’s Department. As a Sergeant,

11 Defendant Kaye is a supervisor at the Monterey County Jail. On May 1, 2013,

12 Defendant Kaye was the on-duty Sergeant at the Monterey County Jail who

13 received notice from a subordinate deputy that Joshua Claypole was suicidal. She

14 had direct control over the placement of Claypole in a safety cell, and for ensuring

15 he was placed on suicide watch during his detention at Monterey County Jail. Her

16 failure to ensure adequate protection and monitoring of Claypole led to his suicide.

17 Defendant Kaye is being sued in her individual capacity.

18

16. Defendant City of Monterey is a municipality duly organized and

19 existing under the laws of the State of California. The Monterey Police Department

20 is a duly formed agency of the City of Monterey. Under its authority, Defendant

21 City of Monterey is and was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for

22 the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of

23 the Monterey Police Department and its respective employees and/or agents. City

24 of Monterey police officers arrested and detained Joshua Claypole on May 1, 2013,

25 and were privy to numerous suicidal statements made by Claypole while in their

26 custody.

27

17. Defendant Philip Penko is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

28 herein, the Chief of the Monterey Police Department, the highest position in the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page6 of 227

1 Department. As Chief, Defendant Penko is and was responsible for the hiring,

2 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all

3 Monterey Police Department employees and/or agents and Does 21 through 30.

4 Defendant Penko also is and was responsible for the promulgation of the policies

5 and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts

6 of the Monterey Police Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant

7 Penko is being sued in his official capacity.

8

18. Defendant Brent Hall is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

9 herein, an Officer of the Monterey Police Department. According to police records,

10 Defendant Hall responded to the crime scene in Monterey on May 1, 2013, and

11 transported Joshua Claypole to the Monterey County Jail, where Claypole was

12 booked into the facility. Defendant Hall is being sued in his individual and official

13 capacities.

14

19. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”) is a

15 California corporation headquartered in Monterey, California. CFMG is a private

16 correctional health care provider that services approximately 65 correctional

17 facilities in 27 California counties. The County of Monterey contracts with CFMG

18 to provide medical, mental health, and dental services for the Monterey County Jail.

19 At all relevant times mentioned herein, CFMG was responsible for the health

20 services provided to Joshua Claypole during his detention in the Monterey County

21 Jail.

22

20. Defendant Taylor Fithian is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

23 herein, the co-founder, President, and Medical Director for Defendant CFMG.

24 Defendant Fithian is a Board-certified psychiatrist and oversees the delivery of

25 medical, mental health and dental care in all CFMG-served facilities, including

26 standards of medical care and utilization review. Dr. Fithian is also listed on the

27 website of the Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula as an affiliated doctor.

28 Defendant Fithian is and was responsible for the promulgation of the policies and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-5-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page7 of 227

1 procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of

2 CFMG alleged herein were committed. In addition, Defendant Fithian personally

3 evaluated Joshua Claypole on at least one occasion while he was held at Monterey

4 County Jail, and was involved in the decision to remove Claypole from suicide

5 watch on May 4, 2013. Defendant Fithian is sued in his individual capacity.

6

21. Defendant Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (“CHOMP”) is

7 a California non-profit health care provider based in Monterey, California. It

8 encompasses a main hospital, a mental health clinic, laboratories, and a short-term

9 nursing facility, among others, that provide services spanning a range of health care

10 needs, including primary care, cardiology, oncology, behavioral health, and

11 emergency care. CHOMP provided outpatient mental health care to Joshua

12 Claypole from approximately March 2012 through August 2012. Medical records

13 indicate CHOMP-affiliated doctors were involved in prescribing medication to

14 Claypole as late as October 2012.

15

22. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 1 through 10 are

16 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 1

17 through 10 was employed by the County of San Mateo and/or the San Mateo

18 County Sheriff’s Department at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs

19 allege that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10 was deliberately indifferent to

20 Joshua Claypole’s medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary psychiatric

21 care to him or take other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide, violated

22 his civil rights, wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled

23 and/or ordered other defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege

24 that Defendants Does 1 through 10 violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth

25 Amendment rights and rights under California state law. Plaintiffs further allege

26 that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10 was responsible for the hiring,

27 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of

28 medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or agents involved in the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-6-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page8 of 227

1 conduct alleged herein.

2

23. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 11 through 20 are

3 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 11

4 through 20 was employed by County of Monterey, and/or the Monterey County

5 Sheriff’s Department, and/or California Forensic Medical Group at the time of the

6 conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 11 through

7 20 was deliberately indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s medical needs and safety,

8 failed to provide necessary psychiatric care to him or take other measures to prevent

9 him from attempting suicide, violated his civil rights, wrongfully caused his death,

10 and/or encouraged, directed, enabled and/or ordered other defendants to engage in

11 such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Does 11 through 20 violated

12 Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and rights under California state

13 law. Plaintiffs further allege that each of Defendants Does 11 through 20 was

14 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

15 counseling, and control of medical, mental health, and jail custody employees

16 and/or agents involved in the conduct alleged herein.

17

24. The true names and identities of Defendants Does 21 through 30 are

18 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants Does 21

19 through 30 was employed by the City of Monterey and/or the Monterey Police

20 Department at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of

21 Defendants Does 21 through 30 was deliberately indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s

22 medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary psychiatric care to him or take

23 other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide, violated his civil rights,

24 wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled and/or ordered

25 other defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that

26 Defendants Does 21 through 30 violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth

27 Amendment rights, and rights under California state law. Plaintiffs further allege

28 that each of Defendants Does 21 through 30 was responsible for the hiring,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-7-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page9 of 227

1 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of

2 medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or agents involved in the

3 conduct alleged herein.

4

25. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names

5 and identities of Defendants Does 1 through 30 have been ascertained.

6

26. Defendants Greg Munks, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, Philip Penko, Brent

7 Hall, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30 engaged in the acts or omissions

8 alleged herein under color of state law.

9

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

10 mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents, employees, servants,

11 joint venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other Defendants named in

12 this Complaint and that at all times, each of the Defendants was acting within the

13 course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

14

EXHUASTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES

15

FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS

16

28. Plaintiffs filed governmental tort claims with the State and Defendant

17 County of Monterey, including on behalf of the Estate of Joshua Claypole, on

18 October 28, 2013. By correspondence dated December 13, 2013, the County of

19 Monterey rejected the governmental tort claims on behalf of Joshua Claypole.

20

29. By correspondence dated March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs notified

21 Defendants County of Monterey, Sheriff Miller, CFMG, and Dr. Taylor Fithian of

22 their intention to file suit against them based on their negligence in providing

23 professional health care services, as required by Section 364 of the California Code

24 of Civil Procedure.

25 ///

26 ///

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-8-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page10 of 227

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2 I. History of Inadequate Mental Health Care in Monterey County Jail

3

30. County of Monterey and CFMG have been on notice that their

4 provision of mental health care to inmates at the Monterey County Jail is

5 inadequate and results in needless harm since at least 2007, when the Monterey

6 County Sheriff’s Office and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors hired an

7 outside consulting firm to perform a needs assessment for the Jail.

8

31. The independent assessment was updated in 2011 and found County of

9 Monterey and CFMG’s policies and practices for screening, supervising, and

10 treating prisoners at risk for suicide inadequate. (See Exhibit 1.) The 2011

11 Assessment identified structural and design flaws of cells and dormitories that do

12 not minimize suicide hazards in the facilities and fail to prevent self-harm. (See

13 Exhibit 1 at EX.3.) The Assessment also found that Monterey County Jail’s

14 physical facilities lack sufficient treatment space and therefore prevent adequate

15 delivery of medical and mental health care. (Exhibit 1 at EX.3, A.3.)

16

32. In addition to the Jail’s structural issues the Assessment found that

17 chronic understaffing hinders County of Monterey’s ability to provide medical care,

18 classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain inmate safety and security,

19 and transport inmates to and from outside agencies. (Exhibit 1 at G.1–G.3, J.2–J.3.)

20 In addition, understaffing and overcrowding at the Jail creates what the Assessment

21 called “an indirect supervision facility,” which impairs the Jail’s ability to

22 “recognize, manage and treat” mental health issues among the inmate population

23 (as opposed to direct supervision from experienced physicians and psychologists).

24 (Id. at EX.3.)

25

33. These deficiencies are even more troubling in light of the

26 Assessment’s finding that approximately 15–20% of the Jail’s inmates suffer from

27 mental health issues. (Exhibit 1 at A.3 n. 4.)

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-9-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page11 of 227

1

34. The Assessment’s findings were confirmed in a 2013 draft report by an

2 expert hired by County of Monterey, Dr. Richard Hayward (“Hayward Report”).

3 (See Exhibit 2.) The County tasked Dr. Hayward with evaluating mental health care

4 at Monterey County Jail in response to a federal class action lawsuit challenging

5 County of Monterey’s provision of medical and mental health care at the Jail. See

6 Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 13-cv-2354-PSG (N.D. Cal. filed May 23,

7 2013). The Hayward Report, dated December 6, 2013, affirmed that understaffing

8 of mental health professionals led to inadequate mental health care for inmates (see

9 Exhibit 2 at 5), compounding the 2011 Assessment’s findings of problems

10 associated with crowded and space-limited clinics at the Jail.

11

35. In addition, the Hayward Report identified other serious deficiencies in

12 the delivery of mental health care at the Monterey County Jail, including:

13

a. Lack of a complete mental health screening process that leads to

14 inadequate identification of arrestees with a potential for self-harm or a history of

15 mental disorders. (Exhibit 2 at 2.)

16

b. Lack of mental health questions on intake forms that could

17 adequately log an inmate’s symptoms and treatment history, prior providers, past

18 diagnoses and medications, and history of self-harm. (Exhibit 2 at 4.)

19

c. County of Monterey employs only a total of four mental health

20 professionals, which the Hayward Report concluded was “insufficient to meet the

21 mental health needs of the inmates.” (Exhibit 2 at 5.)

22

d. Lack of mental health care clinicians assigned to the jail on

23 weekends “results in insufficient services to mentally ill inmates,” relevant because

24 Claypole committed suicide on a Saturday. (Exhibit 2 at 2.)

25

e. Inadequate supervision of inmates placed on suicide watch in

26 designated “Safety Cells,” including delays of up to an hour or more between

27 checks of designated inmates who should be monitored twice each thirty minutes.

28 (Exhibit 2 at 12.)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-10-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page12 of 227

1

36. County of Monterey’s failures to timely identify, adequately treat, or

2 effectively monitor prisoners at risk for suicide have had tragic consequences.

3 According to the allegations contained in the Hernandez v. County of Monterey

4 complaint, there had been three completed and over a dozen attempted suicides in

5 the four years prior to Claypole’s suicide. According to that complaint, the rate of

6 completed suicides at the Monterey County Jail is nearly twice the national average

7 for jail facilities.

8

37. Moreover, on April 15, 2013, prior to Joshua Claypole’s death, County

9 of Monterey was again specifically put on notice of the serious problems with

10 mental health treatment in the jail, as well as its disproportionately high suicide

11 rate, in a letter written by Hernandez class counsel. (See Exhibit 3.)

12 II. Joshua Claypole’s Detentions and Suicide

13

A. Claypole’s Mental Health History

14

38. Joshua Claypole was born in Monterey, California, and was raised

15 primarily in Big Sur, California, by his mother Silvia Guersenzvaig.

16

39. Starting in or around his junior year in high school, Claypole began

17 struggling with substance abuse and exhibiting symptoms of mental illness,

18 including anxiety, panic disorders, and bipolar disorder. He eventually dropped out

19 of high school in December of his senior year.

20

40. Guersenzvaig sought help for Claypole from numerous mental health

21 therapists and practitioners from approximately 2010 through 2013.

22

41. During this period, Claypole was treated by at least one psychiatrist at

23 CHOMP, Dr. Marshal Alan Blatt. Dr. Blatt worked with Claypole between March

24 2012 and August 2012, but abruptly terminated his relationship with Claypole with

25 no follow up care or referral to another care provider.

26

42. In this time, Claypole would fluctuate between normative behavior and

27 his more agitated, disturbed periods. When on his prescribed medications, he was

28 funny, loving, creative, and thoughtful, often talking openly about his growth as a

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-11-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page13 of 227

1 young adult and the lessons he learned from his past experience and from others.

2 During periods of instability, however, he struggled with anxiety, aggression, and

3 substance abuse. This behavior led to two arrests, one for a DUI and vandalism and

4 the other for minor possession of cocaine. As part of his sentences for these arrests,

5 Claypole successfully completed several rehabilitation programs.

6

B. First Detention in San Mateo County

7

43. Joshua Claypole’s mental health issues came to a head in April 2013.

8 On April 24, Silvia Guersenzvaig scheduled Claypole to see his treating

9 psychiatrist, Dr. John R. Donaldson, on May 2. By approximately April 27,

10 Claypole stopped sleeping, believed he had telepathy, and thought that others were

11 communicating to him through their thoughts.

12

44. Five days before the May 2 appointment with his psychiatrist, Joshua

13 Claypole experienced a psychotic episode. On April 28, 2013, while at his

14 mother’s home, Claypole began acting strangely, exhibited aggressive and paranoid

15 behavior, and left the home without telling Guersenzvaig where he was going.

16

45. Claypole traveled to the home of friends that evening, but did not sleep

17 the entire night. During the night, he told them he thought the singer of the music

18 they were listening to was going to come out of the music to kill him.

19

46. The next day, Claypole returned to his mother’s home, collected his

20 belongings, and left without answering her questions about where he was going. He

21 appeared agitated and paranoid.

22

47. Worrying about her son’s health, Silvia Guersenzvaig called Joshua

23 Claypole’s psychiatrist Dr. Donaldson on April 29 and spoke with his office staff

24 about Claypole’s behavior. She asked Dr. Donaldson’s staff to provide further

25 assistance to Claypole in his upcoming May 2 appointment.

26

48. Guersenzvaig called Dr. Donaldson’s office again on April 30, 2013,

27 to confirm that Claypole would be receiving assistance and treatment from Dr.

28 Donaldson at his appointment in two days.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-12-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page14 of 227

1

49. After leaving his mother’s home on April 29, records reflect that

2 Joshua Claypole was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence at 1:00

3 a.m. on the morning of April 30, 2013, by California Highway Patrol officers in

4 Redwood City, California. According to San Mateo Sheriff’s Department records,

5 he was booked and detained at the Maguire Correctional Facility operated by

6 County of San Mateo at approximately 4:30 a.m., and his car was impounded. A

7 jail property slip indicates that he was arrested with medication in his possession,

8 among other items.

9

50. California Highway Patrol records indicate that CHP officers

10 performed a narcotics test on Claypole, but San Mateo records do not reflect any

11 review by San Mateo personnel of the test or its results.

12

51. Although the San Mateo Arrest Report/Booking Sheet for Claypole

13 noted that he was under the influence and his speech was slow and slurred, and the

14 San Mateo Correctional Health Services Intake Sheet notes that his arrest was

15 primarily for drug intoxication, San Mateo staff’s medical examination of Claypole

16 checked “no” for “any signs of alcohol/drug intoxication and/or withdrawal” and

17 failed to check the box noting slurred speech.

18

52. San Mateo’s medical records also indicate that Claypole reported his

19 psychiatric history and prescriptions for medications including Adderall (prescribed

20 primarily for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and Klonopin (prescribed to

21 treat anxiety disorders, panic disorders, and psychosis) to the screening nurse at

22 Maguire Correctional Facility. Adderall and Klonopin are known to have side

23 effects including irritability and aggression, cognitive impairments and

24 hallucinations, depression, suicidal thoughts, and mood swings. According to San

25 Mateo’s medical records, staff then prescribed Claypole three psychotropic

26 medications: Hydroxyzine, Quetiapine, and Lithium Carbonate. All three

27 medications are used to treat bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, psychosis, and mania.

28 However, no referral for further medical health monitoring or treatment appears to

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-13-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page15 of 227

1 have been made.

2

53. Despite notice of Claypole’s serious mental illness, erratic behavior,

3 and the dangerous mix of narcotics and psychotropic medication he was suspected

4 to have consumed, County of San Mateo released Joshua Claypole on April 30,

5 2013, at 11:24 a.m. on the condition that he promise to appear for his DUI

6 arraignment.

7

C. Claypole’s Repeated Visits to the CHOMP Facility Where He Had

8

Previously Received Treatment

9

54. After his release from San Mateo, Joshua Claypole traveled south to

10 Monterey.

11

55. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on May 1, 2013, Joshua Claypole arrived

12 at the Hartnell Professional Center, which houses CHOMP. He had been treated by

13 CHOMP between March and August 2012, and that morning went to the outpatient

14 behavioral health clinic on the second floor where he had previously been a patient.

15 Despite CHOMP’s prior relationship with Claypole and his obvious symptoms of a

16 mental health crisis, CHOMP personnel did not provide medical or mental health

17 treatment to Claypole. Rather, they directed Claypole to leave, and called the

18 Monterey Police Department. By the time police officers arrived, Claypole had

19 already left.

20

56. Joshua Claypole returned to CHOMP later that same morning at

21 approximately 11:00 a.m. He again visited CHOMP’s behavioral health clinic. This

22 time, CHOMP personnel responded by deploying their internal security officers to

23 escort him out of the building, again failing to examine or treat Claypole. Despite

24 their physical custody of Claypole, and awareness of his troubled mental state,

25 CHOMP personnel refused to treat him, examine him, detain him, or provide any

26 medical or mental health assistance to him. Instead, CHOMP security officers threw

27 Claypole out of the building and again called the Monterey Police Department.

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-14-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page16 of 227

1

57. Immediately after CHOMP security officers physically ejected him,

2 Claypole went to a local Wells Fargo bank branch in Monterey, presumably to

3 obtain money for a rental car so he could return to Redwood City for his

4 impounded car. Wells Fargo employees confirmed that his strange behavior was

5 clearly observable, later telling Monterey Police Department officers that Claypole

6 appeared to be “on a substance,” “very unstable,” “out of it,” and “in and out of

7 consciousness.” They stated that Claypole displayed mood changes and would at

8 times be unresponsive to conversation. At the register of the bank, he did not talk

9 and made strange movements with his head. After withdrawing money from a bank

10 account he shared with his mother, Claypole requested Wells Fargo staff hale him a

11 taxi cab.

12

D. Detention in Monterey County

13

58. According to Monterey Police Department reports, Claypole got into a

14 taxi shortly thereafter outside of the Wells Fargo branch, and, at approximately 1:10

15 p.m., fatally stabbed the taxi driver, Daniel Garcia Huerta, outside an Enterprise

16 Rent-A-Car Company location on Del Monte Avenue in Monterey, California.

17 Claypole was then detained by Seaside Police Department officers a short distance

18 away in a stolen pickup truck. Monterey Police Department officers arrived at the

19 scene thereafter and took custody of Claypole. After the owner of the pickup truck

20 identified Claypole, Monterey Police Department personnel arrested him.

21

59. According to police reports, when Claypole was seated in the back of

22 Defendant MPD Officer Brent Hall’s squad car, he spontaneously asked Defendant

23 Hall, “Can you ask for the [lethal] injection?” He also told Defendant Hall, “I had

24 to do it.”

25

60. During the booking process, Claypole asked Defendant Hall “Should I

26 go? I should just take the injection.”

27

61. While waiting to be interviewed by a detective, Joshua Claypole asked

28 Hall “Is my mom going to get my remains?” Claypole again told Hall that he

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-15-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page17 of 227

1 wanted to die by lethal injection and that he wanted to have his body cremated.

2

62. Despite these suicidal comments, neither Defendant Hall nor

3 Defendant Monterey Police Department informed the Monterey County Sheriff’s

4 Department that Joshua Claypole was acting strangely or a suicide risk. Rather than

5 assessing his mental health issues adequately, or notifying the County of Monterey,

6 his subsequent custodian, Defendants Hall and City of Monterey failed to take any

7 appropriate or necessary action in the face of a clearly paranoid and suicidal

8 detainee.

9

63. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on May 1, Joshua Claypole met with his

10 criminal defense lawyer, John Klopfenstein. During the meeting, Claypole appeared

11 paranoid and talked about killing himself. Klopfenstein then spoke to Officer Candi

12 McGregor at the jail at approximately 8:45 p.m. and requested that Claypole be

13 placed on suicide watch, per a memorandum drafted by McGregor. McGregor

14 noted that she immediately contacted Defendant Sergeant E. Kaye, the on-duty

15 Sergeant. Sergeant Kaye advised McGregor that she would follow up on the

16 situation.

17

64. According to County of Monterey records, an “Intake Health

18 Screening” of Joshua Claypole was conducted at 9:05 p.m. on May 1, 2013. During

19 the screening, Claypole told the screening deputy that he was taking medication for

20 anxiety. However, the screening form used to document the examination did not

21 indicate that any questions were asked regarding Claypole’s history of mental

22 health diagnoses or prior mental health treatment. Despite Claypole’s suicidal

23 statements to the transporting police officers and reports from Claypole’s lawyer to

24 jail staff that Claypole was unstable and talked about killing himself, the Intake

25 Health Screening shows the “no” box checked for “Does behavior suggest a danger

26 to self or others?” Similarly, despite Claypole’s self-report that he took anxiety

27 medications, the Intake Health Screening does not reflect any referral of Claypole

28 to a psychiatrist or other mental health staff.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-16-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page18 of 227

1

65. County of Monterey Sheriff’s personnel also completed a form entitled

2 “Classification Inmate Intake Screening Questionnaire,” dated May 1, 2013, at 9:05

3 p.m. Notwithstanding the recent events, Claypole’s statements to the police

4 officers, Claypole’s psychiatric history, and his attorney’s report of suicidal

5 symptoms and request to have him placed on suicide watch, the Questionnaire

6 indicates that Claypole had not shown any bizarre behavior and that he was not now

7 nor had he ever been under psychiatric care.

8

66. Monterey County Jail staff failed to place Claypole on suicide watch

9 on May 1, 2014, despite his attorney’s direct report of suicidal symptoms and

10 request for such precautions.

11

67. On May 2, Klopfenstein visited Claypole at the Jail. During this

12 second meeting, Claypole asked Mr. Klopfenstein to have his mother bring his

13 medications to the jail.

14

68. On May 3, Joshua Claypole made his first appearance in court

15 regarding the criminal charges. That same day, Claypole exhibited severe mental

16 instability, believing that others were speaking to him telepathically through his

17 thoughts. Mr. Klopfenstein assumed that the Jail had responded appropriately to his

18 request to place Claypole on suicide watch.

19

69. However, the medical records from County of Monterey reflect that it

20 was not until 2:35 p.m. on May 3, two days after Klopfenstein first requested

21 suicide watch, that Defendants finally placed Claypole on suicide watch and

22 transferred Claypole to a safety cell where he was supposed to be observed by Jail

23 staff.

24

70. Fewer than twenty-four hours later, at approximately 6:30 a.m. on May

25 4, Defendants inexplicably released Claypole from suicide watch without any

26 further suicide risk precautions.

27

71. At approximately 1 p.m. on May 4, 2013, Silvia Guersenzvaig arrived

28 at Monterey County Jail to visit her son and to bring him his psychotropic

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-17-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page19 of 227

1 medications, per his request. However, Jail staff refused to allow her to see her son,

2 telling her that Claypole had been moved to a different housing unit and visitation

3 hours for that unit had not begun. Guersenzvaig gave Claypole’s medications to a

4 Jail nurse summoned by the on-duty officer. Denied the ability to visit her son,

5 Guersenzvaig said to the nurse, “Please tell Josh I love him regardless of what

6 happened.”

7

72. On information and belief, Jail staff did not provide the medications

8 brought by Silvia Guersenzvaig to Joshua Claypole.

9

73. At a “welfare check” conducted at approximately 2:30 p.m. on May 4,

10 2013, Monterey County Deputy Sheriff Raymond Gordano found Joshua Claypole

11 hanging from a cloth noose made of torn bed sheets inside his cell.

12

74. According to the declaration of Dr. Pablo Stewart, an expert whose

13 declaration was filed by plaintiffs in Hernandez v. County of Monterey, Jail staff

14 failed to appropriately and timely respond to Claypole’s suicide. Rather than

15 immediately open the cell to cut down the ligature, Gordano requested back up by

16 custody and medical staff. (See Exhibit 4 at ¶ 96.) Staff did not open Claypole’s

17 cell and begin to assist him until other staff arrived on the scene. (Id.) Jail personnel

18 eventually cut the ligature using a knife, with some difficulty. (Id.)

19

75. At the time of his suicide, Claypole was housed in A Pod, an

20 administrative segregation housing unit. The cell included a set of sturdy metal

21 braces on the wall, which are suicide hazards in cells used for inmates in mental

22 health crisis. Claypole tied the sheet he used to hang himself to these metal braces.

23

76. Jail records reflect the failure of jail staff to follow their own policies

24 and procedures during and after suicide watch. During the period when Claypole

25 was placed in suicide watch, Jail personnel did not perform the required checks

26 twice every 30 minutes, instead checking on him only once in some one-hour

27 periods. After removing him from suicide watch, Jail personnel did not check on

28 Claypole hourly, as required by Jail policies. County of Monterey’s Hourly Safety

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-18-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page20 of 227

1 Check log indicates that at the time staff discovered him hanging, staff had not

2 performed a safety check for Claypole in over 6 hours.

3

77. According to jail policies and procedures, as recounted by Dr.

4 Hayward, no mental health personnel are on site at the Jail on weekends.

5 Nevertheless, County of Monterey removed Claypole from suicide watch on

6 Saturday when, upon information or belief, no mental health care staff were on site

7 at the Jail. Once Claypole was removed from suicide watch and placed back in

8 general population, there were no mental health staff at the jail to monitor his

9 condition, and custody staff failed to perform the required hourly safety checks.

10

78. Defendant’s failure to appropriately staff its jail facility and monitor

11 Claypole despite known and foreseeable suicide risks resulted in Claypole hanging

12 himself just a few hours after his removal from suicide watch.

13

79. After staff discovered him hanging, Joshua Claypole was transferred to

14 the care of emergency room personnel at Natividad Medical Center, then

15 transported to the Trauma Center at San Jose Regional Medical Center via

16 helicopter.

17

80. Shortly after finding his body, Jail deputies found a handwritten

18 suicide letter written by Claypole in his cell. Addressing his mother, Claypole

19 wrote: “I love you mama. I’m sorry for all the pain I have brought you mama. I love

20 you very much. Maybe I will see you again. Love, Joshua.”

21

81. On May 9, 2013, Joshua Claypole was declared dead. A subsequent

22 County of Monterey postmortem examination conducted on May 13, 2013,

23 concluded that he died from asphyxia due to hanging.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-19-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page21 of 227

1

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2

First Claim for Relief

3

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs in

4 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

5

States (Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

7 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and

8

Does 1 through 20)

9

82. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

10 81 as though fully set forth herein.

11

83. Defendants have inadequate policies, procedures, and practices for

12 identifying inmates in need of medical and mental health treatment and providing

13 appropriate medical and mental health treatment. Defendants also fail to

14 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding the provision of treatment to

15 inmates with medical and mental health issues.

16

84. Defendants have consistently failed to meet their constitutional

17 obligation to provide adequate mental health care to prisoners in their jails. The

18 mental health care provided by Defendants to prisoners in their jails is woefully

19 inadequate and falls far short of all of the minimum elements of a constitutional

20 mental health care system. Defendants’ failure to correct their policies, procedures,

21 and practices, despite notice of significant and dangerous problems, evidences

22 deliberate indifference in the provision of mental health treatment.

23

85. Defendants knew or should have known that there was a strong

24 likelihood that Joshua Claypole posed a threat to himself or others.

25

86. Defendants failed to provide necessary medical and mental health

26 evaluation and treatment to Joshua Claypole while he was held at the Maguire

27 Correctional Facility and Monterey County Jail, despite his history of serious 28 mental illness, obvious symptoms of mental health crisis, and information that he

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-20-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page22 of 227

1 was under the influence of narcotics.

2

87. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

3 limited to their failure to provide Joshua Claypole with appropriate medical or

4 psychiatric care and to identify suicide risk, along with the acts and/or omissions of

5 the Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies

6 and procedures in order to identify suicide risk and provide treatment, constituted

7 deliberate indifference to Joshua Claypole’s serious medical needs, health and

8 safety.

9

88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Joshua

10 Claypole experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish

11 over a period of five days, as well as loss of his life and other damages alleged

12 herein.

13

89. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were conducted with

14 conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs and others, and were therefore

15 malicious, wanton, and oppressive. As a result, Defendants’ actions justify an

16 award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged

17 herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

18

Second Claim for Relief

19 Failure to Protect from Harm in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to

20 the Constitution of the United States (Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

21 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

22 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, City of Monterey, Philip Penko, Brent Hall, California

23

Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30)

24

90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

25 89 as though fully set forth herein.

26

91. Each Defendant could have taken action to prevent unnecessary harm

27 to Joshua Claypole, but refused or failed to do so.

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-21-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page23 of 227

1

92. Defendants failed to have minimally necessary policies and procedures

2 concerning the adequate identification and housing of Claypole, whom they knew

3 or should have known to be at risk of self-harm.

4

93. City of Monterey, Philip Penko, and Brent Hall failed to take

5 necessary precautions to ensure that Claypole would not harm himself or others

6 after he communicated clearly suicidal thoughts to Monterey Police Department

7 officers. They also failed to create minimally necessary policies and procedures for

8 ensuring that other entities and municipalities were informed of suicide risks among

9 Monterey Police Department arrestees who are transferred from their custody.

10 Lastly, they failed to adequately train and supervise officers to protect arrestees

11 from harm.

12

94. County Defendants failed to implement minimally sufficient policies

13 and procedures to protect inmates from harm. County Defendants failed to

14 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding identification and handling of

15 detainees at risk of harm. With respect to Joshua Claypole, County Defendants

16 failed to follow even their own suicide prevention procedures to identify, house,

17 and monitor detainees at risk of self-harm.

18

95. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

19 limited to their failure to take appropriate measures to protect Joshua Claypole from

20 harm, along with the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants in failing to train,

21 supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and procedures in order to protect

22 Joshua Claypole from harm, constituted deliberate indifference to Joshua

23 Claypole’s serious medical needs, health, and safety.

24

96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Joshua

25 Claypole experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish

26 over a period of five days, as well as loss of his life and other damages alleged

27 herein.

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-22-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page24 of 227

1

97. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

2 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of exemplary

3 and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter

4 such conduct in the future.

5

Third Claim for Relief

6

Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights in Violation of First and

7 Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States – Loss of

8

Parent/Child Relationship (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

9 (Against Defendants County of San Mateo, Greg Munks, County of Monterey,

10 Scott Miller, E. Kaye, City of Monterey, Philip Penko, Brent Hall, California

11

Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and Does 1 through 30)

12

98. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

13 97 as though fully set forth herein.

14

99. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

15 deliberatively indifferent to Joshua Claypole’s serious medical needs, health and

16 safety, violating Joshua Claypole’s constitutional rights, and their failure to train,

17 supervise, and/or take other appropriate measures to prevent the acts and/or

18 omissions that caused the untimely and wrongful death of Joshua Claypole

19 deprived Plaintiff Guersenzvaig of her liberty interest in the parent-child

20 relationship in violation of her substantive due process rights as defined by the First

21 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

22

100. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or

23 omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

24

101. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named

25 Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an

26 award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged

27 herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-23-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page25 of 227

1

Fourth Claim for Relief

2

Medical Malpractice (Survival Actions – California State Law)

3 (Against Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, and

4

Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula)

5

102. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

6 101 as though fully set forth herein.

7

103. Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in the

8 treatment of Joshua Claypole’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately

9 assess and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate

10 and timely suicide prevention measures, prematurely removing Claypole from

11 suicide watch and returning him to an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate

12 mental health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and

13 necessary psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

14

104. Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and ensure

15 the competence of medical staff’s and custody staff’s provision of treatment to

16 Claypole, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that would have

17 prevented such harm to him.

18

105. As a direct and proximate cause of this negligence and failure to meet

19 their professional standards of care, Joshua Claypole and Silvia Guersenzvaig

20 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

21

106. The negligent conduct of these Defendants was committed within the

22 course and scope of their employment.

23

107. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

24 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive

25 damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in

26 the future.

27 ///

28 ///

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-24-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page26 of 227

1

Fifth Claim for Relief

2 Failure to Furnish / Summon Medical Care (Survival Action – California State

3

Law)

4 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

5 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

6

Fithian, and Does 11 through 20)

7

108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

8 107 as though fully set forth herein.

9

109. Defendants owed Joshua Claypole a duty of care to provide him

10 immediate medical and mental health care.

11

110. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to

12 the facts that Defendants knew or had reason to know that Joshua Claypole was in

13 need of immediate medical and mental health care and that Defendants failed to

14 take reasonable action to summon or provide that care, resulting in Joshua

15 Claypole’s death as alleged herein, violated California state law, including Cal.

16 Govt. Code §§ 844.6 and 845.6.

17

111. Defendants also failed to timely and appropriately respond to Joshua

18 Claypole’s expressions of suicidal ideation, in which he requested that he be killed

19 and stated his desire to kill himself on numerous occasions before hanging himself

20 in his cell.

21

112. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

22 and scope of their employment.

23

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Joshua

24 Claypole and Silvia Guersenzvaig suffered injuries and damages causing great pain

25 and leading to his death, as alleged herein.

26

114. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

27 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive

28 damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-25-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page27 of 227

1 the future.

2

Sixth Claim for Relief

3 Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention (Survival Action –

4

California State Law)

5 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

6 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

7

Fithian, and Does 11 through 20)

8

115. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

9 114, as though fully set forth herein.

10

116. Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees

11 and/or agents so that employees and/or agents refrain from the conduct and/or

12 omissions alleged herein.

13

117. Defendants breached this duty, causing the conduct alleged herein.

14 Such breach constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention under

15 the laws of the State of California.

16

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure, Joshua

17 Claypole and Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

18

Seventh Claim for Relief

19

Wrongful Death – California Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60

20 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, California

21 Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, Taylor

22

Fithian, and Does 11 through 20)

23

119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

24 118, as though fully set forth herein.

25

120. Joshua Claypole’s death was a direct and proximate result of the

26 aforementioned wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

27 Defendants’ acts and/or omissions thus were also a direct and proximate cause of

28 Plaintiff’ injuries and damages, as alleged herein.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-26-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page28 of 227

1

121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or

2 negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff incurred expenses for funeral and burial

3 expenses in an amount to be proved.

4

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or

5 negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the services, society,

6 care, and protection of the decedent, as well as the loss of the present value of his

7 future services to his mother. Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover prejudgment

8 interest.

9

123. Plaintiff Estate of Joshua Claypole is entitled to recover punitive

10 damages against individual Defendants who, with conscious disregard of Joshua

11 Claypole’s rights, failed to provide Joshua Claypole with mental health treatment

12 services meeting the professional standard of practice and failed to adhere to the

13 legal mandates of prisoner supervision.

14

124. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton,

15 malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and

16 punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such

17 conduct in the future.

18

Eighth Claim for Relief

19

Negligence (Survival Actions – California State Law)

20 (Against Defendants County of Monterey, Scott Miller, E. Kaye, and Does 11

21

through 20)

22

125. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

23 124, as though fully set forth herein.

24

126. The Monterey County Defendants failed to comply with professional

25 standards in the treatment of Joshua Claypole’s serious mental illness by failing to

26 appropriately assess and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take

27 appropriate and timely suicide prevention measures, prematurely removing

28 Claypole from suicide watch and returning him to an unsafe cell, failing to provide

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-27-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page29 of 227

1 appropriate mental health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate

2 and necessary psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those

3 medications.

4

127. These Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and

5 ensure the competence of medical staff’s and custody staff’s provision of treatment

6 to Claypole, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that would

7 have prevented such harm to him.

8

128. Together, these Defendants acted negligently and improperly,

9 breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result, Joshua

10 Claypole and Silvia Guersenzvaig suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

11

129. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

12 and scope of their employment.

13

130. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were conducted with

14 conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs and others, and were therefore

15 malicious, wanton, and oppressive. As a result, Defendants’ actions justify an

16 award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged

17 herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

20

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each

21 Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial;

22

2. For damages related to loss of familial relations as to Plaintiff Silvia

23 Guersenzvaig;

24

3. Funeral and burial expenses, and incidental expenses not yet fully

25 ascertained;

26

4. General damages, including damages for physical and emotional pain,

27 emotional distress, hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness

28 and trauma and suffering, the loss of the services, society, care and protection of the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-28-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page30 of 227

1 decedent, as well as the loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the

2 present value of future services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

3

5. Prejudgment interest;

4

6. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named

5 Defendant and CHOMP in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter

6 others from engaging in similar misconduct;

7

7. For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

8 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

9

8. For restitution as the court deems just and proper;

10

9. For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as

11 the Court may deem proper.

12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury in this action.

14

15 Dated: October 28, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

16

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

17

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

18

19

By:

/s/ Dan Stormer

20

Dan Stormer

Josh Piovia-Scott

21

Mohammad Tajsar

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

-29-

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page31 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page1 of 100
Complaint for Damages
Exh. 1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page32 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page2 of 100
COUNTY OF MONTEREY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Jail Needs Assessment
December 30, 2011
TRGConsulting

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page33 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page3 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents

Section

Page

Participants and Acknowledgements ....................................................... 1

Executive Summary ............................................................................EX.1

A. Elements of the System................................................................EX.1

B. Operational and Design Philosophy .............................................EX.4

C. Current Adult Population ..............................................................EX.4

D. Classification of Inmates...............................................................EX.5

E. Programs ......................................................................................EX.5

F. Analysis of Adult Detention Trends and Characteristics...............EX.6

G. Adequacy of Staffing Levels .........................................................EX.6

H. Ability to Provide Visual Supervision ............................................EX.8

I. Adequacy of Record Keeping .......................................................EX.8

J. Compliance with Standards ..........................................................EX.8

I. Unresolved Issues ......................................................................EX.10

A. Elements of the System.................................................................. A.1
Existing Monterey County Jail............................................................... A.1 Total Beds Required ............................................................................. A.1 Existing Jail Bed Capacity..................................................................... A.1 Shortfall Using the Average Projection ................................................. A.1 Shortfall Using the High Projection ....................................................... A.2 Urgent Service Gap in Adult Criminal Justice System .......................... A.2 Identified Need ...................................................................................... A.4 Bed Need Remains Paramount ............................................................ A.6

B. Operational and Design Philosophy ............................................... B.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... B.1 Purpose................................................................................................. B.1 Goal....................................................................................................... B.1 Design Goals for the New Adult Detention Beds and Support.............. B.1 Construction and Administrative Work Plan.......................................... B.2
C. Current Inmate Population.............................................................. C.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... C.1 Felony Arrests and Dispositions............................................................ C.1 Crime and Crime Rates......................................................................... C.1 Sentenced and Non-Sentenced Inmates .............................................. C.2
TRGConsulting

TOC.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page34 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page4 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

D. Classification System ..................................................................... D.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... D.1 Classification Training ........................................................................... D.1 Classification of Inmates ....................................................................... D.1 “Need” to Properly Separate and Segregate Inmates........................... D.5
E. Programs ........................................................................................ E.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... E.1 Inmate Programs and Detention Alternatives ....................................... E.1 Prevention of Disproportionate Confinement of Minorities.................. E.34
F. Analysis of Adult Trends and Characteristics ................................. F.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... F.1 Projection of Average Daily Population (ADP) ...................................... F.1
Table F.1 - Admissions 1998 -2005 ............................................ F.1 Table F.2 - Detention Days 1998 -2005 ...................................... F.2 Table F.3 - Monterey County Population 1940-2000 .................. F.2 Table F.4 - Monterey County Population 1998 -2005 ................. F.3 Table F.5 - Projected County Population 2010-2040 .................. F.3 Figure F.1 - Projected County Population 2010-2040 ................. F.3
Forecasting Adult Detention Admissions .............................................. F.4
Table F.6 - Ratios: Admissions/Population 1998 -2005 .............. F.4 Table F.7 - Average of the Jail Ratios ......................................... F.4 Table F.8 - Projected Admissions to Detention 2010-2040 ......... F.5 Figure F.2 - Projected Admissions to Detention 2010-2040........ F.5
Forecasting Adult Detention Days......................................................... F.6
Table F.9 - Detention Ratios: Det. Days/Pop. 1998 -2005 .......... F.6 Table F.10 - Average of the Detention Ratios ............................. F.6 Table F.11 - Projected Detention Days 2010-2040 ..................... F.7 Figure F.3 - Projected Detention Days 2010-2040 ...................... F.7
Average Daily Population (ADP) and Average Length of Stay (ALS) ... F.8
Table F.12 - Baseline Average Daily Population 2010-2040....... F.8 Figure F.4 - Baseline Average Daily Population 2010-2040 ....... F.8 Table F.13 - Baseline Range of ADP 2010-2040 ........................ F.9
Unauthorized Migrants .......................................................................... F.9
Table F.14 - Range of ADP 2010-2040/Unauthorized Migrants F.10 Table F.15 - Range of ADP 2010-2040/Unauthorized Migrants F.10 Figure F.5 - Range of ADP 2010-2040/Unauthorized Migrants F.11
Peaking and Classification .................................................................. F.11
Table F.16 - Peaking Factor 2008 - 2010.................................. F.12 Table F.17 - ADP Adjusted for Peaking and Classification ....... F.13 Table F.18 - Projected ADP with Peaking and Classification .... F.13 Table F.19 - Historic Detention Data 1996-2005 ....................... F.14

TRGConsulting

TOC.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page35 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page5 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
G. Adequacy of Staffing Levels .......................................................... I.1
Introduction ...........................................................................................G.1 Staffing Issues.......................................................................................G.1 Historic Factors .....................................................................................G.3
H. Ability to Provide Visual Supervision............................................. H.1
Introduction ........................................................................................... H.1 Existing Facility Design ......................................................................... H.1 New Facility Design............................................................................... H.1 Adequacy of Staff.................................................................................. H.1
I. Adequacy of Record Keeping .......................................................... I.1
Introduction ............................................................................................ I.1
J. Compliance with Standards .............................................................J.1
Introduction ............................................................................................J.1 Poor Facility Design ...............................................................................J.1 Overcrowding .........................................................................................J.1 Understaffing .......................................................................................... J.2

TRGConsulting

TOC.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page36 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page6 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
K. Unresolved Issues .......................................................................... K.1
Unresolved Issues..................................................................................J.1 Direct Negotiations with CDCR ..............................................................J.1 Public Safety and Offenders Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007..........J.1 Funding ..................................................................................................J.2 Construction Phasing for 2030 Bed Need..............................................J.2 Expanding the Project to Include Juvenile Detention Beds....................J.2 Disposition of the Components of the Existing Jail ................................J.2 Location .................................................................................................. J.3 Regional Adult Detention Facility/Leased Beds .....................................J.3 Implementation Strategy to Resolve Issues...........................................J.4
Appendix .............................................................................................AP.1
Stakeholders .....................................................................................AP1.1

TRGConsulting

TOC.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page37 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page7 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this needs assessment would not have been possible without the assistance of a number of professionals from Monterey County. While the following list by no means represents all of the people who participated in this effort, it is our attempt to recognize the primary contributors who helped make this planning effort a success
The efforts and participation of the following individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Fernando Armenta - Supervisor, District 1 Louis R. Calcagno - Supervisor, District 2 Simon Salinas - Supervisor, District 3 Jane Parker - Supervisor, District 4 (Chair CY 2011) Dave Potter - Supervisor, District 5 (Chair CY 2012)
Monterey County Administrative Office Lew C. Bauman - CAO DeWayne Woods - County Budget Director John Guertin - Principal Administrative Analyst
Monterey County Sheriff’s Office Scott Miller - Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal Chief Jeffrey J. Budd - Custody Bureau Chief Commander Jose L. Mendoza - Jail Commander Commander Lisa A. Nash, Professional Standards Division
Monterey County Resource Management Agency, Department of Public Works
Benny J. Young - Resource Management Agency Director Richard P. Sauerwein - Architectural Services Manager Shawne Ellerbee - Finance Manager Patricia Lopez - Grant Manager
HMC + Beverly Prior Architects Beverly Prior - Practice Leader
TRGConsulting Project Team William Harry Munyon - Project Manager and Lead Planner Kay Mead - Project Administration, Senior Research Staff, Data Coordinator Jim Marmack - Operations & Staffing JoAnn Martinez - Planner Alex Damon - IT Operations
TRGConsulting
1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page38 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page8 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary
A. Elements of the System
Existing Monterey County Jail. The Monterey County Jail is located at 1410 Natividad Road, Salinas, California 93906. The jail consists of three components:
1. The Rehabilitation Facility. 2. The Main Jail. 3. The Woman’s Jail.
Existing Jail Bed Capacity. The rated jail capacity as calculated by the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) is illustrated in Table EX.1.

Table EX.1 CSA Rated Jail Bed Capacity

Rated Beds

Total Beds

Main Jail/Woman’s Jail

575 Beds

Rehabilitation Facility

250 Beds

Total Beds

825 Beds

Source. Corrections Standards Authority. April 2010.

Monterey County Jail

Shortfall Using the High Projection. When the 825 existing beds are considered, the additional bed requirements for 2020 through 2040 using the average projection are illustrated in Table EX.2 below.

Table EX.2 Adult Detention Facility Additional Bed Need 2020 - 2040 (Average)

Year 2020 2030 2040
Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

Additional Beds Needed 1,727 Beds 2,008 Beds 2,307 Beds

The table above indicates that an additional 2,008 beds will be required in 2030 if the county elects to construct enough beds to meet their twenty-year needs using the average projections.
Please note that it is recommended that Monterey County target the 2030 needs as an immediate requirement since the new adult detention facility will start to become overcrowded almost immediately upon opening should the first phase only consist of enough beds to meet the 2020 needs. The existing severely overcrowded conditions have been exacerbated by the enactment of AB 109.1

1 AB 109, Criminal Justice Alignment, has been modified by AB 117, Criminal Justice Realignment.
TRGConsulting
EX.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page39 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page9 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Urgent Service Gap in the Adult Criminal Justice System. The most urgent service gap is the need for a new detention beds and additional staff. The current combination of insufficient beds, an inadequate detention facility and understaffing has resulted in an almost untenable situation. This service gap is illustrated by the following.
 There are not enough beds to meet the current adult detention needs, let alone the needs in the near future. Worse, the county has the wrong type of beds for the population currently incarcerated. As an example, over 75% of the beds are in dormitories; while over 80% of the inmates are felons. The facility was designed for minimum and low medium-security inmates while the bulk of the inmates currently held are medium and maximum-security inmates. This situation is exacerbated by AB 109 as modified by AB 117, which requires counties to house selected inmates who previously were housed by the state. If additional beds are not constructed, criminals who should be incarcerated will not be incarcerated since beds space will not be available. Criminals serving time will serve little or none of their time since the beds to which they are assigned will be needed for others who pose a greater danger to public safety. An extensive and unpopular early release system (i.e. releasing inmates well before their full sentence is served) will be required to prevent even more severe overcrowding.2
 Overcrowding, the lack of adequate staff and an insufficient number of single and double cells has resulted in the necessity of classifying inmates primarily by gang affiliation. While gang membership typically is one of the factors used in classifying inmates, it is not normally the primary consideration. Existing court decisions allow for segregation by race and gangs only as a “temporary measures” when classification by race is necessary to allow staff to get the facility under control.
 Officer safety is compromised by the severe lack of an adequate number of single and double cells.  The jail is so overcrowded that no allowance can be made for peaking and classification or the routine
or emergency maintenance required in inmate housing areas.  Severe overcrowding has resulted in inmates being held in the intake area for up to forty-eight hours.
This is not permitted by the California Code of Regulations.  Severe overcrowding has forced the Sheriff to use areas for housing that were not designed or
intended for that use (e.g. the rotunda area). This makes these areas much more difficult for officers to manage and control.  Overcrowding has forced the Sheriff to operate the jail as an indirect supervision facility, while the jail was designed for direct supervision. This creates significant command, control and management problems.  Adequate separation and segregation resulting from the classification of inmates cannot occur because of the severe overcrowding and the lack of a sufficient number of single and double cells. Thus, while the staff has the ability to classify, they do not have the ability to physically segregate those inmates who should be separated because of their classification. This creates an environment that is unsafe for officers, inmates and visitors.  The design of the jail and the manner in which additions have been constructed results in a physical plant that is difficult to manage and control and unnecessarily expensive to operate. Numerous blind spots and the labyrinth like design requires more staff than would be required in a state-of-the-art podular facility. There is poor observation from most deputy stations. Officers cannot observe inmate areas in Pods A through J. The wing walls in the dormitories are approximately four feet high and provide a number of areas where inmates cannot be observed.  The manner in which additions have been constructed has resulted in a facility that lacks any real central control or command post that would be used in the event of a major disturbance or disaster. The existence of multiple control stations is unnecessarily staff intensive in facility that is understaffed.  The age of the building systems in the sections of the jail constructed prior to 1993 require extensive maintenance and, as a result, these systems are more expensive to operate. Maintenance costs already are increasing and will continue to increase at a faster rate as the facility deteriorates.
2 The jail population regularly exceeds 1,000 inmates in a facility rated at 825. Overcrowding already has reached a dangerous level.
TRGConsulting
EX.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page40 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page10 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

 The older design of the cells and dormitories constructed prior to 1993 does not meet today’s minimum standards for acceptable detention facilities. Examples include:

– Suicide hazard elimination is not as stringent as it should be to prevent self-harm and the attendant liability.
– Medical/mental health treatment spaces are not adequate for the rated beds, let alone the actual number of inmates held.3
– Design requirements to improve security and the management of inmates are not met (e.g. number of toilet fixtures and showers per inmate, number of safety and sobering cells needed for efficient operation, adequate intake and release facilities, sufficient storage, etc.).
– There are insufficient spaces dedicated to programs. Effective programs are necessary to manage the jail population and reduce recidivism.
– Overcrowding forces the entire facility to operate as an indirect supervision jail. Mental health issues are considerably more difficult to recognize, manage and treat in an indirect supervision facility. A direct supervision, podular design in which staff is able to interact continuously with inmates makes it significantly easier to detect inmates with mental health problems. Additionally a direct supervision model reduces conflict and allows better observation of those requiring treatment.

• Understaffing has resulted in insufficient staff coverage. This all too frequently results in a four-hour

gap in the middle of twelve-hour shifts. At times the middle of a shift may be as many as three or four officers short. This has been exacerbated by recent staff reductions.4 As a result there are not enough officers present in the jail to respond to a major crisis or natural disaster.5

• Understaffing has resulted in the extensive use of CCTV cameras to monitor inmate activities. CCTV

never can substitute for officer presence. • The attrition rate of trained detention officers is quite high.6

• Because of understaffing, the Sheriff is forced to use pre-academy hires in the jail.

• Understaffing has increased the span of control for first line supervisors to an unacceptable level.

• Sergeants are sometimes forced to work line positions because of lack of staff. This results in a lack

of supervision of the staff in the jail.

• There are insufficient staff on some shifts to make the required safety checks.

• Reduced staffing makes it difficult for staff to supervise inmates in the kitchen and the laundry.

•

Staff shortages have resulted in the excessive use of overtime.

Identified Need (Facility Type). As discussed above, additional beds urgently need to be constructed at the Natividad site. The Monterey County Jail will remain a Type II Facility (i.e. a local detention facility used for the detention of persons pending arraignment, during trial and upon sentence of commitment as defined in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

3 For example, it is estimated that at least fifteen to twenty percent of the inmate population have mental health issues. 4 In January 2011 there were 220 personnel in the Custody Bureau (Sworn and Unsworn). The recent budget cuts ($6.4
million in the Sheriffʼs Office) have reduced Custody Bureau staff to 183 people assigned, a reduction of thirty-seven positions in a facility that already was woefully understaffed. All vacant positions were eliminated in the most recent budget cuts. Finally, on December 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved twelve new civilian (non-sworn) hires to replace deputies serving in unit control stations. This will make those deputies serving in control available to work in the jail. The twelve deputies now serving in control then will be available for other duties in the jail. The civilian hires are expected to be trained and on duty in February 2012. Thus the net loss of jail personnel since January 2011 is twenty-five positions. Unfortunately the net loss includes a Captainʼs position and two Commanderʼs positions. 5 Staff in the jail work twelve-hour shifts. When insufficient staff is available for a particular shift for whatever reason, the Sheriff is forced to hold over staff from the previous shift for four hours and bring in staff from the following shift four hours early. This results in a four-hour gap in the shift that is short of staff. Worse, this results in some officers working sixteen-hour shifts. 6 The Custody Bureau has indicated that they continue to lose trained deputies for a variety of reasons including the desire of newer deputies to work in patrol, the opportunity to work nearer to home in another agency and the fact that there are other more desirable opportunities available in law enforcement.
TRGConsulting
EX.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page41 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page11 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

B. Operational and Design Philosophy

Purpose. The purpose of the Monterey County Adult Detention and Rehabilitation Facilities is the detention of persons charged with crimes and awaiting arraignment or trial.
1. The detention of persons, in the Sheriff’s custody, to ensure their attendance as witnesses in criminal cases.
2. The confinement of persons sentenced to imprisonment in the County Facilities.7
Goal. By means of the continuing process of education and training of the deputies and professional staff employed herein, to provide for the security, health and welfare of inmates in custody and to rehabilitate them whenever possible through programs designed for this purpose.8

Design Goals for the New Adult Detention Beds and Support Spaces. The immediate design goal is to maximize the number of new detention beds in cells at the current site, using existing support infrastructure and administrative space as much as possible. The specific design objectives for the new adult detention beds and support space are discussed in detail in the body of this assessment.

Construction and Administrative Work Plan. Similarly, the construction and administrative work plan for the new adult detention facility is discussed in the body of this report.

C. Current Adult Population The Monterey County Main Jail.

Current Adult Population. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) provides summary data collected for the Jail Profile Survey. Crime and arrest data for Monterey County also is available for 2006 through 2009 from the California Department of Justice (DOJ). A “snapshot” from 2006 through 2009 (the last full data year of information from the California Department of Justice) is indicative of the current jail population. This section provides statistical data on the jail population, including:
1. Felony Sentenced Dispositions; 2. Crime and Crime Rates; and 3. Sentenced and Non-Sentenced Adult Detention
Populations by Gender.

Conclusion. Over the last decade, violent felony reports and arrests according to statistics maintained by the California Department of Justice have fluctuated; therefore a predictable upward or downward trend has not occurred. Unfortunately the number of beds available for holding these offenders has been well below the number and type needed throughout that timeframe. As a result, the classification and segregation of inmates is extremely difficult given the type of beds available to house them. This places staff, visitors and inmates in the facility at risk of injury or death. With an insufficient number of maximum and medium-security beds the staff must choose the “least violent” of the violent offenders to house in minimum-security dormitory beds since there are no medium-security double cells. It is obvious that the system is dangerously out of balance in terms of the types of beds available and the classification of inmates held.

7 Monterey County Sheriffs Manual, Section 1101.03 A. Purpose. Page 4. 8 Monterey County Sheriffs Manual, Section 1101.03 B. Goal. Page 4.
TRGConsulting
EX.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page42 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page12 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

D. Classification of Inmates
Classification Issues. The proper classification of inmates is critical in the Monterey County Jail because of the age of the facility and the lack of enough single and double cells to properly separate and segregate inmates. The number of violent gang members currently held at the existing adult detention facility further exacerbates the difficulty in classification. Classification officers classify primarily by gang affiliation because of insufficient staff, inadequate facilities and severe overcrowding.
In Monterey County there is the possibility of misclassifying inmates based on space rather than security level. Overcrowding reduces the ability to classify. This is further compounded by the dormitory design. Normally, 10% - 15% of the beds should be empty and available for classification spikes and maintenance.

“Need” Resulting from the Desire to Properly Separate and Segregate Inmates. Proper separation and segregation of inmates as envisioned in the Sheriff’s classification plan is very difficult because of insufficient staff, an inadequate physical plant layout and the severe overcrowding that makes it necessary to unofficially add well over 300 beds above the CSA rated capacity. These problems can be alleviated with the construction of new housing or a new facility properly sized to meet future needs. (One of the design goals for the new facility is to have a sufficient number of single and double cells for the proper separation of inmates of differing classification.)

E. Programs

Programs Present and Future. The existing Monterey County Jail lacks adequate space to conduct any kind of meaningful programs to reduce recidivism. Worse, the severe overcrowding and insufficient staff make it almost impossible for the Sheriff to conduct any but the most basic programs (e.g. religious services and counseling, basic mental health programs and counseling, visiting, commissary, counseling by health care providers, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous classes, etc.).

Severe overcrowding and lack of space make it extremely difficult to offer programs.

A new adult detention facility with adequate program space will allow for a wide variety of programs to reduce recidivism. Not only will the Sheriff’s Office be able to enhance existing programs, but staff also will be able to introduce a number of programs that have been successful in other jurisdictions. Examples include:

• expanding mental health programs and therapy sessions; • additional programs specifically designed for female inmates; • developing an adult literacy program; • providing tutoring for inmates seeking a GED; • increasing the number of Bible study sessions and expanding religious programs; • increasing the number of AA meetings and providing additional alcohol abuse counseling; • enhancing the narcotics abuse program with additional meetings and therapy sessions; and • providing health education on a wider variety of subjects.

Additional programs that are being considered for implementation in the new facility are discussed in the body of the report.

TRGConsulting
EX.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page43 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page13 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

F. Analysis of Local Trends and Characteristics.
Analysis and Projections. An analysis of local trends and characteristics resulted in the bed need projections illustrated in Table EX.3. The high Average Daily Population (ADP) was used to determine bed needs for 2020 - 2050 for the reasons explained in the body of the report.

Table EX.3 • Projected ADP with Peaking and Classification Factors 2020 – 2050 Summary

Calendar Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Revised Low ADP 2,385 2,648 2,927 3,235

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Revised Median ADP
2,563 2,845 3,145 3,477

Revised Average ADP 2,552 2,833 3,132 3,462

Revised High ADP 2,708 3,006 3,323 3,674

The report includes a detailed description of the projection methodology along with the algorithms used. Anticipated Average Lengths of Stay (ALS) statistics also are included in this section of the report.

G. Adequacy of Staffing Levels

Existing Conditions. The Monterey County Jail is facing a number of staff related issues. These issues affect the overall security of the facility and the morale of the staff.

Eighty percent of the beds at the Monterey County Jail are in dormitories while eighty percent of the inmates are felons.

Staffing Issues. Detention facilities must be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7) in order to fulfill their mandate to provide safe and secure housing for those inmates under their care. Staff within the Monterey County Jail must be available to receive new bookings in the jail, provide medical care, classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain staff and inmate safety and security, provide recreation and exercise, ensure inmates are fed, transport inmates to court or outside agencies and lawfully release inmates. Due to its nature, a jail cannot simply discontinue operation (e.g. refuse to accept prisoners) if there is not a person available to fill a position. When detention facilities are not staffed adequately, overtime is necessary to cover an unfilled post.

The major staffing issues facing the Monterey County Jail are:

1. It appears that the staffing provided by the County salary ordinance is based on the rated capacity of the facility, not on how many inmates are actually in custody.

2. There has not been an updated relief factor calculated for quite some time.

TRGConsulting
EX.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page44 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page14 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3. Baseline staffing should be above minimum staffing. Due to vacancies and other factors, the Monterey County Jail constantly is using overtime to staff up to their self-imposed minimum staffing. This level is not adequate to provide basic safety and security for staff and inmates.
4. Vacancies, extended periods of leave, and normal staff attrition have resulted in a significant amount of vacant POST positions. The jail has an increased reliance on overtime to meet minimum staffing.
5. The extensive use of overtime can be dangerous since staff may have recently completed a 12-hour shift, when they are required to work additional overtime. Efforts must be made to reduce the number of overtime hours. To fill a vacancy in Monterey County, the practice has been to have an onsite employee work 4 hours over his normal shift and another employee called in early for 4 hours. This practice required two employees to work 16-hour days. Of additional importance is the 4-hour gap that is left uncovered in the middle of the shift. In an emergency situation the facility would be dangerously understaffed.
6. Supervision is a critical task in any detention facility. Supervisors ensure that policy is followed, tasks are completed, critical decisions are made and exposure to liability from “failure to supervise” claims are limited. In Monterey County, sergeants fill in for line positions when relief is unavailable. This leaves a gap in first line supervision. All vacant sergeant positions9 should be filled and, except for an unusual situation, sergeants should supervise and not fill in for a line vacancy. Even at full authorized staffing, it appears the span of control for sergeants is weak and additional positions for minimum supervision are necessary.
7. Chronic understaffing lowers morale, employees are unable to take breaks (in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act), employees get “burned out” with mandatory overtime, employees must take “shortcuts” to get the job done and employees are forced to assume collateral duties to allow the facility to function.
8. The current authorized staffing for the Monterey County Jail is woefully inadequate. Even if every vacancy were filled with a fully trained staff member, the facility would not have enough staff to meet the minimum staffing, let alone adequate staffing.
9. A review of the current staffing pattern as practiced by the Monterey County Jail and the best practices staffing plan included in the 2006 Staffing Analysis10 indicates that the critical needs are for the extra staffing in the housing units and for facility-wide escort deputies. These positions will ensure required safety checks are made, there is some level of supervision in the kitchen, laundry and medical areas and adequate staffing is available to respond to emergencies and unusual situations. Recent cuts in staffing have made this situation much worse, thereby exposing the county to additional lawsuits.
Recruitment, Selection and Retention. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Department experiences difficulty in the recruitment, selection and retention of detention officers for the following reasons.
• Monterey County deputies’ pay and benefits are less than those that are offered by several local, state and federal agencies for similar positions.
• The Custody Bureau estimates that 93% of the applicants for deputy positions in the Sheriff’s Office fail the background investigation for a number of reasons including financial insolvency, drug use and psychological issues.
While the above difficulties are common in most county detention systems, the poor working conditions and antiquated design of the jail exacerbate Monterey County difficulties. The feeling of draconian confinement and disorientation created by a maze-like layout are more than most potential applicants are willing to bear.
9 At the time of this assessment, one sergeant was out on long-term illness and one sergeant was scheduled to retire this month (December 2011). This will leave two sergeants positions vacant. Additionally the Custody Bureau lost one captainʼs position and two commanderʼs positions in the budget cuts earlier this year (2011).
10 Monterey County Sheriffʼs Office, Staffing Analysis. Voorhis Associates, Inc. June 21, 2006.
TRGConsulting
EX.7

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page45 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page15 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Thus, the “need” for a new adult detention facility goes well beyond a simple “need” for additional beds that is, in itself, quite critical. The additional “need” is for a facility that protects the safety of deputies and provides them with a professional environment in which to work.

H. Ability to Provide Visual Supervision

Visual Supervision. While visual supervision is problematic in the existing jail, the new Monterey County housing units will be designed to enhance visual supervision as indicated in Section B Operational and Design Philosophy of this needs assessment.

Transportation van parked in front of the Monterey County Rehabilitation Facility.

Existing Facility Design. A glaring example of

the physical plant limitations in the existing jail

is the design of the control or “guard” station,

and the ability of staff to directly supervise

inmates. At best there is intermittent

observation of the inmates.

In the

Rehabilitation Facility, a Deputy Sheriff must

walk into the inmate housing area to see the

entire living and shower area. It appears there

is an attempt to remedy the problem with the

use of cameras. Unfortunately, this is not

working. Cameras should not be used in place

of staff, but as a tool for staff in overall security.

New Housing Design. It is envisioned that the new housing units will offer direct visual supervision from unit control into the housing pods and the attached outdoor recreation areas. Similarly, roving officers will provide direct visual supervision of all areas in all pods including the toilet and shower areas. Partitions providing modesty to inmates in the toilet area and the showers will be designed so that inmate’s heads and feet always are visible. There will be no blind corners in the housing pods when observed by the roving officers.

I. Adequacy of Record Keeping

Record Keeping. Record keeping at the Monterey County Jail is quite detailed. Not only does jail staff maintain all records required by Title 15, but they also keep additional records to effectively manage the inmate population. Examples include the detailed records relating to overcrowding and early release, inmate management records, information on inmates with mental health needs and logs of those on psychotropic medications, statistics on gang affiliation, historic needs assessments and records relating to the effectiveness of programs (including records of the effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration).

J. Compliance with Standards

Existing Conditions. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Office operates a Type II adult detention facility. The facility is used for the detention of males and females pending arraignment, during trial, and upon a sentence of commitment. This facility has a unique physical plant design that complies with minimum standards for local adult detention facilities. The facility’s four main housing areas and reception area have a Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) rated capacity of 825 inmates. On any given day, there can be as many as 1,000 inmates in custody. The existing Monterey County Jail faces three significant issues affecting the success of its overall mission and the ability of the Sheriff’s Office to comply with Title 15 and Title 24 standards:

1. poor facility design; 2. severe overcrowding; and 3. understaffing.

TRGConsulting
EX.8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page46 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page16 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Poor Facility Design. The Monterey County Jail is located at 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, California. The original rehabilitation facility was built in 1970 with additions to the jail complex occurring in 1977, 1988, 1993, and 1995. Adult male and female inmates are housed in the facility. The Corrections Standards Authority has given the facility a rated capacity of 825 inmates. This facility has some physical plant limitations that are causes for concern in terms of the safety and security of staff, visitors, volunteers and inmates.
A common thread through all of the four main housing units is the use of the dormitory design. Dormitories are much like military barracks, as opposed to single cell or four-man cellblocks. Dormitories are cheaper to build and theoretically are more cost effective to supervise. Normally, dormitories are for the lowest level of classification. In Monterey County, the jail facility has approximately 80% dormitory beds. The conflict occurs because the Monterey County regularly incarcerates approximately 80% felony sentenced and unsentenced inmates. These are usually the highest level of inmate classification and require single and double cell housing. Jail staff does not have the ability to classify or segregate problem inmates from other inmates or staff.
The type of inmate entering local county jails has changed dramatically since the Monterey County Jail opened in 1970. Courts are releasing non-threatening felons prior to trial. Judges are sentencing more misdemeanants to alternatives to custody. The jail is left with serious felons awaiting trial and sentenced felons awaiting transportation to the state prison system. In some ways, the local jail population is no different than those in state prisons. Local jail populations will become even more similar to state prison populations as the full impact of AB 109 is felt. The design of the housing units at the Monterey County Jail was never intended to house the type of felony inmates it now holds or the type of inmates that will be held as mandated recently by AB 109.
Overcrowding. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) inspects and rates the Monterey County Jail. Rated capacity means the number of inmate occupants for which a facility’s single and double occupancy cells or dormitories (except those dedicated for health care or disciplinary isolation housing) were planned and designed in conformity to the standards and requirements contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15 and Title 24. The entire Monterey County Jail facility is rated at 825 inmates. As discussed earlier, there can be as many as 1,000 inmates in custody at any given time. There are approximately 13,500 inmates booked into the Monterey County Jail a year.
Overcrowding creates a number of issues that affect staff and inmates, and put the County at risk. Overcrowding causes stress both on inmates and staff. Inmates vs. inmate assaults typically occur more frequently, as do other disciplinary infractions. Overcrowding affects inmates’ mental and physical health by increasing the level of uncertainty with which they regularly cope. There is less space per inmate. In Monterey County there is the possibility of misclassifying inmates based on space rather than security level. (Anecdotal information from staff indicates this occurs occasionally.) Overcrowding reduces the ability to classify. This is further compounded by the dormitory design. Normally, 10% - 15% of the beds should be empty and available for classification spikes as well as routine and emergency maintenance. With the severe overcrowding in the Monterey County Jail, programming is little, to nonexistent.
Understaffing. The Monterey County Jail is facing many staff related issues. These issues affect the overall security of the facility and the morale of the staff.
As discussed in detail in Section G, Adequacy of Staffing Levels, detention facilities must be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7) in order to fulfill their mandate to provide safe and secure housing for those inmates under their care. Staff within the Monterey County Jail must be available to receive new bookings in the jail, provide medical care, classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain staff and inmate safety and security, provide recreation and exercise, ensure inmates are fed, transport inmates to court or outside agencies, and lawfully release inmates. Due to its nature, a jail cannot simply discontinue operation (e.g. refuse to accept prisoners) if there is not a person available to fill a position. When detention facilities are not staffed adequately, overtime is necessary to cover an unfilled post.
TRGConsulting
EX.9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page47 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page17 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
K. Unresolved Issues
Unresolved Issues. Six issues remain unresolved, mostly due to the uncertainty surrounding the final impact of AB 109 (Criminal Justice Alignment) as modified by AB 117 (Criminal Justice Realignment) on the Monterey County criminal justice system. Unresolved issues include:
1. The impact of Phase II of the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 on Monterey County.
2. The final impact of AB 109 (as modified by AB 117) on the Monterey County criminal justice system. 3. Sources of funding for the construction, project and operational costs that are associated with meeting the
projected bed need for 2020 and 2030; 4. The construction phasing of the 2030 need; 5. The ultimate disposition of the three components11 of the existing Monterey County Jail (e.g. continued
use of one or more components for detention, demolition of one or more components, etc.); and 6. The specific location of the new construction on the Natividad site.
These six issues are discussed in detail in the body of this report.
Appendix
Stakeholders. A list of stakeholders for the proposed construction project is included in the appendix.

11 The jail consists of three components (i.e. the Rehabilitation Facility, the Main Jail and the Womanʼs Jail). TRGConsulting

EX.10

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page48 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page18 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

A. Elements of the System

Existing Monterey County Jail. The Monterey County Jail is located at 1410 Natividad Road, Salinas, California 93906. The jail consists of three components:

1. The Rehabilitation Facility. 2. The Main Jail. 3. The Woman’s Jail.

Additional Beds Required. The additional beds required (including the existing 825 beds) using the average and high projections1 are discussed below.

Monterey County Jail

Existing Jail Bed Capacity. The rated jail capacity as calculated by the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) is illustrated in Table A.1.

Table A.1 CSA Rated Jail Bed Capacity

Rated Beds

Total Beds

Main Jail/Woman’s Jail

575 Beds

Rehabilitation Facility

250 Beds

Total Beds

825 Beds

Source. Corrections Standards Authority. April 2010.

Shortfall Using the Average Projection. When the 825 existing beds are considered, the additional bed requirements for 2020 through 2040 using the average projection are illustrated in Table A.2 below.

Table A.2 Adult Detention Facility Additional Bed Need 2020 - 2040 (Average)

Year 2020 2030 2040
Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

Additional Beds Needed 1,727 Beds 2,008 Beds 2,307 Beds

The table above indicates that an additional 2,008 beds will be required in 2030 if the county elects to construct enough beds to meet their twenty-year needs using the average projections.
Please note that it is recommended that Monterey County target the 2030 needs as an immediate requirement since the new adult detention facility will start to become overcrowded almost immediately upon opening should the first phase only consist of enough beds to meet the 2020 needs. The existing severely overcrowded conditions have been exacerbated by the enactment of AB 109.2

1 The projected bed need is calculated in Section F: Analysis of Local Trends and Characteristics of this report. Please see Table F.17 on page F.9.
2 AB 109, Criminal Justice Alignment, has been modified by AB 117, Criminal Justice Realignment.
TRGConsulting
A.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page49 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page19 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Shortfall Using the High Projection. Alternatively, if the high projection is used, the current maximum capacity of only 825 beds requires that the county construct an additional 2,181 beds to meet the 2030 bed need. The bed requirements for 2020 through 2040 using the high projection are illustrated in Table A.3.

Table A.3 Adult Detention Facility Additional Bed Need 2020 - 2040 (High)

Year 2020 2030 2040
Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

Additional Beds Needed 1,883 Beds 2,181 Beds 2,498 Beds

The table above indicates that to meet the 2030 need, an additional 2,181 beds will need to be constructed between now and 2030.
Urgent Service Gap in the Adult Criminal Justice System. The most urgent service gap is the need for a new detention beds and additional staff. The current combination of insufficient beds, an inadequate detention facility and understaffing has resulted in an almost untenable situation. This service gap is illustrated by the following.
 There are not enough beds to meet the current adult detention needs, let alone the needs in the near future. Worse, the county has the wrong type of beds for the population currently incarcerated. As an example, over 75% of the beds are in dormitories; while over 80% of the inmates are felons. The facility was designed for minimum and low medium-security inmates while the bulk of the inmates currently held are medium and maximum-security inmates. This situation is exacerbated by AB 109 as modified by AB 117, which requires counties to house selected inmates who previously were housed by the state. If additional beds are not constructed, criminals who should be incarcerated will not be incarcerated since beds space will not be available. Criminals serving time will serve little or none of their time since the beds to which they are assigned will be needed for others who pose a greater danger to public safety. An extensive and unpopular early release system (i.e. releasing inmates well before their full sentence is served) will be required to prevent even more severe overcrowding.3
 Overcrowding, the lack of adequate staff and an insufficient number of single and double cells has resulted in the necessity of classifying inmates primarily by gang affiliation. While gang membership typically is one of the factors used in classifying inmates, it is not normally the primary consideration. Existing court decisions allow for segregation by race and gangs only as a “temporary measures” when classification by race is necessary to allow staff to get the facility under control.
 Officer safety is compromised by the severe lack of an adequate number of single and double cells.  The jail is so overcrowded that no allowance can be made for peaking and classification or the routine
or emergency maintenance required in inmate housing areas.  Severe overcrowding has resulted in inmates being held in the intake area for up to forty-eight hours.
This is not permitted by the California Code of Regulations.  Severe overcrowding has forced the Sheriff to use areas for housing that were not designed or
intended for that use (e.g. the rotunda area). This makes these areas much more difficult for officers to manage and control.  Overcrowding has forced the Sheriff to operate the jail as an indirect supervision facility, while the jail was designed for direct supervision. This creates significant command, control and management problems.

3 The jail population regularly exceeds 1,000 inmates in a facility rated at 825. Overcrowding already has reached a dangerous level.
TRGConsulting
A.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page50 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page20 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
 Adequate separation and segregation resulting from the classification of inmates cannot occur because of the severe overcrowding and the lack of a sufficient number of single and double cells. Thus, while the staff has the ability to classify, they do not have the ability to physically segregate those inmates who should be separated because of their classification. This creates an environment that is unsafe for officers, inmates and visitors.
 The design of the jail and the manner in which additions have been constructed results in a physical plant that is difficult to manage and control and unnecessarily expensive to operate. Numerous blind spots and the labyrinth like design requires more staff than would be required in a state-of-the-art podular facility. There is poor observation from most deputy stations. Officers cannot observe inmate areas in Pods A through J. The wing walls in the dormitories are approximately four feet high and provide a number of areas where inmates cannot be observed.
 The manner in which additions have been constructed has resulted in a facility that lacks any real central control or command post that would be used in the event of a major disturbance or disaster. The existence of multiple control stations is unnecessarily staff intensive in facility that is understaffed.
 The age of the building systems in the sections of the jail constructed prior to 1993 require extensive maintenance and, as a result, these systems are more expensive to operate. Maintenance costs already are increasing and will continue to increase at a faster rate as the facility deteriorates.
 The older design of the cells and dormitories constructed prior to 1993 does not meet today’s standards for state-of-the-art detention facilities. Examples include:
– Suicide hazard elimination is not as stringent as it should be to prevent self-harm and the attendant liability.
– Medical/mental health treatment spaces are not adequate for the rated beds, let alone the actual number of inmates held.4
– Preferred design requirements to improve security and the management of inmates are not met (e.g. number of toilet fixtures and showers per inmate, number of safety and sobering cells needed for efficient operation, adequate intake and release facilities, sufficient storage, etc.).
– There are insufficient spaces dedicated to programs. Effective programs are necessary to manage the jail population and reduce recidivism.
– Overcrowding forces the entire facility to operate as an indirect supervision jail. Mental health issues are considerably more difficult to recognize, manage and treat in an indirect supervision facility. A direct supervision, podular design in which staff is able to interact continuously with inmates makes it significantly easier to detect inmates with mental health problems. Additionally a direct supervision model reduces conflict and allows better observation of those requiring treatment.
• Understaffing has resulted in insufficient staff coverage. This all too frequently results in a four-hour gap in the middle of twelve-hour shifts. At times the middle of a shift may be as many as three or four officers short. This has been exacerbated by recent staff reductions.5 As a result there are not enough officers present in the jail to respond to a major crisis or natural disaster.6
4 For example, it is estimated that at least fifteen to twenty percent of the inmate population have mental health issues. 5 In January 2011 there were 220 personnel in the Custody Bureau (Sworn and Unsworn). The recent budget cuts
($6.4 million in the Sheriff’s Office) have reduced Custody Bureau staff to 183 people assigned, a reduction of thirtyseven positions in a facility that already was woefully understaffed. All vacant positions were eliminated in the most recent budget cuts. Finally, on December 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved twelve new civilian (nonsworn) hires to replace deputies serving in unit control stations. This will make those deputies serving in control available to work in the jail. The twelve deputies now serving in control then will be available for other duties in the jail. The civilian hires are expected to be trained and on duty in February 2012. Thus the net loss of jail personnel since January 2011 is twenty-five positions. Unfortunately the net loss includes a Captain’s position and two Commander’s positions. 6 Staff in the jail work twelve-hour shifts. When insufficient staff is available for a particular shift for whatever reason, the Sheriff is forced to hold over staff from the previous shift for four hours and bring in staff from the following shift four hours early. This results in a four-hour gap in the shift that is short of staff. Worse, this results in some officers working sixteen-hour shifts.
TRGConsulting
A.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page51 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page21 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

• Understaffing has resulted in the extensive use of CCTV cameras to monitor inmate activities. CCTV never can substitute for officer presence.
• The attrition rate of trained detention officers is quite high.7 • Because of understaffing, the Sheriff is forced to use pre-academy hires in the jail. • Understaffing has increased the span of control for first line supervisors to an unacceptable level. • Sergeants are sometimes forced to work line positions because of lack of staff. This results in a lack
of supervision of the staff in the jail. • There are insufficient staff on some shifts to make the required safety checks. • Reduced staffing makes it difficult for staff to supervise inmates in the kitchen and the laundry. • Staff shortages have resulted in the excessive use of overtime.

Identified Need. As discussed above, additional beds urgently need to be constructed at the Natividad site. The Monterey County Jail will remain a Type II Facility (i.e. a local detention facility used for the detention of persons pending arraignment, during trial and upon sentence of commitment as defined in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
Housing (Average Projections). To begin to meet 2030 needs using the average projections in Table A.2, 2,008 beds will need to be added to the existing 825 beds as described below. Housing will be designed as 192-bed units (each with two, 96-bed pods) to provide adequate control and to maximize staffing efficiency. The allocation of new beds using the average projections is summarized in Table A.4 below.

Table A.4 Additional Bed Allocation 2030 (Average)

Bed Type

New

Construction

Single Cells

42

Double Cells

1,966

Dormitory Beds

0

Total Beds

2,008

Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

The allocation of beds by type of bed if the average projection is used is discussed below.8
Single Occupancy Cells. A total of 42 new beds in single occupancy cells for maximum-security, disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation and protective custody inmates need to be added to the system. Stainless steel combination fixtures will be used. All cell doors will be hung doors constructed of steel. One bed and a desk will be wall mounted.9
Double Occupancy Cells. A total of 1,966 new beds in 981 double occupancy cells will be added for mediumsecurity inmates. Adequate ADA cells will be provided. Stainless steel combination fixtures will be used. All cell doors will be hung doors constructed of steel. Two beds and two desks will be wall mounted.
Housing (High Projections). To meet 2030 needs using the high projections, 2,181 beds will need to be added to the existing 825 beds as described below. Again, housing will be designed as 192-bed units (each

7 The Custody Bureau has indicated that they continue to lose trained deputies for a variety of reasons including the desire of newer deputies to work in patrol, the opportunity to work nearer to home in another agency and the fact that there are other more desirable opportunities available in law enforcement.
8 Note that the actual number of beds to be constructed will be adjusted for staff and construction efficiency during the architectural programming when actual projects are undertaken. The number of beds to be constructed also will be adjusted based on available resources.
9 Please note that per Title 24, the only difference between single cells and double cells is the addition of a second bunk and desk in the double cell. This size of the cell remains the same (70 net square feet).
TRGConsulting
A.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page52 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page22 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

with two, 96-bed pods) to provide adequate control and to maximize staffing efficiency. The allocation of new beds using the high projections is summarized in Table A.5 on the following page.

Table A.5 Additional Bed Allocation 2030 (High)

Bed Type

New

Construction

Single Cells

45

Double Cells

2,136

Dormitory Beds

0

Total Beds

2,181

Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

The allocation of beds by type of bed if the high projection is used is discussed below.
Single Occupancy Cells. A total of 45 new beds in single occupancy cells for maximum-security, disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation and protective custody inmates will be added to the system. All cells will be “wet.” Stainless steel combination fixtures will be used. All cell doors will be hung doors constructed of steel. One bed and a desk will be wall mounted.
Double Occupancy Cells. A total of 2,136 new beds will be in 1,068 double occupancy cells for mediumsecurity inmates. Adequate ADA cells will be provided. All cells will be “wet.” Stainless steel combination fixtures will be used. All cell doors will be hung doors constructed of steel. Two beds and two desks will be wall mounted.
Dayrooms. Dayrooms will be provided at the rate of thirty-five square feet per inmate and will contain anchored tables and seating to accommodate the maximum number of inmates allowed access to the dayroom at any given time in each housing unit. Access will be provided to toilets, washbasins, drinking fountains and showers from the dayroom. Dining will occur in the dayroom of each housing unit.
Visiting. Contact, non-contact and video visiting spaces will be provided.
Program Space. Program rooms will be provided at each housing unit. Activities that will occur in these spaces include adult education, religious services and counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous classes, group counseling, mental health evaluations and classes along with other programs to reduce recidivism. Additional program space will be provided for the existing rated beds.
Medical and Mental Health Services. Medical examination rooms and secure pharmaceutical storage will continue to be provided for medical screening and routine medical care. More advanced care will continue to be provided outside of the facility. Mental health professionals will evaluate inmates and provide mental health programs as necessary. Interview rooms and program space will be provided for this purpose.
Outdoor Exercise. An enclosed, secure outdoor exercise area will be attached to each new housing unit. This area will be observable from within the housing unit and from central control. The area will be a secure area that is partially covered for use in inclement weather and have a clear height of at least fifteen feet. The “open” area of the roof structure will be covered with high security mesh to prevent escape. Access will be provided to a toilet, washbasin and drinking fountain.
There will be at least one completely fenced outdoor exercise area of not less than 600 square feet for use by those inmates who have earned this privilege.
Special care will be taken to eliminate opportunities for escape and the introduction of contraband. All exercise areas will be observed by central control.

TRGConsulting
A.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page53 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page23 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Recreation areas will accommodate inmates with disabilities.
Attorney Interview Rooms. Selected non-contact visiting rooms will be configured with a secure and lockable paper pass to allow attorneys to consult confidentially with inmate clients.
Confidential Interview Rooms. Confidential interview rooms will be provided near the new housing areas. The interview rooms will be used by custody, mental health and health care staff as well as by attorneys and religious advisors. The interview rooms will be accessible to male and female inmates and they will not be monitored.
Central Control. A new central control room will monitor and operate all security perimeter penetrations. Additionally central control will monitor each new and existing housing unit.
Central control will have visual supervision of the housing units, the attached outdoor exercise areas and the program spaces. CCTV will be used to provide visual control and to assist in the control of the perimeter penetrations. Central control will function as the Sheriff’s command post during natural disasters or inmate disturbances.
Unit Control. New unit control stations capable of visually controlling a unit and will be located between housing pods.
A new integrated control system will link all existing housing areas to the new construction.
Staff Positions. A draft staffing plan will be prepared before the facility is designed. Thus, care will be taken during the design to be certain that the facility does not generate additional staff positions not required by “best practice.” All staff stations will be ergonomically designed.
Food Service. The existing food service operation will accommodate the additional beds.
Inmates will be fed in the dayrooms of their respective housing units. Sack lunches will be provided for inmates who are away from the facility for the day (e.g. on work crews, inmates likely to be in court for the day, etc.).
Storage. Institutional storage will be provided as required by Title 24. Additionally, storage areas will be provided in the new housing units. Inmate property storage will be provided. The inmate property storage area will include secure storage for inmate valuables.
Bed Need Remains Paramount. Although the Monterey County detention facilities have a CSA rated capacity of 825 beds, it must be remembered that all but 153 of the rated beds are dormitory beds. Even at the 825 bed rated capacity the Sheriff regularly incarcerates over 1,000 inmates. This results in an immediate shortage of 175 beds but, more importantly, a shortage of approximately 850 beds of the bed type needed to house the felons currently incarcerated as well as those that will be incarcerated as a result of AB 109 (i.e. beds in single and double cells).
There also is a need for additional and/or remodeled administration and support spaces to operate an efficient Custody Bureau. Once the Sheriff is comfortable that enough of the available resources are devoted to beds, he should then address the administration and support needs.10
The county and their planner have determined that there also is an immediate need for a minimum of 5,000 sq. ft. of relocated administrative space to improve the flow of inmate induction and visitor control. This relocation is required in Phase 1 to prepare for the construction of future housing units.
10 Please note that additional beds require specific support spaces (e.g. increased storage, recreation areas, etc.) as outlined in Title 24. These mandatory support spaces must be included in any project that increases the rated bed capacity.
TRGConsulting
A.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page54 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page24 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

B. Operational and Design Philosophy
Introduction. The purposes and goals for the Monterey County Adult Detention and Rehabilitation Facilities are discussed in the Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual in Section 1101.00 Bureau Organization.

Monterey County Rehabilitation Facility Entrance.

Purpose. The purpose of the Monterey County Adult Detention and Rehabilitation Facilities is the detention of persons charged with crimes and awaiting arraignment or trial.
1. The detention of persons, in the Sheriff’s custody, to ensure their attendance as witnesses in criminal cases.
2. The confinement of persons sentenced to imprisonment in the County Facilities.1
Goal. By means of the continuing process of education and training of the deputies and professional staff employed herein, to provide for the security, health and welfare of inmates in custody and to rehabilitate them whenever possible through programs designed for this purpose.2

Long Range Design Goals for New Adult Detention Beds and Support Spaces. The immediate design goal is to maximize the number of new detention beds in cells at the current site, using existing support infrastructure and administrative space as much as possible. The specific design objectives for the new adult detention beds and support space are discussed in detail in the body of this assessment.
• be a state-of-the-art, new generation, direct visual supervision, podular, adult detention facility that meets all of the requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations;
• provide a safe and secure environment for staff, visitors, volunteers and adults with a well defined secure perimeter that includes pedestrian and vehicular sally ports;
• include a new central control station that controls the secure perimeter and has visual supervision of the housing units and recreation areas as well as other secure areas;
• Include unit control stations to supervise the new housing pods; • consist of housing units with the flexibility to meet a wide variety of varying classification needs (e.g.
mental health housing units, female housing units, special needs housing units, units of varying security levels, etc.); • meet Monterey County’s adult detention requirements for twenty years after initial occupancy (with planned expansion); • provide spaces for a wide variety of programs to reduce recidivism and thus reduce county, state and federal criminal justice system costs; • provide a professional work environment and adequate space for custody staff, teachers, medical and mental health professionals, other professionals providing services and volunteers; • be cost efficient to build and operate; • be energy efficient and environmentally friendly to reduce operating costs; • be staff efficient to preserve county resources; • include intake/release/processing areas that are large enough to meet all booking needs and, simultaneously, provide an area for release and transportation staging (intake/release/ processing spaces often are undersized in detention facilities); • provide adequate medical, dental and mental health spaces to reduce the need for transportation outside the facility and to ensure that each inmate is evaluated, treated, monitored and assigned to appropriate programs;
1 Monterey County Sheriffs Manual, Section 1101.03 A. Purpose. Page 4. 2 Monterey County Sheriffs Manual, Section 1101.03 B. Goal. Page 4.
TRGConsulting
B.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page55 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page25 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); • provide adequate, easily supervised adult exercise and recreation spaces (including those required
for large muscle group activities) to reduce tension and contribute to the success of programs; • include expanded food service space and facilities as necessary to ensure that meals meet the
nutritional requirements determined by the county and to provide vocational education opportunities; • provide laundry services to clean inmate clothing, bedding and associated items related to the
additional beds; • include adequate storage (storage also often is undersized in detention facilities); • provide secure spaces for contact, non-contact and video visiting; and • include a court suite with all necessary support services to handle arraignments and other
proceedings, thus reducing the need to transport inmates who are incarcerated in the jail.
Construction and Administrative Work Plan. The construction and administrative work plan for the new adult detention facility is discussed below.
The delivery process is designed specifically to make the most efficient use of available resources while achieving the project scope (quality), budget and schedule. This methodology has been used successfully on several adult detention facility projects throughout the United States including projects in California counties and projects under the aegis of state and federal grant managers.
This work plan includes proven project delivery methods to ensure successful completion of the proposed scope on time and within budget. The plan also includes federally mandated requirements for grant funding. The plan consists of the following elements:
 Detailed conceptual level planning that includes:
– information on and required by funding sources including the monitoring of matching funds;3 – development of the preliminary program statement;4 – development of the preliminary staffing plan;5 – development of the preliminary architectural program; – refinement of the conceptual budget; – analysis of the construction costs and total project costs; – development of Monterey County Sheriff’s Office operational and staffing costs that will be
incurred once construction is complete; – development of maintenance costs that will be incurred once construction is complete; – refinement of the preliminary schedule; and – plans for continued compliance with state and/or federal pre-contractual requirements.
 Presentation to and approval by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors during planning, design, the development of construction documents and during construction (including the preparation of appropriate graphics for the presentation).
 Development of the architectural program including:
– preliminary code analysis; – an analysis of the requirements of Titles 15, 19 and 24; – staffing and operational analysis which will include a refinement of the staffing plan and
refinement of the Program Statement; and – any required refinement of the project timeline.
 Preparation of traditional schematic design and design development documents.
3 If the project receives federal funding it will include certain reporting, inspection and auditing requirements. 4 It is important to finalize the program statement early so that it forms the basis for the design effort. 5 Similarly, it is important to finalize the staffing plan at this stage to insure staffing efficiency and reduced operational
costs.
TRGConsulting
B.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page56 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page26 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
 Transition planning that begins with the establishment of the transition team during schematic design and continues through move-in and post-occupancy activities.
 Continuous design/value engineering to make the most efficient use of available resources (i.e. provide a cost effective design) and preserve life cycle costs.
 Continuous user input from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office staff and others providing programs and services at the proposed adult detention facility.
 Continuous code analysis.
 Independent cost estimates during the design and construction document phases to remain within 5% of the conceptual budget.
 Continuous analysis of the requirements of the Titles 15, 19 and 24.
 Ongoing schedule review and analysis to be certain that the project is ready for occupancy as planned.
 The preparation of construction documents (drawings and specifications).
 Constructability reviews during design and during the preparation of construction documents to use the most effective construction means and methods in order to ensure competitive bidding and to reduce change orders.
 Peer review during the preparation of design and construction documents to provide the best possible and most cost effective solutions to design and construction issues.
 Continuous analysis of staffing, operations and life cycle costs in order to design and build the most cost effective facility possible.
 Marketing of the project to potential contractors and sub-contractors to increase the potential for competitive bids and to increase the number of bidders.6
 Bidding activities including the opening of the bids and the preparation and signing of the construction contract.
 Construction administration, coordination and observation.
 Preparation of the quarterly invoices and progress reports if required by grant funding procedures.  Construction close-out activities including:
– punch list development and monitoring of the completion of punch list items; – cost reconciliation and final audit; – final invoice and progress payment; – collection of warranties; – preparation of the final “as-built” drawings; and – collection of operation and maintenance manuals.
 Transition and move-in activities including:
– equipment commissioning; – facility “shake-down;”
6 Particular attention should be paid to marketing the project to those sub-contractors responsible for detention hardware and security electronics. This will help assure that competitive bids from these sub-contractors are provided to the general contractors bidding on the project.
TRGConsulting
B.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page57 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page27 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT – operations and security “walk through;” – staff occupancy training; and – the phased move-in of inmates.7  Periodic post-occupancy evaluations at one, two and five years after occupancy.  Other services as desired by the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office.
7 Experience has shown that initial occupancy is an intense time for staff and inmates. A phased move-in allows staff and inmates to adjust with less tension. This results in the reduced risk of self-harm by inmates and reduced sick leave requests by staff.
TRGConsulting
B.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page58 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page28 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

C. Current Inmate Population

Current Inmate Population. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) provides summary data collected for the Jail Profile Survey. Crime and arrest data for Monterey County also is available for 2006 through 2009 from the California Department of Justice (DOJ). A “snapshot” from 2006 through 2009 (the last full data year of information from the California Department of Justice) is indicative of the current jail population. Included in this section is statistical data on the jail population, including:

1. Felony Sentenced Dispositions; 2. Crime and Crime Rates; and 3. Sentenced and Non-Sentenced Adult Detention Populations by Gender.

Felony Arrests and Dispositions. A “snapshot” of felony sentenced disposition data for 2006 through 2009 from the DOJ, is presented in Table C.1 below.

Table C.1 Monterey County Adult Felony Sentenced Dispositions, 2006 – 2009



)''-

)''.

   
  
#$ 

'

'

.(

-

(/

(*

-00

(((

-(

.

(0

+

'

'

)

,



/.'

(+-

!")'(("

)''/
' (0,
++ ( ('0
,* (/ '
/
( +).

)''0
' /)( +*' (* )'
' -
,.-

Crimes and Crime Rates. As with felony sentenced dispositions, a “snapshot” of crimes and crime rate data for Monterey County (again, available from The California Department of Justice for 2006 through 2009) is illustrated in Table C.2 below.
Table C.2 Monterey County Adult Crimes and Crime Rates, 2006 – 2009

!$(



  $ #! "!



"$ 
!! $)!+2..8
 


#+2.. +2..#


0..4

/3 //4 377 /%062
!"
0%5/0 0%0.0 0%153
!
0%153 3%607
!

0..5
"
07 /01 416 /%2./
!"
1%.0. 1%142 0%33.
!
0%33. 3%271
"

0..6
" 
14 77 365 /%03/

1%.34 /%672 0%.34

0%.34 2%263
!

0..7
!
3/ /03 435 /%063
!!
1%/3/ /%6.6 /%704

/%704 2%1/7
"

"&!!" !'#0.//'

TRGConsulting
C.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page59 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page29 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Sentenced and Non-Sentenced Inmates. Table C.4 illustrates the percentages of non-sentenced and sentenced inmates (by gender) held at the Monterey County Jail from January 2011 through March 2011 (the most recent data available from the Corrections Standards Authority).

Table C.3 Monterey Jail Population by Sentenced and Non-Sentenced Inmates, January – March 2011



 

 

  


)#$

*+.

*'

##.

)+(

#"".



  


$')

*+.

%"

##.

$**

#"".




#"*&

 $"##

Conclusion. Over the last decade, violent felony reports and arrests according to statistics maintained by the California Department of Justice have fluctuated; therefore a predictable upward or downward trend has not occurred. Unfortunately the number of beds available for holding these offenders has been well below the number and type needed throughout that timeframe. As a result, the classification and segregation of inmates is extremely difficult given the type of beds available to house them. This places staff, visitors and inmates in the facility at risk of injury or death. With an insufficient number of maximum and medium-security beds the staff must choose the “least violent” of the violent offenders to house in minimum-security dormitory beds since there are no medium-security double cells. It is obvious that the system is dangerously out of balance in terms of the types of beds available and the classification of inmates held.

TRGConsulting
C.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page60 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page30 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

D. Classification of Inmates

Introduction. The proper classification of inmates is critical in the Monterey County Jail because of the age of the facility and the lack of enough single and double cells to properly separate and segregate inmates. The number of violent gang members currently held at the existing adult detention facility further exacerbates the difficulty in classification. Classification officers classify primarily by gang affiliation because of insufficient staff, inadequate facilities and sever overcrowding.

The Monterey County Main Jail.

In Monterey County there is the possibility of misclassifying inmates based on space rather than security level. Overcrowding reduces the ability to classify. This is further compounded by the dormitory design. Normally, 10% - 15% of the beds should be empty and available for classification spikes and maintenance.

Classification Training. A majority of the classification training for staff is performed in house.

Classification of Inmates. The county’s classification system is explained in the verbiage below from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual.

1110.00 INMATE CLASSIFICATION

1110.01

Receiving Deputies are responsible for the initial classification and housing of inmates. They shall use information in CJIS to assess the inmate’s classification history. This shall include inmate’s current charges, past custody record, gang affiliation and criminal history. Deputies shall use the following guidelines for assigning housing. They may also use the on duty Classification Deputy as a resource in classifying inmates.

A. The different levels of security and inmate classification categories shall be determined as follows. These categories shall require maximum-security housing at initial housing.

1. Protective Custody - Inmates that need to be housed separately because they are in danger of being assaulted by other inmates because of their charge, gang affiliation, sexual preference, occupation, or inmate informants.

2. Violently Assaultive or Predatory Behavior - Inmates that are prone to assaultive or threatening behavior toward other inmates or staff. Inmates that are found to be in possession of deadly weapons while in custody. Inmates that have an extensive criminal history of violence and assaults on peace officers.

3. Escape Risk - Inmates that have escaped or attempted to escape from custody to include participation in any escape or possession of escape tools. Inmates that have been sentenced to or are pending sentence to death or life in prison shall be considered an escape risk.

4. Violent or Serious Criminal Charges - Inmates that are charged with murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault and sex crimes. This may include inmates that have a past history of these charges even if currently in custody on lesser charges.

5. Sophisticated Criminal History - Inmates that have been found in possession of prison weapons or are sophisticated gang members.

TRGConsulting
D.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page61 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page31 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1110.02

6. State/Federal Prison Inmates - Inmates held locally for court proceedings that have holds from federal or state prisons.
7. Uncooperative Attitude - Inmates that display an anti-establishment and uncooperative behavior.
8. Exhibiting Behavior that Fits the Criteria of 5150 W&I or Diagnosed Mental Illness Inmates that are a danger to themselves or others, unable to care for themselves or have been diagnosed with psychological problems. Referral to medical staff for treatment and clearance for housing is required.
9. Under the Influence of Psychedelic Drugs - P.C.P., L.S.D., or other hallucinogenic drugs or mind-altering drugs.
B. The following categories may be housed in medium security general housing.
1. Misdemeanor and General Felony Charges - Inmates that are charged with misdemeanor and felony charges that are not violent and assaultive in nature. Inmates that can adapt to the jail setting and adjust to the open housing setting. This category includes inmates sentenced to county jail waiting classification clearance for minimum security.
C. The following categories of inmates shall be housed in minimum security.
1. Inmates sentenced to county jail.
2. Inmates who can adapt to an open housing environment.
3. Inmates that can participate in work details and correctional programs.
D. Processing and Housing Civil Prisoners.
1. Any person committed to jail on a civil charge (civil contempt of court, failure to abide by a court order, etc.) shall be housed in a single cell away from the general population. They shall be dressed out in a WHITE jumpsuit.
2. Priority shall be given to assigning all civil commitments to the Isolation Cells in the Men’s Section and Holding Cells in the Women’s Section.
3. The Receiving Deputy shall make the cell assignment with the assistance of Classification or the Watch Supervisor. In the event that no isolation cell is available, a temporary assignment in Booking can be made. The civil inmate shall be moved to an isolation cell at the earliest possible time.
4. A civil prisoner cannot be offered the option of being housed in general population.
Facility Housing Levels
A. The different levels of security such as minimum, medium, and maximum are based on charge, past criminal history, and current and past conduct in custody. The different housing units in the facility fall into the following security categories.
1. Maximum – Isolation Cells, A-Pod, B-Pod, C-Pod, D-Pod, G-Pod, H-Pod, I-Pod, J-Pod, Women’s Holding Cells, R-Pod, and S-Pod.
2. Medium – E-Pod, F-Pod, Rotunda, K-Pod, Dorm-A, Dorm-B, Dorm-C, Dorm-D, B-Wing, C-Wing, T-Pod, and U-Pod.

TRGConsulting
D.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page62 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page32 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

3. Minimum – Q-Pod, E Wing, F-Wing, D-Wing, and Dorm-E. B. The following classes of inmates shall be kept separate (PC 4002(a)):

1. Male prisoners shall be confined separately from female prisoners.

2. Persons confined on civil charges shall be kept separate from those confined on criminal charges.

3. Juvenile inmates shall be kept separate from adult inmates.

C. Following is a list of housing units and a description of the types of inmates housed in each unit. Deputies shall use these categories to correctly house inmates. Inmates shall not be housed directly into the dorms without review by the Classification Deputies or approval of the Team Commander. Table D.1 Inmate Classification
Revised 09/06

Main Jail

TYPE OF HOUSING

A-POD B-POD C-POD D-POD E-POD
F-POD G-POD H-POD I-POD J-POD ROTUNDA
K-4 K-5 K-16 K-17 A-DORM B-DORM C-DORM D-DORM

Adm. segregation, 5150, incompatible sex crimes Adm. segregation, 5150, incompatible sex crimes Adm. segregation for heavy Surenos1 and compatible inmates Adm. Segregation General housing restricted to Norteno gang members and compatibles General housing restricted to Norteno gang members and compatibles Adm. segregation for Norteno/Sureno dropouts Adm. segregation for Nortenos, Blacks, and Whites Adm. segregation for Nortenos, Blacks, Whites and handicapped inmates Adm. segregation for Nortenos, Blacks, and Whites General housing for misd./elderly/weak. Housing by Classification ONLY! General housing. B/C Wing overflow and immigration General housing restricted to gang dropouts General housing. B/C Wing overflow and immigration General housing restricted to gang dropouts General housing for inmates with light felony charges. No Nortenos General housing for Sureno gang members General housing for inmates with sex charges General housing for parolees and compatibles (No Nortenos)

E-DORM General housing restricted to sentenced Surenos

ISOLATION

Adm. segregation for extreme protective custody, high risk, civil, or juvenile inmates

ARMBAND COLOR GREEN GREEN
ORANGE WHITE
WHITE
WHITE WHITE WHITE
WHITE WHITE
WHITE WHITE ORANGE WHITE ORANGE
WHITE ORANGE GREEN
WHITE
ORANGE
BLUE

CLOTHING COLOR ORANGE ORANGE
ORANGE ORANGE
RED
RED ORANGE ORANGE
ORANGE ORANGE
RED RED ORANGE RED ORANGE
RED ORANGE ORANGE
RED BLACK
ORANGE

1 Heavy Surenos are gang leaders or “shot callers.”
TRGConsulting
D.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page63 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page33 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table D.1 (Continued) Inmate Classification

Rehab Center
B-WING C-WING
D-WING
E-WING
F-WING
Women’s Jail
Q-POD R-POD S-POD T-POD U-POD
HOLDING

TYPE OF HOUSING
General housing for felons. No black inmates General housing for light felons, misdemeanor or sentenced inmates
General housing restricted to sentenced Nortenos
General housing for sentenced inmates (non-workers) General housing for sentenced inmates assigned to work details
TYPE OF HOUSING
General housing for sentenced females and work details Adm. segregation for 187 PC, 5150, or problem inmates Adm. segregation for 187 PC, 5150, or problem inmates General housing - felony charges General housing - misdemeanor charges, sentenced, or overflow felons Adm. segregation - extreme protective custody, high risk, or civil inmates

ARMBAND COLOR WHITE
WHITE
WHITE
WHITE WHITE
ARMBAND COLOR WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE
WHITE
WHITE

CLOTHING COLOR RED
RED
BLACK
BLACK BLACK OR KP GREEN CLOTHING
COLOR BLUE
ORANGE ORANGE
RED RED OR
BLUE
ORANGE

1110.03 1110.04

Lockdown/Inmate Movement Forms - A Lockdown/Inmate Movement Form documents the justification for an inmate’s housing. The Lockdown/Inmate Movement Form establishes a record of where an inmate has been housed and the circumstances of the housing change. A Lockdown/Inmate Movement Form shall be completed in the following cases:
A. Anytime an inmate is housed in maximum security.
B. Anytime an inmate is moved to higher level of security.
C. Whenever an inmate is moved from one location to another (except when moved per the Mainline Transfer List).
D. Anytime an inmate is rolled up to the Receiving Area pending re-classification.
E. The original copy of the Lockdown/Inmate Movement Form shall be placed in the Inmate File. Copies shall be distributed to the Bureau Captain, the Team Commander, and Classification.
Classification Deputy Responsibilities.
A. The primary responsibility of the Classification Unit is to classify and house inmates. Classification Deputies shall review the initial housing of inmates housed in lockdown.
B. Secondary duties of the Classification Unit include incident investigation, assisting and sharing intelligence with other agencies, monitoring the inmate phone system, and gathering and disseminating gang intelligence.

TRGConsulting
D.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page64 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page34 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. The goal of the Custody Operations Bureau is to work cooperatively to assist other agencies in gathering and disseminating investigative information.
2. Routine requests shall be handled by the Classification Deputy receiving the request (e.g., recording of an inmate telephone call, reading a specific inmate’s mail for investigative purposes).
3. Non-routine requests (such as searching an inmate’s cell to remove contents) require necessary precautions. The following guidelines shall be followed when out of the ordinary requests are received:
a. The Classification Deputy receiving the request shall contact the Classification Sergeant. The Classification Sergeant will determine if the Classification Unit can assist, in consultation with the appropriate Commander, if necessary.
b. If the Classification Sergeant is not available, the Classification Deputy shall contact the on-duty sergeant. The Classification Deputy shall ensure the affected Commander is made aware of the planned activity. The Commander has the authority to approve or disapprove the agency’s request.
c. An incident report shall be distributed to the Classification Sergeant and the Classification Commander.
C. Classification Deputies are authorized to change the level of an inmate’s classification in order to protect the security of the facility and the welfare of inmates and staff. All increases in classification shall be reported to the Bureau Captain via memorandum or Lockdown/Inmate Movement Form.
D. Classification Deputies shall conduct routine reviews of inmate classification levels to maintain an awareness of inmate activity so that housing assignments and space can be best utilized.
E. Classification Deputies shall screen and approve sentenced inmates for transfer to Mainline.
F. Classification Deputies shall receive copies of all disciplinaries, crime reports, and lockdown/inmate movement forms. They shall use these reports to update inmate custody histories and maintain facility statistics.
G. Inmates who have been sentenced to more than 60 days have the right to write to Classification for a review of their level of classification every 30 days. Classification shall respond in writing to the inmate with the result of their review.
H. Inmates have the right to appeal their housing classification to the Classification Sergeant. Inmates may further appeal to the Bureau Administrative Commander whose decision is final.
I. The Bureau Administrative Commander has the authority to change the classification level of an inmate as deemed appropriate.
J. Any time the Classification Unit has special security information on an inmate, they shall send a memo alerting the jail, Transportation and Court Security staff of the inmate’s security risk.
“Need” Resulting from the Desire to Properly Separate and Segregate Inmates. Proper separation and segregation of inmates as envisioned in the Sheriff’s classification plan is very difficult because of insufficient staff, an inadequate physical plant layout and the severe overcrowding that makes it necessary to unofficially add well over 300 beds above the CSA rated capacity. These problems can be alleviated with the construction of new housing or a new facility properly sized to meet future needs. (One of the design goals
TRGConsulting
D.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page65 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page35 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT for the new facility is to have a sufficient number of single and double cells for the proper separation of inmates of differing classification.)
TRGConsulting
D.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page66 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page36 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

E. Programs
Dormitory housing in the Rehabilitation Facility at the Monterey County Jail. Severe overcrowding and lack of adequate program space make it extremely difficult to offer meaningful programs.

Introduction. The existing Monterey County Jail lacks adequate space to conduct any kind of meaningful programs to reduce recidivism. Worse, the sever overcrowding and insufficient staff make it almost impossible for the Sheriff to conduct any but the most basic programs (e.g. religious services and counseling, basic mental health programs and counseling, visiting, commissary, counseling by health care providers, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous classes, etc.).
New detention housing with adequate program space will allow for a wide variety of programs to reduce recidivism. Not only will the Sheriff’s Office be able to enhance existing programs, but staff also will be able to introduce a number of successful programs in other jurisdictions.

Programs currently offered at the Monterey County Jail:
Alcoholics Anonymous is offered to both men and women. This is a program designed for men and women to share their experiences, strength and hope with each other to work on solving their common problems and help others to recover from alcoholism. Offered in both English and Spanish.
The B.I. Incorporated program is offered to both men and women. This program describes services that are offered to the inmates upon release. The program provides cognitive and behavioral treatment programs for probationers and prepares them for employment in their community. Clients receive additional employment assistance based on their needs as well as personalized help to overcome any obstacles, which may occur with productive employment.
Commissary is offered to both men and women. This program provides inmates with a “taste from the outside” by providing snacks as well as personal hygiene items. Inmates also can receive “iCare” packages from friends and family members when they go online and order packages, which range in price and seasonal specials.
The Financial Class is offered as part of the Nutritional Curriculum on the last day of incarceration. This class teaches basic financial topics such as how to manage their money, how to balance a check book, etc.
Forklift training is offered to both men and women who are sentenced and are assigned to a work detail. This is an interactive course where inmates receive classroom and hands on instruction on the safety, parts and operation. Inmates must be able to pass a classroom test and the practical test in order to obtain a successful certificate of completion. Once the inmate is released from custody they may go to C.E.T. (Center for Employment Training) to take their certification test in order to obtain a forklift license. This test is offered free to only those individuals that completed the instructional part while in custody. They must present their certificate of successfully completion.

TRGConsulting
E.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page67 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page37 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
G.E.D. Preparation and Testing is offered to both men and women who are sentenced and are housed in the inmate areas that are assigned to a work detail. This program provides inmates with five subject tests which, when passed, certify that they have successfully completed the General Educational Development (G.E.D.) equivalent to a high school diploma.
H.I.V/John XXIII Awareness presentation and testing is offered to both men and women. The presentation offers awareness on the topic. The test is done in a private setting and is confidential.
Janitorial Instruction is offered to both men and women who are sentenced and are housed in the inmate areas that are assigned to a work detail. This program is designed to provide skills in addition to simple janitorial services. Instruction topics include:
• Handling of Hazardous and Infectious Waste • Basic Cleaning for Floor Surfaces • Cleaning for Restrooms/Shower rooms
Kick Start will be offered to both men and women. This program is designed to help inmates “between release and re-entry” with employment and employment-related services. Inmates are assisted with completing applications, preparing résumés, preparing for interviews as well as providing opportunities for employment.
Kitchen Basics is offered to both men and women who are sentenced and are housed in the inmate areas that are assigned to a work detail. The course objective is to prepare students for work in the food service industry. Students will be able to apply the skills learned from this program in a food service job in the community. Topics covered are:
• Personal Hygiene • Equipment • Sanitation • General Safety • Food Safety • Production • Storage
Each student is given a workbook for pre-work, class work and homework. A quiz is given at the end of each class with a final exam at the end of Kitchen Basics. Students must maintain an average of 75% or they will be asked to leave the course and repeat.
Library Instruction is offered to women who are sentenced and are housed in the inmate areas that are assigned to a work detail. Inmates essentially become the inmate library assistant. This inmate(s) is assigned to keep the library organized, prepare the donated books for placement on the shelves, prepare bags with books for the library book exchange throughout the jail, return the library books to the shelves, fill the special book requests and provide cleaning services for the library and library office.
Microsoft Office training is offered to both men and women. This program provides inmates with basic computer skills needed for future employment. Courses will include instruction on Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.
Narcotics Anonymous is offered to both men and women. N.A. is a twelve-step program. This is a program designed for men and women to share their experiences, strength and hope with each other to work on solving their common problems and help others to recover from chemical dependency. Offered in both English and Spanish.
TRGConsulting
E.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page68 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page38 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Nutritional Curriculum is offered only to female sentenced inmates in Q-pod and U-Pod. This program is designed to help the inmates make healthier food/snack choices.
Papas in Rehab is offered to men only. This program is designed to help incarcerated fathers continue to build a bond with their children by teaching the “6 Basics of Being a Great Dad:”
• Provide unconditional love and affection • Spend T-I-M-E • Communicate constantly and creatively • Partner with Mom • Instill moral and spiritual values • Establish “My Fathering Legacy” Offered only in Spanish.
Parenting currently is offered to both men and women under Pride and Choices to limited housing areas pending the identification of additional volunteers with the experience, training and certification. This class provides inmates with skills in raising responsible and independent children. Ways of rethinking the approach of teaching, discipline, etc. also are part of the curriculum.
Pride and Choices is offered to both men and women who are sentenced and are housed in the inmate areas that are assigned to a work detail. This program is designed to help with recovery inside and out. “Choices” is a two-week self-assessment intervention group designed to give the client information about addiction and the tools necessary for change. “Pride” is an eight-week intensive drug and alcohol recovery program. Topics include:
• Anger Management • Critical Thinking • Aptitude and Interest • Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory and other subjects
S.O.A.R. (Starting Over Accessing Re-Entry)1 is offered to both men and women. This is a 6-week program whose goal is “re-entry oriented to break the cycle of recidivism.” Topics include:
• Transitioning into the Community • Relapse Prevention • Cognitive Skills and Communication • Coping with Trauma • Self Care • Accessing Community Resources
Turning Point presentations are offered to both men and women. This program offers presentations of services that are available to inmates upon release. Adult employment programs that help those who have an arrest record match their skills and aspirations with employers in the community. They offer:
• On-the-job training • Résumé and interviewing techniques • Employment workshops • Computer access • Career counseling • Job placement and other core services.
1 This program currently is not offered, but hopefully it will soon be offered. Behavioral Health Department staff was teaching the class.
TRGConsulting
E.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page69 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page39 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Veteran Orientation Workshop is designed to help veterans find employment and/or get them connected to services. Topics will include:
• CALVET Welcome Home Program • Veteran Benefits G.I. Bill • Résumé and Job Search Assistance • Disability and Pension • Priority Job Referrals.
Examples of enhancements to existing programs include:
• expanding mental health programs and therapy sessions; • additional programs specifically designed for female inmates; • developing an adult literacy program; • providing tutoring for inmates seeking a GED; • increasing the number of Bible study sessions and expanding religious programs; • increasing the number of AA meetings and providing additional alcohol abuse counseling; • enhancing the narcotics abuse program with additional meetings and therapy sessions; and • providing health education on a wider variety of subjects.
Additional programs that are being considered for implementation include:
• life skills programs targeted by age, gender and need; • a program to identify community resources and provide initial contact prior to release; • family awareness and responsibilities; • parenting programs; • mentoring programs for young inmates; • anger management classes and counseling; • self-esteem enhancement; • cultural awareness programs; • developing communication skills and enhancing human relations; • aptitude assessment and career planning; • special education classes; • classes offering high school credit; • vocational education classes in conjunction with local labor unions modeled after programs that
have been successful in other counties (e.g., computer skills, food service, laundry service, landscaping, printing, construction technologies, automobile maintenance and repair, automobile body work, etc.); • academic and vocational education correspondence courses; • college level courses by correspondence or through the local college system; • English as a second language; • arts and crafts; • physical education classes; and • other programs that will assist inmates in returning to the community as productive citizens.
Inmate Programs and Detention Alternatives. Inmate programs, including alternatives to detention, are described in the verbiage below from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual.
1116.00 CUSTODY PROGRAMS
1116.01 Exercise and Recreation
A. Inmates shall be allowed a minimum of three hours of exercise and/or outdoor recreation distributed over a seven-day period.
TRGConsulting
E.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page70 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page40 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. The day sergeant shall prepare and post yard schedules to meet the requirements of Title 15, Minimum Standards (Section 1065). The on-duty sergeant shall approve any changes to the posted schedule.
2. Deputies shall notify the sergeant when inclement weather conditions exist. The sergeant shall decide when to cancel the yard. Cancellations shall be noted on the daily yard schedule.
3. The yard deputy shall place the daily yard schedule in the 24-file at the end of the day.
B. The yard deputy shall search the yard at the beginning and end of each day. The yard deputy shall inspect the yard (including vents and perimeter fencing) for contraband, faulty equipment, and facility damage that presents a security risk. Deficiencies shall be reported to the on-duty sergeant. If defects are found, inmates shall not be taken to the yard unless approved by the on-duty sergeant.
C. The 135 door leading from the main jail to court holding shall be closed and locked when men’s yard is being conducted. This is essential for the security of the facility.
D. Inmate Yard Rules
1. Inmates shall not be taken to the yard without their armband.
2. Inmates shall only be allowed to wear jail issued clothing to the yard. Sheets, towels, cup, spoon, food, writing paper, pencils, etc. are prohibited.
3. Inmates shall wear their jumpsuits to and from the exercise yard.
4. Inmates shall not cross the painted red lines on the exercise yard without permission from the yard deputy. Violators shall be removed from the yard and a disciplinary written.
E. Men’s Section Exercise Yard (Upper Yard)
1. The total number of inmates on the upper yard at one time shall not exceed 30.
2. The yard chain link fence gate shall be padlocked with the security chain whenever inmates are on the yard.
3. Inmate counts ensure proper security and accountability of inmates. The yard deputy shall count the inmates as they walk onto the exercise yard, and make numerous counts during the exercise period.
4. The yard deputy shall immediately report suspicious activities and summons assistance to respond to the yard.
5. The yard deputy shall not open the gate to respond to an emergency on the yard until sufficient back-up is on the scene to safeguard the security of the yard.
6. The yard deputy is responsible for the security and supervision of inmates on the yard. The exercise yard is a key point for escape. The yard deputy shall maintain constant vigilance.
a. The yard deputy position is non-stationary. While there is a shed erected on the yard floor to provide shelter from the elements, deputies shall not remain inside for extended periods of time.
TRGConsulting
E.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page71 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page41 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
b. The yard deputy shall not leave the exercise yard unattended at any time while inmates are on the yard. If the yard deputy needs relief from his duties, he shall notify the floor deputies or on-duty sergeant.
c. The yard telephone shall only be used for official business.
d. Reading materials and any devices that distract from continual observation of inmates on the yard is prohibited.
e. The yard deputy shall not engage in conversation with inmates that detract from the primary function of ensuring the security of the yard.
F. Women’s Section Exercise Yard. The same guidelines that apply to the men’s yard apply to the women’s yard except that the yard position is a stationary position and the yard deputy shall observe inmates from the yard booth. There is no red off-limit line, however, inmates shall not be allowed contact with the yard fencing.
G. Inmate Movement
1. Normally two deputies will be responsible for moving inmates to the yard. One deputy shall remain on the floors at all times. The Yard Deputy shall remain in the Deputy security area of the yard and shall not assist the floor deputies with the inmate movements.
2. The yard deputy shall provide housing deputies with a printed roster for each housing unit scheduled for yard. Deputies shall mark the yard roster as inmates file out of the pod and are identified by their armband. The roster printout will not reflect yard restrictions. The floor deputy is responsible for ensuring that only authorized inmates are permitted to go to the yard.
3. Inmates shall be searched randomly going to and from the yard.
4. The yard deputy shall be in the area that is secure from direct inmate contact before the inmates enter the yard.
5. The housing deputies shall escort the inmates to the yard. One housing deputy shall walk across the yard and give the yard deputy the yard roster. The yard deputy shall verify that the count is correct before the housing deputy leaves the yard.
6. Five minutes before the end of the exercise period, the yard deputy shall advise the housing deputies that the inmates are ready to return to their housing unit.
7. Two deputies shall escort inmates off of the yard. One deputy shall remain at the top of the stairwell and count inmates as they file down the stairs. One deputy shall remain at the bottom of the stairs to observe inmate movement.
8. Deputies shall conduct a final headcount as inmates file through the entrance door to their housing unit.
9. Deputies shall immediately notify the on-duty sergeant whenever a count is not correct. The on-duty sergeant shall secure the jail and initiate a search for the missing inmate.
H. Dorm Exercise Yards
1. The dorm-housing deputy shall conduct the security checks as described in Section 1116.01.B.
TRGConsulting
E.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page72 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page42 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2. Dorm yards will be opened after the 0800 hour head count and dorm clean-up is complete. The yard will be closed no later than sundown.
3. Dorm yards shall be closed on Saturday and Sunday due to visiting.

I. Isolation Exercise Yard
1. The daytime sergeant shall schedule yard for inmates housed in the isolation cells. The sergeant shall ensure that only compatible inmates are exercised together.
2. The E-Dorm yard shall be used to exercise inmates in isolation. Deputies shall secure the door to the E dorm-housing unit.
3. Two deputies shall escort inmates housed in isolation to the yard. One deputy shall observe yard activity from the interior of E-Dorm.

J. Rehabilitation Center Exercise Yards

1116.02

1. The daytime Rehab. Sergeant shall schedule the exercise yard for inmates housed at the Rehabilitation Center.
2. The exercise deputy shall conduct a security inspection as described in Section 1116.01.B.
3. The exercise deputy shall collect volleyballs from the roof and surrounding at the beginning of the day before beginning yard.
4. When conducting B/C wing yard, the yard deputy shall be stationed at the post outside the yard before the inmates enter the yard.
5. The maximum number of inmates allowed on the B/C wing yard is 30. The B & C Wing deputy shall count inmates going out to the yard and confirm his count with the yard deputy. The B & C-Wing Deputy shall count inmates returning from the yard and ensure the yard door is secure after yard exercise is over.
Religious Programs
A. The Jail Chaplain provides for the religious needs of inmates in the Jail and Rehabilitation Center.
1. The Chaplain is authorized to recruit assistance from local faith communities. The Chaplain shall develop and provide appropriate volunteer training to ensure volunteers understand security concerns, limitations and scope of services to be rendered.
2. Inmates may contact the Jail Chaplain by submitting a request in writing. Inmate requests shall be placed in the Chaplain’s mailbox.
3. Persons interested in becoming a religious volunteer shall submit a Volunteer Referral application form to the Jail Chaplain. The Jail Chaplain shall verify the volunteer’s affiliation with a recognized church and determine the person’s ability to conduct religious services. Religious volunteers shall complete an orientation class provided by the Jail Chaplain.

TRGConsulting
E.7

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page73 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page43 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
B. The Chaplain shall prepare a schedule of religious services for each housing section. A Program Binder, located in the lobby and in Control 5, lists the day and time for religious service by housing unit.
1. The Chaplain shall maintain and update the schedule of religious services in the Program Binder.
2. The Program Binder shall contain a list of authorized volunteers. The Chief’s secretary shall maintain and update the list of authorized volunteers.
C. Religious Clergy shall be ordained or licensed ministers.
1. The Jail Chaplain shall approve all religious clergy who are eligible for contact visits.
2. The Jail Chaplain shall list the authorized clergy’s name and the name of the church in the Clergy Box located in the jail lobby and in Control #5.
3. Clergy not listed in the clergy box shall not receive a contact visit unless a Facility Commander or the Captain has given prior approval. Clergy not authorized contact visits may use the non-contact visiting room.
4. Clergy who are not listed in the clergy box shall be advised they must contact the Chaplain to obtain a clearance.
5. Contact visits shall be held in the attorney rooms of each facility.
6. Clergy are prohibited from using clergy privileges to visit members of their own family.
7. Clergy shall not bring other people with them for contact visits.
8. Clergy shall not give Bibles or other articles to inmates during visits, nor shall they leave these materials for the Chaplain to pass on to the inmates.
9. Religious volunteers shall not be admitted for individual inmate contact visits if they are not listed in the clergy box. Religious volunteers who are not clergy may visit individual inmates as a visitor on visiting day.
1116.03 Volunteers in the Custody Operations Bureau
A. The work of volunteers is a valued component of inmate programs offered in the Custody Operations Bureau. Volunteers provide rehabilitative services and represent a significant savings to the Bureau by providing services on a voluntary basis.
B. Only persons who have completed a background and have been placed on the Program Roster are authorized to enter the facility as a volunteer.
C. Persons desiring to become a volunteer in the Custody Operations Bureau shall complete a personal history background check in accordance with Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual Sections 316.03 (a) and 316.10 (d). The Chief Deputy of Custody Operations, or his designee, shall review the volunteer’s personal history investigation and approve all volunteer clearances.
1. Volunteers shall complete the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office Custody Operations Bureau Volunteer Referral form and obtain the written approval of the program coordinator (e.g., N.A., Chaplain, etc.). Applications shall be forwarded to the Inmate Services Sergeant for review. The Inmate Services Sergeant shall make an appointment
TRGConsulting
E.8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page74 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page44 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
with the applicant for photo, prints and background interview. The Support Services Commander shall review all volunteer backgrounds for final approval.
2. Volunteers clearances shall not be issued to individuals who have been incarcerated in a county jail or penal institution or on probation or parole within the past two years, or who have a close association with a gang member or anyone involved in illegal activity.
3. Volunteers shall possess a California Identification Card or California Driver’s License.
4. Volunteers shall read and sign a Hostage Policy and Search Informed Consent Release that shall be retained in the Background file.
5. Only volunteers involved in programs that consist of academic or vocational courses, exercise and recreation, individual, family and/or social service programs and religious services shall be approved for clearance.
D. Volunteers shall renew their clearance annually. The Chief’s secretary shall send out renewal notices to each Program Coordinator. Program Coordinators shall be responsible for notifying program volunteers. Volunteers who do not return the renewal form shall be removed from the active volunteer list.
E. Volunteers shall obtain an access badge and sign the Building Access Log. Volunteers shall present either a California Identification Card or California Driver’s License in order to obtain building access and an access badge. (Reference Sheriff’s Manual Section 317).
F. The Inmate Services Sergeant is in charge of inmate programs. Problems with non-religious persons or groups shall be reported to the Inmate Services Sergeant. Problems with individual clergy or religious volunteers shall be reported in writing to both the Inmate Services Sergeant and the Jail Chaplain.
1116.04 Commissary.
A. Commissary items such as toiletries, stationary and snack foods may be ordered once per week.
1. Inmates must have the funds on their account at the time the order is processed.
2. Inmates must fill out the order form completely, including their full name, booking number, housing location, and signature. Incomplete forms shall not be processed.
3. Completed commissary forms shall be picked up by the housing deputies as scheduled, and placed in the commissary box in the lobby.
B. Commissary is distributed on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday depending on the housing unit. Make-up commissary is delivered on Thursday. Deputies shall distribute commissary order forms the day before the scheduled delivery.
C. Deputies shall provide security to the commissary employees during commissary delivery.
D. Commissary employees shall inventory each inmate order in the presence of the inmate.
1. Commissary employees shall verify inmates by their identification wristband. Inmates without a wristband shall not receive commissary.
TRGConsulting
E.9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page75 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page45 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.05

2. Commissary employees shall verify the contents of the inmate commissary bag and have the inmate sign the commissary receipt.
3. The contract commissary provider shall handle shortages and apply credits, as appropriate.
E. Complaints regarding commissary shall be directed to the contract commissary provider or to the Custody Support Commander.
F. Inmates released from custody before commissary delivery shall be advised to contact the Jail on the following Tuesday to obtain a refund. Employees shall release the funds after verifying the identity of the former inmate entitled to the funds.
1. Inmates shall have one year within which to pick up money left in their account after release. After one year this money will be placed into the General Fund pursuant to Government Code 26642.
2. The second watch corrections specialist supervisor shall notify inmates of uncollected refunds at the end of each calendar year. The supervisor shall maintain an audit trail of all notifications and disbursements.
G. Indigent inmates ($1.00 or less on their account) may receive a free care package. The inmate must ask commissary staff for a care package at the time commissary is delivered in the housing unit. A computer-generated report identifies inmates who are eligible for a care package. A care packet consists of one toothbrush, one toothpaste, one comb, two bars of soap, a disposable razor (if permitted), fours sheets of writing paper, two envelopes and one pencil. Care packages are handed out with the inmate commissary.
H. Inmates on disciplinary restriction (DAR) may purchase a DAR package. Inmates on disciplinary restriction may mail two personal letters free of charge through the jail mailroom.
I. Inmates are responsible for keeping track of their account balance. This information is provided on their cash on books receipts, their last commissary receipt, or their booking sheet if no commissary has been ordered before.
Inmate Welfare Fund
A. The Inmate Welfare Fund is comprised of all monies and property accrued through the profits from commissary and the pay phones. In accordance with Penal Code Sections 4025 and 4026, profits shall be deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund and expended by the Sheriff, based on recommendations of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee, for the benefit of education, welfare of the inmates confined within the facilities, and the maintenance of facilities.
B. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee shall consist of the following:
1. Chief Deputy, Custody Operations Bureau – Chairman.
2. Captain.2
3. Support Services Commander.
4. Inmate Services Sergeant.

2 The Captainʼs position at the jail has been eliminated in the last round of staff cuts.
TRGConsulting
E.10

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page76 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page46 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5. Librarian, Custody Operations Bureau.
6. Rehabilitation Facility Educational Director.
7. Jail Chaplain.
8. Public member from the community.
C. Rules of Order
1. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee shall review and approve expenditures and examine accounting practices and procedures.
2. A quorum of four (4) voting Committee members is necessary to transact business.
3. The Chairman shall schedule Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meetings on a quarterly basis. Special meetings may be called when deemed necessary by the Chairman.
4. The Chief’s secretary shall take minutes of each meeting. A copy shall be forwarded to the Fiscal Division and the Sheriff.
D. Guidelines for Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditures.
1. Capital items ($500.00 or more in unit price with a useful life of three years or more) must be authorized by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee and approved by the Inmate Welfare Fund Chairman.
2. Expenditures in excess of $1,000.00 shall be reviewed by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee and approved by the Inmate Welfare Fund Chairman.
3. The Support Services Commander shall approve routine replacement and purchases of equipment and supplies.
4. The Inmate Welfare Fund is authorized to provide indigent inmates (those inmates defined as having $1.00 or less on their books) with a bus ticket for transportation back to the area of residence outside the county, and for clothing if the inmate does not have civilian clothing and has no means to have clothing brought in at the time of release.
5. Final approval of all Inmate Welfare Fund expenditures will be made by the Sheriff or Undersheriff.
E. Revenue from the Inmate Welfare Fund shall be deposited with the Treasurer of Monterey County who shall deposit, invest, or re-invest any part of the Fund in excess of that deemed necessary for the day-to-day operation. The interest accrued on such fund shall be deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund.
F. The Support Services Commander shall be responsible for Inmate Welfare Fund Property purchased by/for Custody Operations.
G. The Inmate Welfare Fund shall be audited regularly to ensure compliance with standard accounting principals and practices. A copy of this report shall be posted in each facility and be made available to the public and to inmates.
TRGConsulting
E.11

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page77 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page47 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.06

Sheriff’s Passes
A. Penal Code Section 4018.6 authorizes the Sheriff to grant a temporary release from custody. The following guidelines shall be considered in the granting of passes in the Monterey County Sheriff’s Custody Operations Bureau.
1. The inmate must be sentenced to the County Jail and have no outstanding holds, Parole Holds, domestic violence charges, or disciplinaries.
2. Family emergencies may be considered as: life-threatening illness or death of an immediate family member (i.e. father, mother, sister, brother, spouse by marriage, child by marriage).
3. An inmate needing medical or dental care that cannot be provided by the Jail Facility or Natividad Medical Center, with the review and recommendation of the jail physician, may be granted a pass to see their personal physician at their own expense (4011PC). In the event that the inmate does not meet the criteria for a pass but requests to see their own doctor, the inmate shall agree to pay for the cost of transportation and place a sufficient amount of money on their books to cover the costs of the escort deputy and the transportation vehicle. Doctor fees are the inmate’s responsibility.
4. The Bureau Administrative Commander approves all passes up to eight hours.
5. Passes will not be granted for travel outside the county of Monterey absent exigent circumstances.
B. The procedure for requesting a Sheriff’s Pass is as follows:
1. The pass request (SO Form 135) shall be completed by the inmate and given to the Control 5 deputy at the Rehab Facility or the Desk Deputy/Corrections Specialist at the Jail. The Control Deputy or the Desk Deputy/Corrections Specialist shall verify that the inmate lists a reason for the pass. The inmate’s charges, sentence, disciplinary problems, and outdate shall be noted on the pass form and forwarded to the Bureau Administrative Commander.
2. If the pass request is for medical reasons, it shall be reviewed by the Jail Physician or his representative prior to being submitted to the Bureau Administrative Commander for review.
3. The Bureau Administrative Commander shall approve/disapprove the pass, and sign and distribute the pass form.
4. The releasing deputy/specialist shall advise the inmate of the pass conditions and require the inmate to sign the agreement. A copy shall be given to the inmate.
5. The releasing deputy/specialist shall list the clothing that the inmate is wearing on the pass form. The name and valid drivers license of the inmate’s driver shall be written on the pass form.
6. When the inmate returns from pass, the clothing worn shall be compared with what was written down at release. Any changes shall be noted on the pass form and the changes entered on the inmate’s original booking sheet in the lobby and in CJIS. The date and time that the inmate returned shall be written on the pass form. The original of the completed pass form shall be filed in the inmate’s file and a copy shall be sent to the Bureau Administrative Commander.

TRGConsulting
E.12

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page78 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page48 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7. Medications the inmate brings back from pass shall be picked up by the medical staff in the lobby before the inmate is processed back in.
8. If an inmate fails to return, escape charges shall be filed. If the pass is a court-ordered pass, a memorandum shall be sent to the judge who ordered the pass. Copies of this memo shall be placed in the inmate’s file and sent to the Bureau Captain.
1116.07 Inmate Marriages A. Inmates wishing to be married while in jail must write the Jail Chaplain for a marriage package. The package includes instructions and an Affidavit re Marriage. 1. The Affidavit re. Marriage shall be signed and dated by the inmate, licensed minister and the prospective spouse. 2. After the inmate is sentenced to state prison on the local charges, the inmate shall submit the marriage documents to the Administrative Commander for approval. If approved, the affidavit must be picked up and presented to the County Clerk for a marriage license. (The County Clerk requires the presence of the minister listed on the affidavit.) 3. Once the required documentation is in order, the Administrative Commander will call the prospective spouse for the date, time, and location of the ceremony. Only one person, a required witness, may attend. Cameras and flowers are prohibited. Potential spouses are advised that rings shall not be exchanged nor brought into the facility. 4. Same sex marriages shall not be authorized. B. To qualify for a marriage while incarcerated, an inmate must be sentenced to state prison on his local charges and meet the following pre-requisites: 1. He/she must be financially responsible for all costs incurred due to marriage, i.e. filing fee, marriage license, minister, blood tests, etc. 2. The prospective spouse must be at least eighteen years of age. 3. He/she must establish a sound reason for the marriage. 4. He/she shall not have any spousal or child abuse charges. 5. He/she is disciplinary free. 6. Inmates returning to prison on parole charges shall not qualify. C. The Jail Chaplain shall not officiate or participate in marriage ceremonies.
TRGConsulting
E.13

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page79 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page49 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

\!un~· Cuuaty CuurthcUY. :!40 l'ltun:h Stn:cl S:Lm:>.<. CA 93Q0)

IN nn: SL'rt:RIOR C:OURTO~ Till STATE Of CALII'Oa1\IA I:\ ANU ~OR TIILC' OLNTY OJo \IONTlRJ-.Y
rJ:.OI'Ll Of Til!.. ~'TAT!:. OF CALIHl:l:SLA.

---------•~- .\fl'ID:\\'II rr \ IARKIAGD

Ddou!.cl.)

- - - - - - - - - - · c:ndcr r.cr...lty o. p:lJ'-1) dccl.:..~>.

(MmlfU!TJ

l. Tha.L ,;s.t :L_) tt:nc~ bt::Cln n:.c:llK!4"'1CJ he '-'Ob• ~ DlT•' D. ~ bC."C'Ihl.'d trtrnl~h:r of t)'o._._.

= Clv.m:h. :w~cnL~d b) I•" 1:1 jlcdurm m>m3b'\:> a!>d tu l>lll=rut~

cutrT'U~~ tx:I~A t.•cn un.m..uru:d JH". "OtJO) h\l!l~ l"~~1}u::,:., cum wad ....,~c:

2. Thal

?"""'" f=•ll:) ,. ph~.:;:~Uy unahk 1:r.1 li?Pr:st m

b~rmc tltr

Cull:lty Clerk_ th~ ckik or the cuurt. oc a Jtldbc m :Jn"'\ ale Cun::JCC'\ ':n:t.7UL).C h~ ]). :.:rn:an:rr.s.t..-J 1:'1 thl."

;\{oo'l<:'Ky C..nw:y J:ul I dctl..n: u.nl!o prn3lt) o( prrJ:ll) lhut lhc ron:.;orn;; 1> true uf Ill) ~>"' n. i..noY. Wgr.

cxcc;lla. tu tho.c m.illa> ~•t W't >Lltcd un ro!ucrn:cron 1md ·,e:rc!. 11nd"" II> tho~c oaucr"- I c,rh-:-\t tr-C"o

1.<1 b: L"TJC.

x ____________________ ___
(Lict-m<Yl Mlfmtu .~/U;"lrt.n!)

_ _ _ _ _ (O..tt:,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - f('h·"C~)

Executed at S..Jrn..._ Clllr!ilm:a.,""' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(Dot<:!_ (.~d...•rrulrot•··"' C:o"lrr..u::icr)
o:· I. the unJl-n1gnc¢. du llt:RUlY DECLAilli U NDLR rt:~f.11' rLRJURY lh.:.t I t:..vc rt'oo the fon:gomg
unJ lttt<lY. the cun!cnb !ft:::m>!'. !hill !he ""no h true of Ill) 0"11 knov. k\Jt.-: <"<Ccpl lL\ lu lJrU>C CJallcr. ~m:Jr.,
•ll1t<:d on rnlim,.•t= a:>d bclr:! Zil'.d ;u ~~ '-huY." nullo> I d1> l:dr<:"'C lhc " '""" w b" true .:~d I dor:.: tu m=y
(,\'a."Jc of lfll'laft'J
f.Jm:utcd >I S-'lrna.., Cal rturn:-", U:l

I. the ull.dcn.r~ncd, du IIERI:.I1Y ULC'LARE U NDER rL'A!.l'Y 0: rER!URY th~ l luvc rrail the forct."'mg ar..J luiIN lhc il<Jr.!CII llo !lre:.:uf: lhat !h: •~me r~ tru~ or n1y kJroY.}:d,;t ace~! >> 1.<1 thooc rm.llt.:r> thcrc:n >bll:d un rn!onn>I>On. and b"brf lind aJ> 11.> thu.e m..tlc:-> I du ~clll"'~ the ;..ua, 11.> be L-..c IJI".J I dc:.rn: tC> 111..1.11)
(.'>1J1:na1W'l'. oj Inmate,

II 16 - Custody Progratm II

TRGConsulting

E.14

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page80 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page50 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.08

News Media Interviews with Inmates
A. News media representatives may be allowed to interview or photograph inmates subject to the following conditions:
1. No interviews shall be permitted with inmates randomly encountered in the course of an institutional activity or visit. No inmates shall be selected at random for interviews.
2. Sentenced inmates, who have no other charges pending may be interviewed; however, it is recommended the media visit during regular visiting hours under the usual visiting rules.
3. Pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates with pending charges may be interviewed and photographed subject to the following conditions:
a. The news media representative shall make a request to the Administrative Commander at least three business days prior to the actual interview.
b. After receiving the request, the Administrative Commander shall contact the inmate to determine if he or she wishes to voluntarily agree to the interview. If so, the inmate shall complete INMATE-MEDIA CONSENT/RELEASE Form (SO Form 162). The original shall be maintained by the Sheriff’s Office and a copy given to the news media representative.
c. The inmate shall sign a separate SO Form 162 for each interview.
d. The news media representative shall obtain and submit to the Sheriff’s Office or their representative, a written consent from the inmate’s attorney of record. The inmate’s attorney shall be given an opportunity to be present at the interview to ensure that their client’s case is not prejudiced. The attorney’s written consent shall indicate whether or not he intends to be present. If the inmate is a co-defendant, a copy of the attorney’s written consent shall be sent to the other defendant(s) and their attorney of record.
e. If the court has issued a gag order, written authorization and consent must be obtained from the court.
B. All interviews shall be conducted under such conditions as the Facility Commander may deem appropriate, including restrictions as to time, place and length of interview, size of film crew, and any other factors related to the interview. News media may be required to reimburse the County for costs of supervision, or any security arrangements deemed necessary.
C. Interviews with inmates shall be prohibited when the Sheriff believes the interview would jeopardize the safety and peaceful order of the jail, or when such interviews would be detrimental to the welfare and best interest of the inmate. Interviews with inmates who are psychiatrically diagnosed as psychotic are prohibited. Interviews and photographs of inmates in physical restraint are prohibited without specific approval of the Sheriff.

TRGConsulting
E.15

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page81 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page51 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

~EWS MEDIA REPRESEI'\TATI\'E REQUEST FOR I:STERVIE" A:>\0 RELEASE FORM

I request an utlC'f'·ie"' with

, wbo is now in the

eushld} of the

(/,.mate 's .'l"u,.,e1

MO>."TEREY COlr.\'T'r' SHERIFF. In consideration for the issuance of a S~riff's Oft!~ press pass and the

authonzation 1.0 ~:~ the premises of the Mon:cre~ Co.mty Adu:t Dcte.r.tion and Rehabilitation Facilities and

tllcre to take s:tll or motion picr.ues, ··id~o tapings. sound rce<Y.dings, imcrviC\\ ir.mat:s. or an} of the

foregoing. the tmdc:r~igncd, for thcmsel\ cs and for th.: ~"-'S media ~!ley represents. their beirs. cxecut..,rs.

administrate~ and assigns. hc:-:by agrees as follov..>:

I . To rele-ase and ho~d harmless the Co.mty of Monterey. the Sh~iff of Monterey Cotm:y. ar,d the Mon:cr~
Counr)' Sheriffs Office. and each and all of their dcputks. emplo)c-=s. or agcm.i frO!!'I an)' and i!llliabilir)', cla:~M. or d3mages from dcatb. !1am1. or in;u.ry. to person or pr~ett} . inc:.~.."Tcd i."l or in any way resulting
from the aforesaid entry CY. activities, or a!l} of th:m.

2. To rdmbursc for propm) d.lmagc. and ior lhc cost of any litigation. or either of them. the Count}' of Mon:crcy, t!lc SheriIT of ~~ont~rcy County. and the Mon~c} Count}' ShcntTs Office, and each and all of
their dcp~ttes. cmplo)'ccs, or agc::~ts, fro:n or resulting or aming out of the aforesaid enay to activities. or atl)' ofthan.

3. To ab:.d:: b)' thz rules and rcgJlations es:ablished for n.:"'s media access 1.0 Mon>:crcy Councy Aduh
Dct~:ion ar.d Rchabili~a:ion Facili:.cs, a oop:r ofwh!ch has be~ read b}' :he und~ignro.

4. To a sc.arcb of his person artd equipment before. during. and aft:r :be aforc:--~id tilt.')' or acti\'L!ies. or B!lY of them.

S. To give the Sheriffof ~{omcrcy Co4!lty, the Shcrifl~s Office, or an)' of their dcputks, emptoyccs. or agents against whom allegations are made by ao inm:u: in:crviewed. a rc3sonab~e oppor:un.ty to respond.

6. To pro\ ide no compcn..>ation. either dirca or irt<!i!ect, 1.0 the inmate or his or bcr farnil)' for any interviC\\ or
corrcspoodctloc. aod to respcc: the riS:m• of privacy of all inmates.

Thz ll!ldersigned aelmov. ledscs tha:.

l. The Momcrc)' County Shcrifl~s Offioc may luni1. res~rict, te!fl'inatc or forb!d tou.rins. fitming. taping.
a., or recording at the Mentcle} Co>l!lty Adu.l! Dctcn:lon and Rehabilitation Facllitics, provided in
noci"' S media acocss rules.
2. The Molll:TC)· Coun:y Sheriffs O!Tice doe.> not permit inmates or others 1.0 usc hostages to escape from custod} or o:hcrwisc interfere "'i tb orderly institutional operations. The Sheriffs Offioc docs not recognize hostages for bargamutg purposes.

APPROVED BY:

REPRESE:'I:T AT£VE:

(ShmtTs Represc:nati\'e) DATE.

l II 6 - Custod) Programs 13

TRGConsulting
E.16

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page82 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page52 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

T!\MATE-MEDIA C O:-<SEl\1 I RELEA SE FORM

r.
flnmall! 's .'liJrr•r!)

•ba' c b~o in formed !Oat ~u I or mo:too pictures. , .f.dco taptng>, 'oice

reOOTd.ngs. aod ·or inteNtcws ha\c been reqJe"'tcd of me b)'

'~<bo represents

I understand Illat said s:tll or mo:.oo piC'!urcs films. ~ideo ~apings, voice recordings.. and:'or tote!"\ iC'\\'S may be for co1r.mcrcial or noll-t:lommcrcial di.strib:r.ioo and transm.iss!On ~o tl!c general public, and I hcrcb) fully aod forC'\cr release. acqJ.it. and discharge 10 County of Monterey, the She~iiT of Monterc)' Coumy. the ~~omcrzy CoJOty Sheriff~ Offi~. and all of their <!zputics. employees, or ~cots from any and all liabil.l} which may accrue on account of an} and all d!l~ or caus-=s of action '~<hicb io any way ari.~e from my paruc.pa:ion in sa..d <.nil or motiO!'I piC'IJ!CS. ' 'ideo tapi.ngs, .,.'Oicc r~ordings. and. or int~r\ icws arc concerned.
I f'J!thcr d~larc that I fully understaod tltc tC!IllS of tltis rc:casc and that I ha\c volu.ntari!)' and ""itbout dure» cot=rcd tnto and sig.r~d the same. I baH~ bee:~ ad\·tv.:d tltat I do not !'.ave :o CO'f'.:>CJU 10 or parucipatc in any "-':1)' in .>aid fil~. \ideo ta.p ings, vo.cc rcOOTdi.n~. and 01 in:cr\'icws.

My a:tomc:. of r~ord li

fAttGrrl<'} '5 Nar.tt!)

The coun h3\'tng jurisdk~110n of rn)' case is:

(ArrGmt!> '>Telephone .\'w nher )

D.rtc.

WlT:-:ESSED BY:

I I 16 - Cus!OO) Prograan 14
TRGConsulting
E.17

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page83 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page53 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.09

Visiting Procedures
A. Visitor Requirements
1. Visitors must provide proper valid identification (i.e., driver’s license, identification card, Military ID, passport, Matricula Consular ID Card, or any other identification with a photograph attached). This identification may vary widely and deputies shall be reasonable in interpreting what may constitute “valid” identification. The purpose of this requirement is not to prevent visits but to ensure security. Unacceptable IDs are Social Security cards, bank cashing cards, student ID cards, or other unofficial identification.
2. Visiting Form (SO Form 155) shall be completed by the visitor for each inmate visited.
3. The visitor information from the visiting cards shall be entered into CJIS by the visiting deputy either during visiting or immediately after visiting at the jail. At Rehab, entries shall be completed by the hallway deputy on the same evening as visiting occurred. The visiting card shall then be disposed of. a. Deputies assigned to outside visiting posts shall be armed.
4. Each inmate is allowed a minimum of one hour of visiting per week. This time may be divided among different visitors. One child and one adult are allowed in the secured visiting rooms at one time. A total of four visitors are allowed during contact visits at one time. This includes adults and/or children. It is the responsibility of the visitors to monitor their time in allowing all visitors an opportunity to visit with the inmate.
5. Cameras, tape recorders, cellular phones and other electronic devices are prohibited and may be confiscated. A memo and property receipt (SO 59) of confiscated items shall be forwarded to the Facility Commander.
B. Visiting schedules change to accommodate the needs of the facility. For current visiting schedules, see the schedules posted throughout the facility. The day of the week and time of visiting for each housing unit will be posted within each respective housing area.
C. Visiting Procedures for Inmates Housed in the Infirmary (during scheduled visiting time):
1. If the inmate can leave the Infirmary, visits shall be in the non-contact visiting room.
2. If the inmate cannot leave the Infirmary (and there is no medical reason for not receiving visitors (i.e. contagious diseases or security risk), the Team Commander will review the possibility of having the family visit in the infirmary. If approved, the following restrictions apply: a. Adults only. b. Must be members of the immediate family. c. Must meet visitor requirements as listed in Sections 1116.09 A. d. Visitors shall be limited to one person at a time and shall not be authorized to take extra items (e.g. purses or coats) with them.

TRGConsulting
E.18

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page84 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page54 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
D. Visiting Procedures for Inmates Housed in the Hospital
1. Inmates housed at the hospital not under the security of a deputy or contract security guard shall be allowed visitation under the policy of regular patient visiting at the hospital.
2. Inmates housed at the hospital under security of a deputy or contract security guard shall be allowed visiting under the jail regulations and guidelines set forth in Procedures for Guards at Hospitals (Section 1119.07).
E. Rules for Visiting
1. Main Jail inmates shall be allowed one sixty minute visit per week. Rehab Mainline sentenced inmates, E Dorm, D-Wing and sentenced women inmates shall be allowed a minimum of one hour contact visit per week. (Sentenced women inmates are housed in U-Pod and Q-Pod.)
2. An inmate may refuse to see a visitor.
3. A visitor may only visit one inmate at a time except when visitors are visiting inmates who are immediate family members and housed in an area that has outside visiting.
4. All visitors shall wear appropriate attire. Visitors shall wear shoes or sandals. Visitors shall be fully clothed. Shorts or skirts shall not expose more than midthigh. This includes slits in the garments. Buttons and zippers shall remain fastened. Persons attempting to visit with the following types of clothing will be prohibited from visiting:
a. Transparent clothing, tank tops or short shorts. b. Strapless, halter, spaghetti straps or bare midriff clothing. c. Attire displaying obscene or offensive language or drawings. d. Skin tight clothing. e. Articles of clothing that could be deemed gang colors, including but not
limited to ball caps, belts, bandanas, shoes, etc.).
5. Any person under 18 years of age (unless married to an inmate) must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. It is the responsibility of the visitors to provide proof of their relationship to the satisfaction of the jail staff. Persons under the age of 18 that are married to an inmate must provide proof of emancipation in order to secure a visit without being accompanied by an adult.
6. Bringing firearms, explosives, alcoholic beverages, narcotics or any controlled substances including marijuana into the facility or on facility grounds is a crime and cause for arrest.
7. Visitors under the influence of alcohol or drugs shall be denied visiting and subject to arrest.
8. Persons who are unwilling or unable to control their minor children while in the facility shall not be allowed to visit or if visiting, will be requested to leave.
9. Visitors who are causing a disturbance shall be required to leave the facility and shall be denied access for that day.
TRGConsulting
E.19

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page85 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page55 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
10. Visitors shall not give anything to or take anything from an inmate without prior approval of the Watch Supervisor.
11. After visits, inmates shall be subject to search as deemed appropriate.
12. Violation of visiting rules and regulations by an inmate shall be dealt with in accordance with policy.
13. Violation of visiting rules, regulations, and procedures by a visitor shall result in the termination of the visit and removal from the facility. For severe violations, the Facility Captain shall be notified for review of visiting eligibility in the future.
14. Inmates of both facilities who are allowed contact visits shall only be allowed to make body contact by a short embrace at the beginning and at the end of visit. Holding of hands during visiting is permitted. Any other type of behavior shall result in termination of the visit and a disciplinary. Inmates shall sit on one side of the table while their visitors sit on the other side.
15. Any criminal conduct by a visitor or active warrant may result in arrest.
16. If a visitor leaves the visiting area, they shall not be allowed to return and continue the visit.
17. Smoking, chewing tobacco and gum are prohibited during visiting.
18. The drinking fountain and public bathrooms may only be used by visitors, and are off limits to inmates.
19. Visiting is a right guaranteed by Minimum Standards. Outside contact visiting is a privilege and not a right. Visits may be terminated for violations of any visiting rule, and may result in a Disciplinary Action Report. The DAR may result in the loss of one or all of the following:
a. Temporary or permanent loss of outside contact visits. b. Loss of good time/work time credits.
F. Search of Visitors
1. When there is a reasonable suspicion that a visitor may be concealing contraband, probable cause to justify a search shall be submitted in writing to the Facility Captain or Team Commander. Upon approval of the strip search, the following steps shall be taken:
a. The Deputy shall advise the visitor that they shall not be allowed to enter the facility or grounds for a visit without submitting to an unclothed search.
b. The deputy shall advise the visitor of their right to refuse an unclothed search.
c. In the event the visitor refuses the search, the visitor shall be allowed to leave the facility, losing the visiting privilege on that date only.
d. In the event the visitor agrees to the unclothed search, the visitor shall be required to sign a Consent to Search form.
TRGConsulting
E.20

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page86 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page56 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.10

2. A memorandum shall be written by the deputy conducting the search of the visitor indicating not only the reason for the search, but what, if anything, is found. The Consent to Search form shall be attached with the incident report and forwarded to the Team Commander.
G. Special Visits
1. The Watch Supervisor MAY approve a special visit for persons who have traveled from out of county and arrive before or after regular scheduled visiting hours. This is a one-time authorization. The visitor shall be informed that any future visits shall be at the prescribed times.
2. The Facility Captain may approve a special visit for any unforeseen circumstances that arise which preclude a person from visiting during regular hours or using regular visiting facilities.
3. A cursory pat search may be conducted with the permission of the visitor.
4. All visitors are required to satisfactorily clear the metal detector prior to being authorized to visit.
H. Intra-Jail Visiting
1. Intra-jail visiting is granted to inmates who meet the following requirements. a. Inmates must be legally married to each other. It is the responsibility of the inmates to provide proof of their marriage. This policy does not include common law marriages. b. Both inmates must have been in custody over 30 consecutive days in the Monterey County Jail. c. To be eligible, inmates shall not have any in-custody incidents, disciplinary action reports, or crime reports during the previous 30-day period.
2. Rules for intra-jail visiting:
a. Request must be in writing to the Administrative Commander. b. A maximum of one intra-jail visit shall be authorized during any four week
period. c. The visit shall not exceed thirty minutes. d. Intra-jail visiting shall be held on Wednesday evening between 6:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. (NOTE: contact visits are not authorized.) e. Inmates who have been denied an intra-jail visit may re-apply if they later
become eligible. f. Any incident/crime report/D.A.R. on either inmate after an intra-jail visit has
been approved shall cause the intra-jail visit to be canceled.
Procedures for Use of the Attorney Visiting Rooms
A. Attorney rooms are available for official visits with inmates by attorneys, probation officers, social workers, investigators, etc., at any time
B. Official visitors shall sign the Inmate Visitor Log located in the lobby. The Correction Specialist assigned to the lobby shall enter all official visits into CJIS as a permanent record. The Inmate Visitor Log shall be retained by the Corrections Supervisor assigned to First Watch for 30 days, after which time it shall be given to the Support Services Commander for filing.

TRGConsulting
E.21

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page87 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page57 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
C. The employee assigned to the Lobby shall verify the identity of the official visitor prior to admittance into the attorney rooms. Official visitors shall be prepared to show identification to validate their official status if they are not known. If an attorney does not have the necessary identification in their possession, every attempt shall be made to establish proper identification by phone or other methods available so as not to hinder an authorized visit.
D. If the official visit is for a female inmate, the visitor shall wait between N103 and N104 until a deputy can escort them into the Women’s Section. Control 3 shall advise the floor deputy of the visit. The deputy shall ensure that the inmate is secured in the attorney visiting room.
E. If the official visit is for an inmate in the Men’s Section, the lobby employee shall advise Control 1 to admit the official visitor into the Men’s attorney rooms.
F. Lobby personnel shall notify Control 8 of the inmate’s name and location. Control 8 shall notify the appropriate housing deputy to have the inmate brought to the attorney room.
G. Interviews shall take place in the attorney visiting rooms on a first come/first serve basis. If the attorney visiting rooms are full, visitors may be offered the use of the regular visiting area (on a non-contact basis) or wait until an attorney visiting room is available.
H. Security Assessment Precautions: Attorneys or other official visitors may request the inmate be restrained during the visit. Justification for the request shall be based upon their knowledge of the inmate’s history, conduct, or potential for violence.
1. No inmate shall be unnecessarily restrained.
2. Restraints shall be selectively applied only to inmates who have a history of violence/acting out, or whom the attorney has a reasonable belief may become violent or act out in a harmful manner during the visit.
3. Deputies shall brief the attorney or other official visitor when they know the inmate is exhibiting signs of violence or there are potential risks to the visitor’s personal safety.
4. Attorneys or other official visitors shall complete a Request for Restraint form, stating the reasons for restraining the inmate. The form shall be signed by the requestor and filed in the inmate file.
5. Restraint options:
a. Unrestrained - The inmate is brought to the attorney visiting room without restraints and will be locked in the room with the attorney.
b. Restrained - The inmate is locked in the attorney room in restraints. Restraints may include wall shackle, handcuffs, leg irons, belly-chain, or a combination thereof. The least amount of restraint possible should be used based on the circumstances of each visit.
c. Non-contact - Conversations are through the telephone. A pass-through is available for paperwork the inmate needs to sign.
d. Deputy presence - Upon special arrangements, a deputy will be present inside the room. This is only for extremely violent persons and when
TRGConsulting
E.22

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page88 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page58 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
confidentiality has been waived. The attorney and the inmate shall first provide a signed waiver.
I. Communication Equipment
1. Telephone - Attorney rooms are equipped with a wall-mounted telephone. When the phone receiver is picked up, it automatically rings into control 1 or control 3, depending on the location of the attorney room. The deputy will answer the telephone as soon as possible. If control does not pick up the phone within seven rings, and there is not an emergency, the official visitor should hang up the receiver and try again.
a. The telephone is not considered a part of the emergency equipment. However, if the receiver is knocked off of the phone, and no voice contact is made, the appropriate Control will radio for deputies to respond to the attorney room to investigate.
b. Phone extension #5550 in Control #8 is reserved for calls from the attorney rooms. This phone shall not be used for routine calls.
2. Silver push button - (located by the door frame). This is an emergency alarm. It rings directly into Control #1. When depressed, a light flashes above the attorney room door. When depressed, deputies shall respond to the attorney room immediately. This feature is not available in the Women’s Section.
3. Duress alarm (red button) - This is the primary emergency alarm. A red button is located on the wall beside the table, and on the back wall. It rings directly into Control. Deputies shall respond immediately on an emergency status.
J. Security and Safety Issues
1. In the Men’s Section, the official visitor shall sit on the door side of the table, and the inmate on the far side of the table. The visitor is to be next to the duress alarm mounted on the wall next to the table.
2. In the Women’s Section, the attorney shall sit against the far wall, with the inmate closest to the door as the duress alarm is located on the far wall. All chairs in the interview rooms shall be made of plastic.
3. The door to the attorney visiting room shall be locked when in use to prevent escapes.
4. Visitors must remain alert to signs of potential violence. They are encouraged to initiate emergency procedures when they feel uncomfortable.
5. Officials should request assistance if they become concerned for their safety. Rapid speech, an increase in voice volume, agitation, gesturing, clenching of hands, threats, etc. are signs of potential violence
6. The visitors should remain calm and try to diffuse the situation until deputies arrive.
7. The visitor should keep as much distance as possible from the inmate. Do not block the doorway of the room, as deputies will enter to take control.
TRGConsulting
E.23

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page89 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page59 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.11

8. When deputies arrive, the visitor needs to remain out of the way so that deputies may control the situation.
9. Injuries shall be reported to the Watch Supervisor and to the employer.
10. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Office has a no hostage policy.
K. Emergency Response
1. Control 1 shall notify deputies of an emergency situation whenever the alarms are depressed (refer to Communication Equipment - Section 1116.10 (J) above)
2. First responders to the Men’s Section/Attorney Visiting Rooms shall include the K-Pod housing deputy, one dorm deputy, and one receiving deputy. Emergency responders to the Women’s Section Attorney Visiting Rooms shall include the two Women’s Section deputies and the K-Pod housing deputy. Emergency responders shall obtain control, secure and remove the inmate from the area if necessary and advise status via the radio.
3. Secondary responders include other available personnel until such time as a Code 4 is received. The responsibility of second responders is as follows: a. Secure the scene pending further investigation. b. Ascertain the status of the visitor and respond to any medical needs. c. Obtain a list of all witnesses. d. Other duties as directed by the watch supervisor.
L. Incident Investigation and Follow-up
1. The Receiving Sergeant shall respond to the attorney visiting room and take charge of the investigation. He/she shall determine whether or not to call the Investigations Division. The supervisor shall make notifications of the incident to include: a. Victim’s employer (if applicable) b. Victim’s family (upon request) c. On-duty Commander d. Captain e. Chief of the Custody Operations Bureau
2. The receiving sergeant shall ensure that all crime reports and other internal reports are completed.
3. The receiving sergeant shall complete an Injury Investigation Report (SO 100 ADM) in accordance with the Department’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Worker’s Compensation documents are the responsibility of the victim’s employer.
Rules for Attorneys, Investigators, and Legal Assistants.

A. Attorneys, law firms, and legal assistance agencies shall be responsible for the actions of their investigators, law students, and legal assistants.
B. Investigators shall be authorized to visit inmates. Investigators include:
1. Law enforcement officers.

TRGConsulting
E.24

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page90 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page60 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2. Investigators for the District Attorney and Public Defender’s Office.
3. Private Investigators who are licensed pursuant to provisions of the California Business and Professions Code.
C. Legal Assistants - A law firm or legal assistance agency may designate other individuals to aid them in the legal representation of inmates. The category of “Legal Assistant” includes those persons called “Legal Worker” or “Paralegals” and includes non-certified law students and non-licensed investigators.
D. An attorney may appoint two persons as Legal Assistants. The firm or agency shall notify the Custody Operations Bureau in writing of designated individuals.
E. Persons not designated in the foregoing classifications shall only be permitted to visit with the inmate during normal visiting hours in the visiting area used for regular visits in accordance with the rules relating to public visits with inmates.
F. Interviews shall be for a bona fide purpose and are limited to the following:
1. Interviews with clients represented by the attorneys.
2. Interviews with the prospective client who has requested an interview with the attorney or his agent or which has been requested by the family of the inmate.
3. Interviewing a witness relating to a case that an attorney is handling for another client.
G. The following are rules violations:
1. Communication with inmates other than the inmate indicated at the time of registration. Should another interview be necessary, the party shall notify the control deputy via telephone of the inmate’s name. A deputy will respond to the interview room with the inmate requested.
2. Unnecessary physical contact.
3. Entrance into an unauthorized area.
4. Failure to follow the instructions of the deputy.
5. Disrespect to jail staff.
6. Bringing contraband into the jail (4573.5, 4573.6, 4574 PC).
7. Altering identification to gain entrance to the jail or allowing another person to utilize identification other than their own in order to gain access to the jail (4570.5 PC).
8. Theft or damage to property (484, 4600 PC).
9. Instituting or aiding in a disturbance in jail or a violation of jail rules (404.6 PC).
10. Extorting money or favors from jail personnel or inmates (519 PC).
11. Aiding in the escape or attempted escape of any inmate (4532 PC).
TRGConsulting
E.25

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page91 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page61 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
12. Providing weapons or information on weapons to any inmate (4574 PC).
13. Committing any act or aiding or abetting another in the commission of any act, which is in violation of law or jail regulations.
14. Attorneys or their representatives shall not solicit or advertise in the jail except as provided by the Business and Professions Code.
15. If an employee has reasonable suspicion that an attorney, investigator, or legal assistant has violated a rule of the institution, he/she shall bring the matter to the immediate attention of the on-duty sergeant. If justified, the on-duty sergeant shall meet with the employee and the accused party against whom the charge is lodged in an attempt to determine whether the allegation of a rule violation has occurred. The on-duty sergeant shall also seek information from other individuals who may have information relevant to the allegations.
a. Should the sergeant find probable cause to sustain the allegation of the rule violations, the party against whom the charges were lodged will be immediately barred from access to the jail.
b. The sergeant shall prepare a written report of the allegations, the investigation, and findings. The report shall immediately be forwarded to the on-duty Commander.
c. Upon receipt, the Commander shall send a copy of the report to the Captain. The Captain may conduct an independent investigation.
d. The Captain shall forward all documentation, along with his recommendations, to the Chief of the Custody Operations Bureau.
16. Use of cameras by attorneys, investigators, or legal assistants may be allowed with approval of the on-duty Commander. Tape recorders and cameras shall be inspected before being allowed into the Attorney Visiting Room.
17. All persons are subject to inspection of their persons and possessions (including but not limited to purses, brief cases, etc.) prior to entry into the attorney visiting room. “Strip” or “body” searches of the person may only be authorized when there is a reasonable suspicion that contraband may be present. Facts supporting the suspicion shall be in writing and approved by the on-duty sergeant prior to initiating a strip search. If an attorney refuses to submit to the strip search, he/she shall be allowed a non-contact visit. All documents shall be forwarded to the Facility Commander.
18. Attorneys shall not leave such items as pens, magazines, books, any metal objects, etc., with the inmate except by approval of the on-duty sergeant. Transcripts, copies of legal pleadings, police reports, or other legal paperwork regarding the inmate’s case may be left with the inmate upon termination of the interview, but shall not contain paper clips or metal fasteners and shall be approved by the on-duty sergeant.
19. Deputies may inspect written material to be left with the inmate. Inspections shall be sufficient to meet the security needs of the facility and may include, but are not limited to, careful searches for metal or plastic objects and for signs of possible impregnation of paper with contraband substances. Deputies inspecting such written or printed material shall not read the contents thereof. Should the
TRGConsulting
E.26

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page92 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page62 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.12 1116.13 1116.14

material be read inadvertently, the information therein shall not be revealed, except upon order of the Superior Court.
20. If the deputy conducting the examination believes, upon reasonable suspicion, that the written or printed material is not regarding the inmates’ case, or presents a threat to the security of the facility, he/she shall notify the attorney. The material shall be presented to the on-duty sergeant for full inspection, including reading. The attorney may withdraw the material from submission to the on-duty sergeant or accede to the review. If the examination by the sergeant is accomplished, the material shall only be read to the extent necessary to make a proper determination. Contents shall be kept in strict confidence unless release is ordered by the Superior Court.
21. Employees shall make every effort to handle visits as expeditiously as possible. Disputes or complaints regarding the procedures and policies outlined herein, shall be brought to the attention of the on-duty sergeant.
Voting Registration for Inmates
A. A person entitled to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election (2101 Elections Code).
B. Persons not eligible to vote include:
1. Parolees (C.D.C. and C.Y.A.)
2. Persons certified mentally incompetent by the court
C. An inmate who is eligible to vote and wishes an absentee voter registration may request the Bureau librarian to call the County Elections Department) for the necessary forms.
D. Absentee voter registration forms shall be filled out by the inmate and returned to the librarian as soon as possible.
Supervised Home Confinement
A. Supervised Home Confinement is administered by the Monterey County Probation Department under the provisions of Section 1203.016 of the Penal Code.
B. Inmates may apply for Supervised Home Confinement through the Probation Department or ask deputies for a blank form. Forms are available in Control 5 and the forms room. Completed forms shall be forwarded to the Home Confinement office of the Probation Department.
C. Rule violators will be returned to custody to serve the remainder of their sentence and may lose credit for the good time served on the Program.
Sheriff’s Parole
A. Sheriff’s Parole may be used for the purpose of emergency situations where inmates need extended medical care in the community and Home Confinement is not available. Sheriff’s Parole shall comply with Penal Code Sections 3074 through 3089.

TRGConsulting
E.27

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page93 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page63 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.15 1116.16

B. The Sheriff’s Parole Board shall consist of:
1. The Sheriff, or a designee;
2. A probation officer, or his/her designee;
3. A member from the public, selected by the presiding judge. The public member’s term shall not exceed three years (PC 3075(b)).
C. The contract medical provider shall make a request for parole to the Facility Captain. The Captain shall review the urgency of the request, and notify the sentencing judge of the request.
D. The Sheriff’s Parole Board shall approve or deny the request for parole.
E. The Chief Deputy of the Custody Operations Bureau has the authority to grant parole in emergency situations (PC 3079 (a)).
Work Alternative Program
A. The Work Alternative Program (WAP) is available to non-violent offenders with sentences of 30 days or less. The Program allows offenders to complete their sentence by working for public or non-profit agencies instead of serving the sentence in jail. The Program is administered by Sheriff’s Work Alternative Coordinators under the direction of the Court Services Commander.
B. Defendants may apply for the Program prior to their surrender date. Work assignments will be assigned to the defendants.
C. Violators of the program will be removed from the Program and the judge will be notified.
D. Violators will serve out the remainder of their sentence in jail.
Library Service
A. Library services are provided to inmates in all housing areas. The library is staffed from 0730 to 1530 hours on weekdays.
B. Paperback books for general reading are distributed to the housing units every three weeks. Inmates are expected to turn in old books before new ones are issued. Inmates are allowed a total of four (4) books or three (3) magazines in their cell or in their possession (excluding legal books and materials). Inmates shall be held responsible for each book that they check out.
C. Legal reference materials are available to inmates who wish to gather legal information. Inmates shall submit a written request to the librarian for specific legal material or request access to the law library.
D. Pro Per inmates shall have first priority for use of the library law books. Requests from other inmates shall be considered on a first-come, first serve basis.
E. Copying services are available to inmates at their own expense. Inmates are charged 10 cents per page. Revenues shall be placed into the Inmate Welfare Fund Trust Account.

TRGConsulting
E.28

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page94 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page64 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1116.17 1116.18

F. The library may provide inmates with some legal forms such as modification papers or divorce papers.
Inmate Telephones
G. Arrestees shall be authorized booking telephone calls as required by Penal Code Section 851.5. Phones in the receiving area are available throughout the day except from 0600 hours through 0730 hours when court is being transported out.
H. Telephones are available in all housing units throughout the facility. The computer system automatically turns the telephones in the Main Jail on between 0730 and 2300 hours. On Mainline, telephones are turned on between 0900 and 2300 hours. Telephones may be turned off by phone switches located in the control areas, as necessary.
I. The computer system, located in the Classification Office, records all inmate calls. Inmate abuse, harassment or threats may be investigated through the system.
J. Deputies shall report broken phones to the on-duty sergeant. The on-duty sergeant shall place a service call to Securus at 866-558-2323 or 800-947-0899. The Site number 03712. Sergeants shall notify the Support Services Commander of service problems with the contractor.
K. Public inquires and complaints about the inmates phones and/or phone blocks and payments shall be referred to Securus. The public shall be given Securus’ customer service number (800- 844-6591).
L. Requests from the public to block phone numbers shall be referred to the on-duty sergeant or the Classification Unit.
Inmate Correspondence
A. All legitimate mail sent to and from persons incarcerated in the Monterey County Custody Operations Bureau shall be delivered to the addressee without undue delay.

B. Incoming Mail
1. Mail shall be received through regular channels only. No deputy, employee, or volunteer shall accept incoming or outgoing mail for an inmate
2. Mail shall be distributed to inmates on weekdays (excluding holidays).
3. The mail clerk shall determine whether the mail is for an inmate who is not in custody. Mail for an inmate who is not in custody shall be returned to the sender without being opened or the stamps removed. Mail that has no return address and the inmate is not in custody shall be shredded.
4. If the inmate is in custody, the mail clerk shall remove the stamps, write the housing location on the envelope, and sort the various mail by housing sections.
5. All non-privileged incoming mail shall be opened and inspected for contraband.

TRGConsulting
E.29

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page95 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page65 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
C. Restrictions on Incoming Mail
1. Mail that contains unauthorized items shall be returned to the sender. Prohibited items include: a. Blank paper, drawing paper or blank cards sent in to be mailed out. b. Postage stamps. c. Stickers on the envelope or inside the envelope/letters. d. Photographs larger than 5 x 7 inches. e. Photographs containing violent, sexually suggestive or unclothed women/men, or gang symbols. f. Items that are pasted, glued, laminated, or contain glitter. g. Polaroid pictures. h. Plastic greeting cards or phone cards. i. Musical cards designed to chime when opened j. Mail order catalogs.
2. Personal packages SHALL NOT be accepted.
3. Multiple letters, newspapers, magazines, etc., that have been mailed to another address and have been packaged in a larger envelope and forwarded shall not be accepted.
4. Only newspapers, magazines, or books mailed directly from the publisher or Internet publisher (Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, etc.) shall be accepted. Materials sent from a bookstore shall not be accepted. Only paperback books shall be permitted.
D. Returning Inmate Mail to the Sender
1. Unauthorized mail shall be stamped “Return to Sender” and the reason for rejection indicated on the envelope.
2. If the envelope has been opened, or the stamp removed, the mail clerk shall place the contents in a Departmental envelope along with an explanation for rejection. The envelope shall be sealed and mailed to the sender.
3. Inmates shall be notified, in writing, when mail is rejected and why.
4. Unauthorized mail shall not be placed in the inmate property room pending their release.
E. Money Received in the Mail
1. The mail clerk shall list all money orders received through the jail on the Money Order Log Form and stamp the back of the money order with the endorsement stamp. At the end of the day the mail clerk shall total the Money Order Log Form. The form and money orders shall be given to the receiving cashier for posting.
2. When the inmate’s name and/or booking number is not noted on the money order, the mail person processing the check shall write the information on the check to ensure that the money is posted to the correct inmate’s account..
3. Personal checks, payroll checks, tax refund checks, child welfare checks, unemployment checks, etc. shall be returned to the sender whenever possible. If
TRGConsulting
E.30

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page96 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page66 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
unable to return, the check shall be placed in the inmate’s property, the inmate notified, and a notation made on the inmate’s booking sheet.
F. Legal Mail
1. Legal mail is defined as correspondence from or to state and federal courts, any member of the State Bar or holder of public office, and the State Board of Corrections (reference Minimum Standards 1063). Legal mail is determined by the return address on the outside of the envelope. Questions as to whether or not a letter is legal mail shall be referred to the Inmate Services Sergeant
2. Legal mail shall only be opened in the presence of the inmate.
3. Deputies shall not read legal mail; however, it may be handled to search for contraband, cash, checks, or money orders.
4. A report shall be prepared whenever legal mail is opened in error. The report shall state the circumstances surrounding the opening of the correspondence. Copies of the report shall be distributed to the inmate, Inmate Services Sergeant, and Support Services Commander.
G. Mail Delivery to Housing Units
1. The housing unit deputy is responsible for picking up the mail in the lobby.
2. Housing deputies shall distribute mail to inmates in a timely manner.
3. The housing deputy shall deliver mail only to the addressee as identified by their wristband.
H. Outgoing Inmate Mail
1. Deputies shall collect inmate outgoing mail daily by 2300 hours. Outgoing mail shall be placed in the mail slot in the lobby. Deputies shall ensure that letters have the proper return address during collection. Inmate mail shall include the inmate’s name and booking number and the Jail return address.
Monterey County Jail P.O. Box 809 Salinas, CA 93902-0809
2. Mail without a completed return address shall be opened to determine to whom the correspondence belongs. If unable to make this determination, the mail shall be shredded.
3. Deputies shall not pass mail from one inmate to another. All letters shall be stamped and sent through the U.S. Mail.
4. There shall be no pictures or drawings on outgoing mail. Envelopes with drawings shall be returned to the inmate.
I. No Fund Mail.
1. Inmates with less than $1.00, or inmates restricted from ordering commissary, are authorized to send out two free letters per week to family or friends. Inmates
TRGConsulting
E.31

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page97 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page67 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
with less than $1.00 on their books may send an unlimited number of legal mail at no cost.
2. The mail clerk shall process “no fund” mail Monday through Friday (holidays excluded). The mail clerk shall maintain a log of “no fund” mail to prevent inmates from fraudulently gaining this privilege. The log shall be kept from Saturday to Friday. If it is determined that an inmate has sent out the quota for the week, the additional mail shall be returned to the inmate with a note stating that the inmate has exceed the authorized limit for the week.
3. If an inmate has funds to buy stamps, the mail clerk shall return the mail to the inmate, advising him/her to buy stamps.
J. Contraband Received in the Mail
1. Mail shall be closely inspected to prevent illegal drugs and contraband from entering the facility. Drugs may be concealed under the stamp, sealed in the envelope flap, in the seam of the envelope, or in greeting cards glued together.
2. The mail clerk shall notify the on-duty watch sergeant when illegal contraband is found in the mail. The on-duty sergeant shall assign a deputy to test the drugs and investigate the case. The on-duty sergeant shall decide whether to call in Investigations. The assigned deputy shall write a crime report.
1116.19 Inmate Grievance Procedure
A. It is the policy of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office Custody Operations Bureau that the inmate grievance process shall be utilized in order to provide an expedient and appropriate resolution to a complaint at the lowest possible level, and also allow for appeal to the next level of review.
1. All inmate grievances shall start as a written Grievance by the inmate.
2. Grievances that allege staff misconduct shall not be directly responded to by the grieved employee. The employee's supervisor shall investigate the complaint and respond to the inmate.
3. If upon review of the Grievance the sergeant feels the Grievance alleges serious misconduct by an employee, the Grievance shall be forwarded to the Bureau Captain for proper assignment. The Captain can elevate the Grievance to the level of a Citizen's Complaint or an internal affairs investigation if appropriate.
4. The inmate grievance process is an avenue for an inmate to grieve and resolve issues of confinement. The goal is to resolve complaints at the lowest level. Issues of complaints against employees can be at the level of a citizen’s complaint. An inmate may request and receive a citizen’s complaint form if so requested. All complaints will be reviewed and appropriately investigated.
B. It is the policy of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office Custody Operations Bureau that an inmate may file and have resolved, within a reasonable amount of time, a grievance relating to any act, policy or condition of confinement.
TRGConsulting
E.32

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page98 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page68 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
C. Grievance Process:
1. Inmates who wish to grieve a condition of confinement may submit an Inmate Grievance Form within ten days from the date of the incident relating to the grievance.
a. Response to the grievance will be to the author of the grievance. b. Anonymous or “group” grievances without an author will receive no
response. c. All grievance responses shall be in writing.
2. Inmate Grievance Forms shall be made available upon request. A blank form is provided in the Inmate Information Handbook.
a. Grievances shall be handled at the lowest level possible. b. The deputy requested to provide the Grievance Form shall determine if the
inmate’s grievance can be resolved at that time by taking the appropriate action. c. If the grievance cannot be resolved at line staff level, the inmate shall be provided an Inmate Grievance Form. The deputy shall provide the necessary information or instructions for the proper completion of the form.
3. The inmate shall sign and date the completed grievance form and place the form into the housing unit’s Grievance Box.
4. The sergeant responsible for each housing unit will inspect the Grievance Box at least twice per shift and will remove any grievance. a. The sergeant shall log the grievance onto the Grievance log form. b. Sergeants shall review and assign investigation of the grievance to the appropriate level or team for resolution.
5. The designated investigating deputy shall make a recommendation that the grievance is either resolved or unresolved.
a. If the grievance is resolved, an explanation of the resolution shall be provided.
b. Should the grievance be unresolved, the steps taken to resolve the grievance shall be documented on the grievance and forwarded to the next level for resolution.
6. All resolved grievances shall be forwarded to the responsible team sergeant who shall review and sign them prior to distributing copies to the appropriate parties.
7. A formal written reply to the grievance shall be forwarded to the grieving inmate within ten calendar days of the original complaint.
8. If the grievance has not been resolved within ten calendar days, the Team Commander having jurisdiction over the grievance shall be responsible to investigate and determine the reason why the grievance has not been completed in a timely manner and shall ensure its completion.
9. An inmate may file a complaint with the County’s Equal Opportunity Office, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, and/or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. County ordinance prohibits any retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint with the EOO, DFEH and /or EEOC Offices.
TRGConsulting
E.33

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page99 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page69 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
D. The original grievance and copy of the written complaint shall be placed in the inmate file, a copy to the inmate and a copy to both the Team Commander and the Facility Captain.
E. If the grievance is the result of an act or omission by an allied agency, i.e. medical complaint, or commissary complaint, or discrimination/sexual harassment complaint, the Facility Commander or his designee shall coordinate the investigation with the involved parties.
F. All grievances shall be processed according to policy. Failure to respond to a grievance or destroying a grievance is an act of negligence of duty and subject to disciplinary action.
G. Right of Appeal – If an inmate is dissatisfied with the grievance resolution, an appeal may be made to the next highest level by way of a letter of appeal. This letter shall be directed to the appropriate person in the chain of command. The final appeal is the Chief Deputy of the Custody Operations Bureau.
H. Special Information:
1. This policy and procedure does not preclude the right of any inmate to communicate confidentially with a Commander, Captain, Chief Deputy of the Custody Operations Bureau and/or the Sheriff.
2. A copy of any grievance involving complaints of discrimination or harassment shall be forwarded to the Team Commander. This copy shall not include any findings/recommendations or reviews and dispositions. The Captain or the Chief will make the determination as to whether a grievance will be forwarded to the EOO. The Team Commander or the Captain will complete the redacting and copying of the grievance. The grievance will then be forwarded to the County’s Equal Opportunity Office. The original copy of the grievance shall be investigated and responded to in the same manner as other grievances.
I. Misuse of the Grievance Procedure:
1. Inmates who file excessive, unfounded or frivolous grievances may have their right to file further grievances limited to one grievance per week.
2. Replies to grievances determined to be unfounded or frivolous shall show documentation stating why it was so determined.
3. Due to health and safety issues associated with medical grievances, inmates who file repetitive medical grievances claiming “absent medical concern” shall continue to be considered, despite their repetitious nature. They can, however be limited to one grievance per week.
4. Inmates may not grieve the decision on a previous grievance, regarding the same matter, once all levels of resolution have been exhausted.
Additional Additional/Changes Since Last Revision of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual. The following changes have occurred since the last revision of the manual:
• Another early release program has been provided related to PC Section 4018 (3-day) release. The Sheriff’s Office meets with the Presiding Judge at the end of each month to obtain a 5-day early release (or 10% of sentence, ten days through fifty days release) under PC Section 4024.1.
TRGConsulting
E.34

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page100 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page70 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT • Since October 2011, the Sheriff’s Office has revamped the Release on Own Recognizance (OR) program
to include first time felons for 10851 VC, 11350 H.S., Penal Code Section 487 and few other nonviolent/non-serious crimes. This results in a savings of an average of 200 days per month during which a person waiting for arraignment normally would occupy a bed. This is to compensate somewhat for the influx of AB 109 inmates. Prevention of the Disproportionate Confinement of Minority Populations. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Office formally monitors the entire continuum of services to be certain that minority populations are not treated differently in any respect. Specifically, proactive steps have been taken for the last ten years to be certain that there is not a disproportionate confinement of minorities. This is accomplished by assuring that minority populations receive the maximum possible benefits from all of the services in the continuum. Monitoring occurs during quarterly meetings of senior staff at which time statistics relating to the confinement of minorities are reviewed in great detail. Adjustments are made when necessary.
TRGConsulting
E.35

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page101 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page71 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

F. Analysis of Local Trends and Characteristics.

Introduction. This section is an analysis of local trends and characteristics that influence planning assumptions about future detention system growth. Different factors that influence change, including projected population increases (including those associated with AB 109), current and projected inmate populations and program costs based on continuation of current policies are measured. Projections of alternative policies or programs on inmate population growth and program costs, as well as observed factors that could affect the level of criminal activity in the jurisdiction including trends in felony and misdemeanor arrests and trends in average daily populations of detention facilities.

These population indicators will assist in determining the design, security level (i.e. minimum-security, medium-security, maximum-security, disciplinary segregation, administration segregation and protective custody) and type of detention beds required in a new or expanded facility. Discussions of the impact of alternative policies or programs on inmate population growth and program costs point toward exploring alternative methods to control and manage offender populations.1

Projection of Average Daily Population (ADP). The purpose of these projections is to forecast the average daily population (ADP) for Monterey County adult detention for calendar years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. This will allow the determination of future adult detention facility beds needs.

A. The following information is available from Monterey County Jail records for calendar years 2008 through 2010:

1.) Detention days per calendar year; 2.) Average Daily Population (ADP); and 3.) Average Length of Stay (ALS).

B. The following summaries were prepared from the available data:

1.) Annual number of admissions to the Monterey County Jail from 2008 through 2010 are shown on the following table.
Table F.1 Admissions 2008 – 2010

Year 2008 2009 2010

Admissions 14,155 13,515 13,266

Source: Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Custody Operations Bureau. November 2011.
2.) Number of detention days (person-days)2 served in the Monterey County Jail (presentenced and sentenced) from 2008 to 2010 (illustrated in Table F.2 on the next page).

1 Please see Section E. Programs. 2 Annual detention days equal the total number of days served in detention by all of the inmates detained during
that year. If inmate #1 serves four days in the detention facility, inmate #2 serves six days and inmate #3 serves five days, then the inmates combined served a total of fifteen detention days. The number of days served by any inmate during the calendar year is equal to the number of days that elapsed between his or her date of admission and their date of release. If an inmate was received before the start of the year, the annual number of days that they serve is measured from the beginning of the year to the date of release. If an inmate is received, but not released by the end of the year, the annual number of days that they serve is measured from the date of admission to the end of the year. AB 109 admissions were estimated using court records.

TRGConsulting

F.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page102 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page72 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table F.2 Detention Days 2008 - 2010

Year 2008 2009 2010

Detention Days 593,095 633,923 564,642

Source: Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Custody Operations Bureau. Calculations by TRG Consulting. November 2011.

C. Projections of the Monterey County Jail population were determined by comparing ratios of admissions and detention day data to the County population for 2008 through 2010. The ratios then were multiplied by the projected county population for calendar years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. The following population figures were used.

Figures from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population are depicted in the following table.

Table F.3 Monterey County Population 1950 – 2010

Calendar Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. November 2011.

County Population 130,498 198,351 250,071 292,100 356,800 403,946 415,057

The California Department of Finance has provided intercensal estimated population data for calendar years 2008 through 2010.

Table F.4 Monterey County Intercensal Population Estimates 2008 - 2010

Calendar Year

County Population

2008 2009 2010

405,660 410,370 415,057

Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. November 2011.

The projection of Monterey County's population growth from 2020-2050 is presented in Table F.5 on the following page.

TRGConsulting

F.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page103 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page73 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table F.5 Projected Monterey County Population 2020 - 2050

Calendar Year

County Population

2020

476,642

2030

529,145

2040

584,878

2050

646,590

Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. November 2011.

Forecasting Adult Detention Facility Admissions. Projections of the Monterey County Adult Detention Facility population required finding the ratio between annual jail data and the Monterey County population for 2008 through 2010.
A. These ratios were found by obtaining the ratio between the annual number of inmates admitted to the jail and the Monterey County population in the same year. The ratio for each year is: Number of Adult Admissions County Population

Table F.6 Ratios: Adult Admissions/County Population 2008 - 2010

Calendar Year

=

2008

=

2009

=

2010

=

Table F.1 Admissions
14,155 13,515 13,266

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

/

Table F.4 County Population

=

/

405,660

=

/

410,370

=

/

415,057

=

Ratio
0.0348938 0.0329337 0.0319619

B. The data indicates that it is necessary to identify the low, median and high ratios in the series and then calculate the arithmetic average of all of the ratios.

Low Median Average High

0.0319619 0.0329337 0.0332631 0.0348938

The average was determined as follows:
Table F.7 Determination of the Average Jail Ratio

Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010

Ratio

=

0.0348938

0.0329337

0.0319619

Average

0.0997893

=

0.0332631

3

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

TRGConsulting

F.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page104 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page74 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This procedure is one of examining historic inmate data for an estimate of the low, median, average and high rate of probable admissions per unit of population that occurred during the data years. Once this range in the rate of probable admissions per unit of population has been estimated, then the number of future admissions can be estimated by multiplying these ratios (low, median, average and high) by the projected population of the service area (Monterey County) as determined from data provided by the Demographic Research Unit of the California Department of Finance.

C. The projected number of adult offender admissions in the future to the Monterey County Adult Detention Facility (assuming a continuation of present practices in the law enforcement and judicial systems) was determined by multiplying the forecasted Monterey County population by the low, median, average and high ratios (number of adult offenders divided by the County population) as calculated from the adult offender data above.

1.) Projected number of adult admissions to the Monterey County Adult Detention Facility (assuming continuation of present practices):

Table F.8 Projected High, Average, Median and Low Admissions to Adult Detention Facility 2020 - 2050

Year

Projected County Population

2020

476,642

2030

529,145

2040

584,878

2050

646,590

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Low

x 0.0319619

x

15,234

x

16,912

x

18,694

x

20,666

Median 0.0329337
15,698 17,427 19,262 21,295

Average 0.0332631
15,855 17,601 19,455 21,508

High 0.0348938
16,632 18,464 20,409 22,562

Forecasting Adult Detention Days.

A. The potential number of detention days that would be served by adult offenders per year in a future adult detention facility was projected by the same procedures used to project adult offender admissions. First it was necessary to obtain the ratio between the number of detention days served per year from 2008 through 2010 and the Monterey County population during the same years. The formula is:

Detention Days Served County Population

Table F.9 Ratios: Detention Days/County Population 2008 – 2010

Calendar Year

=

2008

=

2009

=

2010

=

Table F.2 Detention Days
593,095 633,923 564,642

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

/

Table F.4 County Population

=

/

405,660

=

/

410,370

=

/

415,057

=

Percentage
1.4620495 1.5447596 1.3603963

TRGConsulting

F.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page105 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page75 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

B. An examination of this series of ratios indicates that, again, it is useful to identify the lowest and highest ratios and then calculate the arithmetic median and average of the ratios.

Low Median Average High

1.3603963 1.4620495 1.4557351 1.5447596

The average was determined as shown in Table F.10 below.
Table F.10 Determination of the Average of Detention Day Ratios

Calendar Year
2008 2009 2010

Ratio

=

1.4620495 1.5447596 1.3603963

Average

4.3672054

=

1.4557351

8

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

C. To obtain the projected number of detention days served by adult offenders in the future Monterey County Adult Detention Facility (again, assuming the continuation of present practices) multiply the forecasted Monterey County population by the low, median, average and high ratios (potential detention days divided by the county population) as calculated from Monterey County Jail data.

Table F.11 Projected Low, Median, Average and High Detention Days
for Adult Detention Facility 2020 – 2050

Year

Projected County Population

2020 2030 2040 2050

476,642 529,145 584,878 646,590

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Low
1.3603963 648,422 719,847 795,666 879,619

Median
1.4620495 696,874 773,636 855,121 945,347

Average
1.4557351 693,865 770,295 851,427 941,264

High
1.5447596 736,297 817,402 903,496 998,826

Average Daily Population (ADP) and Average Length of Stay (ALS).
A. Using the number of adult offender admissions and detention days served per year it is possible to calculate:
Average Daily Population = Total Detention Days Served per Year 365 Days
Average Length of Stay = Total Detention Days Served per Year Number of Admissions per Year

TRGConsulting

F.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page106 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page76 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1.) Since the projected number of detention days served per year was provided in the previous section, the projected average daily population can be obtained using the first formula listed above. The results are illustrated in Table F.12 and Figure F.4.

Table F.12 Projected Average Daily Population 2020 – 2050

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Projected County
Population
476,642 529,145 584,878 646,590

Low
1.360396 648,422 719,847 795,666 879,619

Low Daily Population
365 1,776 1,972 2,180 2,410

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Median
0.915262 696,874 773,636 855,121 945,347

Median Daily
Population
365 1,909 2,120 2,343 2,590

Average
1.455735 693,865 770,295 851,427 941,264

Average Daily
Population
365 1,901 2,110 2,333 2,579

High
1.544760 736,297 817,402 903,496 998,826

High Daily Population
365 2,017 2,239 2,475 2,737

Table F.13 Projected Range of Average Daily Population (ADP) 2020 – 2050

Year

Projected Low ADP

2020

1,776

2030

1,972

2040

2,180

2050

2,410

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Projected Median ADP
1,909
2,120
2,343
2,590

Projected Average
ADP
1,901
2,110
2,333
2,579

Projected High ADP
2,017
2,239
2,475
2,737

Unauthorized Migrants. The data presented in Table F.13 above provides the baseline projection of average daily population that would occur absent other factors that influence these projections. In the case of Monterey County, an additional influential factor must be considered. Population figures used in the baseline projections are based on U.S. Census data that does not include unauthorized migrants and an adjustment is required to account for this additional population.3
B. Population figures used in the baseline projections are based on U.S. Census data that does not include unauthorized migrants. A percentage of increase factor is required to account for this unauthorized population particularly since a large part of the unauthorized population resides in California. The algorithm to estimate the percentage of increase compares the unauthorized migrants in California to the state population. The formula is illustrated on the following page.

3 This needs assessment uses Jeffrey Passel’s term and definition of “unauthorized migrant” to describe an individual who resides in the United States, but is not a U.S. citizen, has not been admitted for permanent residence and is not in a set of specific authorized temporary statuses permitting longer-term residence and work. (See Passel, Van Hook and Bean 2004 for further discussion.) Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses this population because many migrants now enter the country of work using counterfeit documents and thus really are not “undocumented” because they have documents, but not legal documents. While many will stay permanently in the United States, unauthorized migrants are more likely to leave the country than other groups (Van Hook, Passel, Zhang and Bean 2004). “Migrant” rather than “immigrant” is used to highlight this distinction.

TRGConsulting

F.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page107 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page77 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2005 Unauthorized Migrant Population (California) / 2005 Estimated California Population 2,750,000/37,172,015 = X X = 7.4%
This percentage of increase factor of 7.4% for unauthorized migrants should be added to the baseline projections in Table F.13 above. The results are shown in Tables F.14 and F.15

Table F.14 Projected Range of Average Daily Population (ADP) With Unauthorized Migrants Percentage of Increase Factor 2020 - 2050

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Low Projected ADP
1,776 1,972 2,180 2,410

Unauthorized Migrants
7.4%
131.5 145.9 161.3 178.3

Revised Low ADP
1,908 2,118 2,341 2,588

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Median Projected ADP
1,909 2,120 2,343 2,590

Unauthorized Migrants
7.4%
141.3 156.8 173.4 191.7

Revised Median
ADP
2,051 2,276 2,516 2,782

Year

Average Projected ADP

2020 2030 2040 2050
Year

1,901 2,110 2,333 2,579
High Projected ADP

2020 2030

2,017 2,239

2040 2050

2,475 2,737

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Unauthorized Migrants
7.4%
140.7 156.2 172.6 190.8
Unauthorized Migrants
7.4%
149.3 165.7 183.2 202.5

Revised Average
ADP
2,042 2,267 2,505 2,770
Revised High ADP
2,167 2,405 2,659 2,939

TRGConsulting

F.7

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page108 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page78 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table F.15 Projected Range of Average Daily Population (ADP) with Unauthorized Migrant
Percentage of Increase Factor 2020 – 2050

Calendar Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Revised Low ADP 1,908 2,118 2,341 2,588

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Revised Median ADP
2,051 2,276 2,516 2,782

Revised Average ADP 2,042 2,267 2,505 2,770

Revised High ADP 2,167 2,405 2,659 2,939

Thus it can be predicted that the average daily population will range from a low population of 1,908 in 2020 (if the facility is not artificially “capped”) to a high of 2,939 in 2050.
Peaking and Classification. Finally, a peaking and classification factor is used to accommodate the higher "peaks" in adult detention facility population and the classification of incarcerated adults.
Peaks occur when bookings temporarily increase because of such occurrences as increased criminal or gang activity, an increase in crime after parties when adults are chemically impaired, etc. Typically peaking ranges from 10% to 20% depending on the jurisdiction. This report uses the average of 15% for estimating the probable future peaking of the adult detention population.
Proper classification procedures require separation of inmates based on such factors as the inmateʼs potential for violence, gender differences, status, gang affiliation, predatory tendencies, etc. Criminal justice planners typically use a classification factor of between 8% and 15%. This report uses the more conservative classification factor of 10%.
If a peaking and classification factor of 25% is added to the previous calculations, it is predicted that the high projected ADP will range from 2,708 in 2020 to 3,006 beds in 2030; 3,323 beds in 2040; and 3,674 beds in 2050.4 These results are illustrated in Tables F.16 below and Table F.17 on the following page. The projected high ADP is highlighted in yellow on those tables.5

Table F.16 Projected ADP with Peaking and Classification Factors 2020 – 2050 Summary

Calendar Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Revised Low ADP 2,385 2,648 2,927 3,235

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Revised Median ADP
2,563 2,845 3,145 3,477

Revised Average ADP 2,552 2,833 3,132 3,462

Revised High ADP 2,708 3,006 3,323 3,674

4 This statement assumes using the high projections within the range. High projections are used because of the uncertainty brought about by overcrowding in the state prison system and the demands of AB 109. The concern is that state prison inmates will continue to “backup” into county jail systems.
5 The projection methodology used throughout this section originally was developed by The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and has been an accepted projection method use throughout the United States for the last three decades.

TRGConsulting

F.8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page109 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page79 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table F.17 Projected ADP with Peaking and Classification Factors
Total Beds Required 2020 – 2050

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Low Projected ADP
1,908 2,118 2,341 2,588

Peaking & Classification
Factor 25.00%
477
530
585
647

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Median Projected ADP
2,051 2,276 2,516 2,782

Peaking & Classification
Factor 25.00%
513
569
629
695

Year
2020 2030 2040 2050

Average Projected ADP
2,042 2,267 2,505 2,770

Peaking & Classification
Factor 25.00%
510
567
626
692

Year

High Projected ADP

2020 2030 2040 2050

2,167 2,405 2,659 2,939

Source: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

Peaking & Classification
Factor 25.00%
542
601
665
735

Revised Low ADP
2,385 2,648 2,927 3,235
Revised Median
ADP
2,563 2,845 3,145 3,477
Revised Average
ADP
2,552 2,833 3,132 3,462
Revised High ADP
2,708 3,006 3,323 3,674

C. Based on the projected number of detention days served per year in the future Monterey County Adult Detention Facility as calculated in the previous section, the average length of stay has AB 109 been in place can be obtained using the second formula identified previously. Given the previous projections of adult offender admissions and total adult offender detention days, the best single estimate of the average length of stay can be obtained by using the average range of projections of adult offender admissions and detention days.

Average Length of Stay = Total Detention Days Served per Year Number of Admissions per Year

TRGConsulting

F.9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page110 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page80 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The average length of stay during these data years provides the best estimate of the average length of stay during the forecast period.

The range of departure from a low of 41.90 days in 2008 to a high of 46.91 days 2009 can be found in the following table:

Table F.18 Historical Detention Data 2008 – 2010 (with AB 109)

Year 2008

Detention Days Table F.2
593,095

Admissions Table F.1
14,155

Average Daily Population
1,625

Average Length of Stay
41.90

2009 2010

633,923 564,642

13,515 13,266

1,737 1,547

46.91 42.56

Source: Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Custody Operations Bureau. Aggregate: TRGConsulting. November 2011.

This table summarizes the original offender data from which projections have been made. In this table the original admissions and detention days data have been converted to average length of stay using the formula above. The average length of stay ranges from 41.90 days (2008) to 46.91 days (2009). Since it was shown previously that the admissions and days in detention data display no apparent trend in relation to the population of Monterey County during the data years, it can be assumed that any combination of the admissions and detention days data might have occurred during this period. Accordingly, the operating upper limits of the length of stay can be found by pairing the highest number of detention days during the data period (2009) with the lowest number of jail admissions (2010). Similarly, the lowest number of detention days (2010) should be paired with the highest number of jail admissions (2008). Substituting these paired extremes into formula an ALS algorithm results in the following:

Lowest Average Length of Stay Highest Average Length of Stay

2010 / 2008 = ALS Days 564,642 / 14,155 = 39.89
2009 / 2008 = ALS Days 633,923 / 14,155 = 44.78

If past practices continue and calculations include the impact of AB 109, the average length of stay in the Monterey County Adult Detention Facility will fall between 39.89 days and 44.78 days during the projected period. This suggests the importance of an effective and intense aftercare component if programs are to have any long term, lasting impact that results in reduced recidivism.

Shortfall Using the Average Projection. When the 825 existing beds are considered, the additional bed requirements for 2020 through 2040 using the average projection are illustrated in Table F.19 below.

Table F.19 Adult Detention Facility Additional Bed Need 2020 - 2040 (Average)

Year

Additional Beds Needed

2020

1,727 Beds

2030

2,008 Beds

2040

2,307 Beds

Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

TRGConsulting

F.10

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page111 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page81 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The previous table indicates that an additional 2,008 beds will be required in 2030 if the county elects to construct enough beds to meet their twenty-year needs using the average projections.
Please note that it is recommended that Monterey County target the 2030 needs as an immediate requirement since the new adult detention facility will start to become overcrowded almost immediately upon opening should the first phase only consist of enough beds to meet the 2020 needs. The existing severely overcrowded conditions have been exacerbated by the enactment of AB 109.6

Shortfall Using the High Projection. Alternatively, if the high projection is used, the current maximum capacity of only 825 beds requires that the county construct an additional 2,181 beds to meet the 2030 bed need. The bed requirements for 2020 through 2040 using the high projection are illustrated in Table F.20.

Table F.20 Adult Detention Facility Additional Bed Need 2020 - 2040 (High)

Year

Additional Beds Needed

2020

1,883 Beds

2030 2040

2,181 Beds 2,498 Beds

Source. TRGConsulting. December 2011.

The table above indicates that to meet the 2030 need, an additional 2,181 beds will need to be constructed between now and 2030.

6 AB 109, Criminal Justice Alignment, has been modified by AB 117, Criminal Justice Realignment.

TRGConsulting

F.11

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page112 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page82 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

G. Adequacy of Staffing Levels

Introduction. The Monterey County Jail is facing a number of staff related issues. These issues affect the overall security of the facility and the morale of the staff.

Eighty percent of the beds at the Monterey County Jail are in dormitories while eighty percent of the inmates are felons.

Staffing Issues. Detention facilities must be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7) in order to fulfill their mandate to provide safe and secure housing for those inmates under their care. Staff within the Monterey County Jail must be available to receive new bookings in the jail, provide medical care, classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain staff and inmate safety and security, provide recreation and exercise, ensure inmates are fed, transport inmates to court or outside agencies and lawfully release inmates. Due to its nature, a jail cannot simply discontinue operation (e.g. refuse to accept prisoners) if there is not a person available to fill a position. When detention facilities are not staffed adequately, overtime is necessary to cover an unfilled post.

The major staffing issues facing the Monterey County Jail are:

1. While the 2010 inspection report appears to indicate that the jail is staffed adequately, a closer examination of the report reveals that CSA staff only was commenting on the fact that required safety checks were being made.1 CSA staff did not examine the staffing required to safely operate the jail in any detail. As in 2006, it still appears that the staffing provided by the County salary ordinance is based on the rated capacity of the facility, not on how many inmates are actually in custody. There has been no adjustment for the increase in number of inmates or the criminal sophistication of the inmate now in custody.

2. There has not been an updated relief factor calculated for quite some time. For example, employees are due two 15-minute breaks away from their workstation per shift and have to be replaced by another staff member. The position cannot be left vacant. Also, in recent years family medical leave and other factors come into play that should be factored in to provide a realistic relief factor.

3. Minimum staffing is the level of staff required to operate a detention facility in a manner that will provide basic safety and security for the public, staff, and inmates. Minimum staffing levels establish a baseline by which detention facilities may operate, yet often times do not take into consideration the span of control between assigned duties and the actual ability to supervise and manage inmate populations. When a system’s minimum staffing is precariously low, the county is exposed to potential liability because this implies that basic safety and security are no longer protected. Minimum staffing levels are influenced and affected by various factors including facility design and inmate capacity, adequate staffing of necessary POST positions, adequate shift relief factor, inmate profile/classification level and budget constraints. It is important to reiterate that minimum staffing is just that (i.e. minimum staffing to provide basic functions). The baseline staffing should be above minimum staffing. Due to vacancies and other factors, the Monterey County Jail is constantly using overtime to staff up to their self-imposed minimum

1 For example, in the inspection report dated June 10, 2010, the following comments also relate. “Crowding continues to plague the Custody Operations Bureau, which inherently raises unit tensions leading to potential increases in inmate assaults on other inmates and staff. Increased exposure to litigation results in costly lawsuits.” The report goes on to document the overcrowding (i.e. a total of 146 inmates over rated capacity at the time of the inspection).
TRGConsulting
G.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page113 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page83 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
staffing. This level is not adequate to provide basic safety and security for staff and inmates. This situation will be exacerbated by the influx of AB 109 inmates.
4. Vacancies,2 extended periods of leave, and normal staff attrition underscore the importance of maintaining a minimum number of staff. Staff at the Monterey County Jail are leaving for employment at local and surrounding police departments that offer higher pay and enhanced benefits and a variety or other reasons. This has caused a lower than normal experience level of staff and the use of preacademy hires. The workforce needs to level out. With a significant amount of vacant POST positions, the jail has an increased reliance on overtime to meet minimum staffing.
5. Sheriff’s Offices often utilize overtime to cover an unfilled post. This practice can be dangerous since staff may have recently completed a 12-hour shift, when they are required to work additional overtime. There is no way for detention facilities to eliminate all use of overtime; it is a necessary component of staffing a 24-hour a day, 7-day a week operation. However, to save the Custody Bureau money and remove the potential for staff burnout, efforts must be made to reduce the number of overtime hours. To fill a vacancy in Monterey County, the practice has been to have an onsite employee work 4 hours over his normal shift and another employee called in early for 4 hours. This practice required two employees to work 16-hour days. Of additional importance is the 4-hour gap that is left uncovered in the middle of the shift.3 In an emergency situation the facility would be dangerously understaffed. An alternative would be to call or order someone on regular days off to fill the entire shift on overtime whenever possible; however, this is difficult to accomplish because of the severe staff shortage.
6. Supervision is a critical task in any detention facility. Supervisors ensure that policy is followed, tasks are completed, critical decisions are made and exposure to liability from “failure to supervise” claims are limited. In Monterey County, sergeants fill in for line positions when relief is unavailable. This leaves a gap in first line supervision. All vacant sergeant positions4 should be filled and, except for an unusual situation, sergeants should supervise and not fill in for a line vacancy. Even at full authorized staffing, it appears the span of control for sergeants is weak and additional positions for minimum supervision are necessary.
7. Chronic understaffing causes a host of other issues detrimental to the mission of the jail. It lowers morale, employees are unable to take breaks (in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act), employees get “burned out” with mandatory overtime, employees must take “shortcuts” to get the job done and employees are forced to assume collateral duties to allow the facility to function.
8. The current authorized staffing for the Monterey Jail is woefully inadequate. Even if every vacancy were filled with a fully trained staff member, the facility would not have enough staff to meet the minimum staffing, let alone adequate staffing. The current roster carries vacancies, employees on medical leave, employees on light duty, employees on family leave and other assorted reasons for not filling a POST position. Monterey County should aggressively recruit and fill all vacant positions. They should also “over hire” Deputy Sheriffs above the authorized staffing to fill in when a vacancy occurs. Some counties refer to this as “pipeline” hiring. There are always people in the “system” or pipeline from background processing to attending the academy. Rarely does over hiring have a cost associated with it, but there is always cost avoidance for overtime when a vacancy occurs and a new employee is already trained.
9. A review of the current staffing pattern as practiced by the Monterey County Jail and the best practices staffing plan included in the 2006 Staffing Analysis5 indicates that the critical needs are for the extra
2 There were twelve vacancies when this assessment was made. Additionally, the Custody Bureau lost thirty-seven positions (sworn and unsworn) between January 2011 and December 2011.
3 The Custody Bureau “sometimes uses on-duty classification deputies to fill the middle four hours, but most of the time [the post is not filled].”
4 At the time of this assessment, one sergeant was out on long-term illness and one sergeant was scheduled to retire this month (December 2011). This will leave two sergeants positions vacant. Additionally the Custody Bureau lost one captainʼs position and two commanderʼs positions in the budget cuts earlier this year (2011).
5 Monterey County Sheriffʼs Office, Staffing Analysis. Voorhis Associates, Inc. June 21, 2006.
TRGConsulting
G.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page114 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page84 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
staffing in the housing units and for facility-wide escort deputies. These positions will ensure required safety checks are made, there is some level of supervision in the kitchen, laundry and medical areas and adequate staffing is available to respond to emergencies and unusual situations. Recent cuts in staffing have made this situation much worse, thereby exposing the county to additional lawsuits. Recruitment, Selection and Retention. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Department experiences difficulty in the recruitment, selection and retention of detention officers for the following reasons.
• Monterey County deputies’ pay and benefits are less than those that are offered by several local, state and federal agencies for similar positions.
• The Custody Bureau estimates that 93% of the applicants for deputy positions in the Sheriff’s Office fail the background investigation for a number of reasons including financial insolvency, drug use and psychological issues.
While the above difficulties are common in most county detention systems, the poor working conditions and antiquated design of the jail exacerbate Monterey County difficulties. The feeling of draconian confinement and disorientation created by a maze-like layout are more than most potential applicants are willing to bear. Thus, the “need” for a new adult detention facility goes well beyond a simple “need” for additional beds that is, in itself, quite critical. The additional “need” is for a facility that protects the safety of deputies and provides them with a professional environment in which to work. (This is one of the design goals for the new facility and is addressed in Section B, Operational and Design Philosophy.) Historic Factors. The issues addressed in the section above historically have been a concern. As a result, the Sheriff’s command staff has been required to devote a disproportionate amount of time to recruiting, testing, investigating, selecting, mentoring and retaining detention officers. A new facility will go a long way toward easing the recruiting and retention burden placed on senior officers and will allow them to devote more of their energies to law enforcement and inmate rehabilitation issues.
TRGConsulting
G.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page115 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page85 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

H. Ability to Provide Visual Supervision

Introduction.

While visual supervision is

problematic in the existing jail, the new Monterey

County housing units will be designed to enhance

visual supervision as indicated in Section B

Operational and Design Philosophy of this needs

assessment.

Transportation van parked in front of the Monterey County Rehabilitation Facility.

Existing Facility Design. A glaring example of the physical plant limitations in the existing jail is the design of the control or “guard” station, and the ability of staff to directly supervise inmates. At best there is intermittent observation of the inmates. In the Rehabilitation Facility, a Deputy Sheriff must walk into the inmate housing area to see the entire living and shower area. It appears there is an attempt to remedy the problem with the use of cameras. Unfortunately, this is not working well. Cameras should not be used in place of staff, but as a tool for staff in overall security. Unfortunately, staff is not observing the cameras that are in place, because they are overtaxed with other obligations.

New Housing Design. It is envisioned that the new housing units will offer direct visual supervision from unit control into the housing pods and the attached outdoor recreation areas. Similarly, roving officers will provide direct visual supervision of all areas in all pods including the toilet and shower areas. Partitions providing modesty to inmates in the toilet area and the showers will be designed so that inmate’s heads and feet always are visible. There will be no blind corners in the housing pods when observed by the roving officers.

Video, contact and non-contact visiting will be visually observed at all times by officers circulating through the spaces. Again an “open” design will be used to ensure ease of observation in contact visiting. Video and non-contact visiting cubicles will be observed easily by roving officers supplemented by CCTV.

Program spaces including the medical examination room will be observed by those providing the programs and services as well as by roving officers. Again, spaces will be “open” for ease of observation.

Finally, the exterior of the building will be laid out such that visual observation is enhanced. Adequate night lighting and CCTV will aid the direct visual observation of all outside areas including the parking lots.

Adequacy of Staff. As discussed above the design will permit complete visual observation of all interior and exterior spaces in the new Monterey County Adult Detention Facility. Staffing efficiency will be improved by the improved visibility in the new housing units and support spaces. Thus, the staffing mandated by Title 15 will be more than adequate to observe all inmates regardless of the activity in which they are involved. The Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer and the Sheriff and his staff are committed to staffing the new facility as required by Title 15.

TRGConsulting
H.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page116 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page86 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
I. Adequacy of Record Keeping
Introduction. Record keeping at the Monterey County Jail is quite detailed. Not only does jail staff maintain all records required by Title 15, but they also keep additional records to effectively manage the inmate population. Examples include the detailed records relating to overcrowding and early release, inmate management records, information on inmates with mental health needs and logs of those on psychotropic medications, statistics on gang affiliation, historic needs assessments and records relating to the effectiveness of programs (including records of the effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration).
In addition to the above, the Custody Bureau maintains a series of notebooks that include a variety of jail statistics and copies of media coverage related to the Monterey County Jail. These include:
 Monterey County Department of Health; Detention and Rehabilitation; Annual Health, Medical and Nutritional Inspections
 Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; Board of Corrections Biennial Inspections:  Office of the State Fire Marshal; Fire/Life Safety Inspection Report Adult/Juvenile Detention Facilities  Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; Custody Operations Bureau; Historical Newspaper Articles;
February 1978 through December 1990  Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; Custody Operations Bureau; Historical Newspaper Articles;
January 1991 through December 2001  Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; Custody Operations Bureau; Historical Newspaper Articles;
January 2002 through June 2005  Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; Custody Operations Bureau; Statistics of Jail Data  Additional Correctional Facilities Requirements Analysis; Monterey County, California Omni Group;
September 1985  Major Corrections Needs Assessment Study Update; Monterey County October 1987; Omni-Group,
Inc.  Monterey County Jail Needs Assessment and Facilities Master Plan; September 1988  Monterey County Facilities Master Plan; Prepared by ROMA Design Group; June 1989  Monterey County Sheriff’s Office Staffing Analysis; Prepared by Voorhis Associates, Inc.; June 21
2006  County of Monterey Recommended Budgets
Required records maintained by the Custody Bureau include:
• Monterey County Sheriff’s Manual • fiscal records • booking/arrest records • admittance procedures • intake screening records • criminal history records • classification records • classification reviews • release procedures • incident reports • disciplinary records • grievances • population accounting • counseling and casework services plan
TRGConsulting
I.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page117 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page87 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• health care records (including mental health and dental) • psychotropic medication logs • employee files containing health care staff credentials • Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) inspections (including documentation of the resolution of non-
compliance issues) • fire inspections • health inspections • environmental health inspections • building inspections • food service plan • diet menus (including therapeutic diets when ordered) • food preparation temperature logs (to verify food is served at the correct temperatures) • emergency procedures • evacuation plans • construction documents (as available; including “as built” drawings) • historic records and chronology of additions, renovations and modifications to the Monterey County
Jail • room check logs (safety checks) • population accounting to CSA • employee files and records • staff training records • staff assignments (current and historical) • employee records of hours worked including overtime hours • employee records of sick leave • reports of legal actions • annual security review • transportation logs • Title 24 needs assessments (current and historical)
TRGConsulting
I.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page118 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page88 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
J. Compliance with Standards
Introduction. The Monterey County Sheriff’s Office operates a Type II adult detention facility. The facility is used for the detention of males and females pending arraignment, during trial, and upon a sentence of commitment. This facility has a unique physical plant design that complies with minimum standards for local adult detention facilities.1 The facility’s four main housing areas and reception area have a Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) rated capacity of 825 inmates. On any given day, there can be as many as 1,000 inmates in custody. The existing Monterey County Jail faces three significant issues affecting the success of its overall mission and the ability of the Sheriff’s Office to comply with Title 15 and Title 24 standards:
1. poor facility design; 2. severe overcrowding; and 3. understaffing.
Poor Facility Design. The Monterey County Jail is located at 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, California. The original rehabilitation facility was built in 1970 with additions to the jail complex occurring in 1977, 1988, 1993, and 1995. Adult male and female inmates are housed in the facility. The Corrections Standards Authority has given the facility a rated capacity of 825 inmates. This facility has some physical plant limitations that are causes for concern in terms of the safety and security of staff, visitors, volunteers and inmates.
A common thread through all of the four main housing units is the use of the dormitory design. Dormitories are much like military barracks, as opposed to single cell or four-man cellblocks. Dormitories are cheaper to build and theoretically are more cost effective to supervise. Normally, dormitories are for the lowest level of classification. In Monterey County, the jail facility has approximately 80% dormitory beds. The conflict occurs because the Monterey County regularly incarcerates approximately 80% felony sentenced and unsentenced inmates. These are usually the highest level of inmate classification and require single and double cell housing. Jail staff does not have the ability to classify or segregate problem inmates from other inmates or staff.
The type of inmate entering local county jails has changed dramatically since the Monterey County Jail opened in 1970. Courts are releasing non-threatening felons prior to trial. Judges are sentencing more misdemeanants to alternatives to custody. The jail is left with serious felons awaiting trial and sentenced felons awaiting transportation to the state prison system. In some ways, the local jail population is no different than those in state prisons. Local jail populations will become even more similar to state prison populations as the full impact of AB 109 is felt. The design of the housing units at the Monterey County Jail was never intended to house the type of felony inmates it now holds or the type of inmates that will be held as mandated recently by AB 109.
Normally in local detention facilities, there is an area designed as a central or main control. This area does not have the responsibility for inmate supervision. All staff alarms, fire alarms, and perimeter alarms terminate in this area. This area also controls all external doors and gates into the facility, and accounts for all keys. Depending on the design of the facility, other facility-wide responsibilities could be assigned to this position. In the case of a major facility emergency or inmate disturbance, this position would function as a command post. The Monterey County Jail does not have a central control area designed in this manner.
Overcrowding. The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) inspects and rates the Monterey County Jail. Rated capacity means the number of inmate occupants for which a facility’s single and double occupancy cells or dormitories (except those dedicated for health care or disciplinary isolation housing) were planned and designed in conformity to the standards and requirements contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15 and Title 24. The entire Monterey County Jail facility is rated at 825 inmates. As
1 This detention facility is “grandfathered” and therefore only needs to comply with the standards in place at the time each section of the facility was constructed (i.e. the standards in place in 1973 and 1988). There was one minor issue of non-compliance in that the multiple occupancy cells in the female housing unit were rated for four beds but held eight bunks; however, on the day of the inspection the cells were not overcrowded. (Corrections Standards Authority inspection report of June 8, 2010.) The facility would not necessarily comply with todayʼs more restrictive standards.
TRGConsulting
J.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page119 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page89 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
discussed earlier, there can be as many as 1,000 inmates in custody at any given time. There are approximately 13,500 inmates booked into the Monterey County Jail a year.
Overcrowding creates a number of issues that affect staff and inmates, and put the County at risk. Overcrowding causes stress both on inmates and staff. Inmates vs. inmate assaults typically occur more frequently, as do other disciplinary infractions. Overcrowding affects inmates’ mental and physical health by increasing the level of uncertainty with which they regularly cope. There is less space per inmate. In Monterey County there is the possibility of misclassifying inmates based on space rather than security level. (Anecdotal information from staff indicates this occurs occasionally.) Overcrowding reduces the ability to classify. This is further compounded by the dormitory design. Normally, 10% - 15% of the beds should be empty and available for classification spikes as well as routine and emergency maintenance. With the severe overcrowding in the Monterey County Jail, programming is little, to nonexistent.
A review of the Monterey County Jail admissions and daily housing population indicates that, absent a court order, there are few inmates being booked who could be cited and released in lieu of booking. With 80% of the population having some type of felony charge, there is little that can be done to reduce this group. It appears parole violators are not staying an inordinate amount of time in custody, and sentenced felons are moving on to state prison within an acceptable time frame.
Understaffing. The Monterey County Jail is facing many staff related issues. These issues affect the overall security of the facility and the morale of the staff.
As discussed in detail in Section G, Adequacy of Staffing Levels, detention facilities must be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7) in order to fulfill their mandate to provide safe and secure housing for those inmates under their care. Staff within the Monterey County Jail must be available to receive new bookings in the jail, provide medical care, classify and move inmates within the facility, maintain staff and inmate safety and security, provide recreation and exercise, ensure inmates are fed, transport inmates to court or outside agencies, and lawfully release inmates. Due to its nature, a jail cannot simply discontinue operation (e.g. refuse to accept prisoners) if there is not a person available to fill a position. When detention facilities are not staffed adequately, overtime is necessary to cover an unfilled post.
The major staffing issues facing the Monterey County Jail are:
1. It appears that the staffing provided by the County salary ordinance is based on the rated capacity of the facility, not on how many inmates are actually in custody.
2. It appears there has not been an updated relief factor calculated for some time.
3. Baseline staffing should be above minimum staffing. Due to vacancies and other factors, the Monterey County Jail is constantly using overtime to staff up to their self-imposed minimum staffing. This level is not adequate to provide basic safety and security for staff and inmates.
4. Vacancies, extended periods of leave, and normal staff attrition have resulted in a significant amount of vacant POST positions. The jail has an increased reliance on overtime to meet minimum staffing.
5. The extensive use of overtime can be dangerous since staff may have recently completed a shift, when they are required to work additional overtime. Efforts should be made to reduce the number of overtime hours.
6. Supervision is a critical task in any detention facility. Supervisors ensure that policy is followed, tasks are completed, critical decisions are made and exposure to liability from “failure to supervise” claims are limited. In Monterey County, sergeants fill in for line positions when relief is unavailable. This leaves a gap in first line supervision. Even at full authorized staffing, it appears the span of control for sergeants is weak and additional positions for minimum supervision are necessary.
TRGConsulting
J.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page120 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page90 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT 7. Chronic understaffing lowers morale, employees are unable to take breaks (in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act), employees get “burned out” with mandatory overtime, employees must take “shortcuts” to get the job done and employees are forced to assume collateral duties to allow the facility to function. 8. The current authorized staffing for the Monterey Jail is woefully inadequate. Even if every vacancy were filled with a fully trained staff member, the facility would not have enough staff to meet the minimum staffing, let alone adequate staffing. 9. A review of the current staffing pattern as practiced by the Monterey County Jail and the best practices staffing plan included in the recent Staffing Analysis2 indicates that the critical needs are for the extra staffing in the housing units and for facility-wide escort deputies. These positions will ensure required safety checks are made, there is some level of supervision in the kitchen, laundry and medical areas and adequate staffing is available to respond to emergencies and unusual situations. Additionally there should be two additional positions assigned to classification that are not included in the Staffing Analysis.
2 Monterey County Sheriffʼs Office, Staffing Analysis. Voorhis Associates, Inc. June 21, 2006. TRGConsulting
J.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page121 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page91 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
K. Unresolved Issues
Unresolved Issues. Six issues remain unresolved, mostly due to the uncertainty surrounding the final impact of AB 109 (Criminal Justice Alignment) as modified by AB 117 (Criminal Justice Realignment) on the Monterey County criminal justice system. Unresolved issues include:
1. The impact of Phase II of the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 on Monterey County.
2. The final impact of AB 109 (as modified by AB 117) on the Monterey County criminal justice system. 3. Sources of funding for the construction, project and operational costs that are associated with meeting the
projected bed need for 2020 and 2030; 4. The construction phasing of the 2030 need; 5. The ultimate disposition of the three components1 of the existing Monterey County Jail (e.g. continued
use of one or more components for detention, demolition of one or more components, etc.); and 6. The specific location of the new construction on the Natividad site.
1. The Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007.2 This act includes provisions for CDCR and county detention facilities. The provisions in the act that relate to local detention facilities include:
$1.2 billion will be provided for local jail bed construction in two phases: – Phase I will provide $750,000,000 (plus an additional local match of 25%) for 8,000 beds. – Phase II will provide $602,881,0003 (plus an additional local match of 10%)4 for 5,000 beds.
 Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act is the responsibility of the county.  The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) will consider “cost effectiveness” in evaluating projects.  Funding will be provided for “the cost of the local jail facility project and ongoing maintenance and
staffing responsibilities for the term of the financing.”  CSA requirements will include, but are not limited to:
– Control of the project site; – Documentation of need; – Written project proposal; – Submittal of a staffing plan (the new construction must be staffed and operating within ninety
days of the completion of construction); – Submittal of approved architectural drawings; – Final determination of economic impact; and – Provisions intended to maintain tax-exempt status.  Matching funds will be a minimum of 10% of total project costs; and
1 The jail consists of three components (i.e. the Rehabilitation Facility, the Main Jail and the Woman’s Jail). 2 The Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 also is referred to as Assembly Bill 900 (AB 900). 3 The Phase II funding was increased from the original $470,000,000 to $602,881,000 of which $200,000,000 is
available as medium-sized county set-asides. Monterey County is classified as a medium-sized county. 4 The local match requirement for Phase II was reduced from 25% to 10% by AB 94 and AB 111 amendments. Any
combination of cash and in-kind contributions are allowed, subject to certain limitations.
TRGConsulting
K.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page122 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page92 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Corrections Standards Authority has issued grant application instructions for Phase II funding associated with the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007. Monterey County and the Sheriff’s Office have elected to pursue the maximum state funding available for medium-sized counties of $80,000,000 to begin to address the shortage of adult detention beds in the county.
2. AB 109, Criminal Justice Alignment as modified by AB 117 (Criminal Justice Realignment). The key provisions of these two pieces of legislation are:
Main components:  Defines local custody for non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders  Makes changes to state parole and creates local “post-release community supervision”
Local planning process:  Expands role and purpose of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), which was previously established in Penal Code §1230  Requires CCP to develop and recommend to the Board of Supervisors an implementation plan for 2011 public safety realignment  Creates an Executive Committee from the CCP members comprised of: – Chief Probation Officer (chair) – Chief of police – Sheriff – District Attorney – Public Defender – Presiding Judge of the Superior Court (or his or her designee) – A representative from either the County Department of Social Services, Mental Health, or Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs, as appointed by the County Board of Supervisors  The implementation plan is deemed accepted by the County Board of Supervisors unless the Board rejects the plan by a four-fifths vote.
 Timeframe:
 All provisions are prospective and applied on October 1, 2011  AB 117 provides the statutory framework, allocation methodology and revenue to implement public
safety realignment  Local custody:
 Revises the definition of felony to include specified lower-level crimes that would be punishable in jail or another local sentencing option for more than one year.
 Maintains length of sentences.  Time served in jails instead of prisons:
– Non-violent offenders – Non-serious offenders – Non-sex offenders
TRGConsulting
K.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page123 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page93 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
 Enhanced local custody and supervision tools – Alternative custody tools for county jails – Home detention for low-level offenders – Local jail credits mirror current prison credits (day-for-day) – Broaden maximum allowable hospital costs for jail inmates and remove sunset date.
State custody:  Convictions/priors for following offenses require state prison term: – Prior or current serious or violent felony as described in PC 1192.7 (c) or 667.5 (c) – The defendant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to PC 290  Other specified crimes (approximately 60 additional exclusions from “low-level” definition) will still require term in state prison

Contracting back:  Counties permitted to contract back with the state to send local offenders to state prison.  Authorize counties to contract with public community correctional facilities (CCFs).  Contracting back does not extend to parole revocations.
 Post-release (county-level) community supervision:
 Prospectively, county-level supervision for offenders upon release from prison will include: – Current non-violent offenders (irrespective of priors) – Current non-serious offenders (irrespective of priors) – Sex offenders
 County-level supervision will not include: – 3rd strikers – Individuals with a serious commitment offense – Individuals with a violent commitment offense – High-risk sex offenders as defined by CDCR
 Board of Supervisors designates a county agency to be responsible for Post Release Supervision and provide that information to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by August 1, 2011.
 CDCR must notify counties as to who is being released on post-release supervision at least one month prior to their release.
 CDCR has no jurisdiction over any person who is under post-release community supervision  No person shall be returned to prison except for persons previously sentenced to a term of life (and
only after a court order).  Post-release community supervision revocations:
 Revocations are capped at 180 days with day-for-day credit earning.  Authorizes discharging individuals on post-release community supervision who have no violations for
six months.
TRGConsulting
K.3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page124 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page94 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
 Ongoing state parole:
 CDCR continues to have jurisdiction over all offenders on state parole prior to October 1, 2011 implementation
 State parole will continue for the following: – The offender’s committing offense is a serious or violent felony as described in PC §§1192.7(c) or 667.5(c); – The offender has been convicted of a third strike; – The person is classified as a high risk sex offender; or – The person is classified as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO).
Parole revocations:  Prospectively, the parole revocation process continues under Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) until July 1, 2013.  Parole revocations will be served in county jail and not to exceed 180 days.  Contracting back to the state for revocations is not an option.  Only persons previously sentenced to a term of life can be revoked to prison.  For the remaining low-level offenders on parole after implementation of realignment, parole has the authority to discharge after six months if no violations have occurred.
 Juvenile Justice
 AB 109 limited the future juvenile court commitments to state juvenile detention (Division of Juvenile Justice or DJJ); this provision was removed in AB 117. Consequently, there are no changes to the state juvenile justice system in realignment.
The Monterey County criminal justice system is just beginning to feel the impact of AB 109 and AB 117. It will take at least a year to understand and adjust to these pieces of legislation. Even if the county is successful in obtaining grant funding to construct additional beds, these beds will not come on line for several years. In the meantime the Custody Bureau of the Sheriff’s Office must accommodate the new influx of inmates brought about by this legislation and accommodate these inmates in the existing detention facilities. This is difficult because the Custody Bureau only has 825 Corrections Standards Authority rated detention beds5 and regularly incarcerates over 1,000 inmates. The Monterey County Jail obviously already is overcrowded. The Sheriff will be faced with difficult decisions regarding which inmates will be housed and which inmates will be placed in alternative programs or released.
3. Funding. Potential funding sources include federal, state, county and/or private funds. The preference is to pursue grant funding that will require minimal matching dollars from Monterey County because of the county’s limited resources. Grant funding will augment local resources that will be needed to construct beds to meet the projected need for 2020 and 2030.
The county will consider potential funding sources after the estimates of probable construction, project and operational costs have been developed and refined in the process described later in this section.
5 Only 153 of these beds are located in single cells (there are no CSA rated double cells), which would be the most appropriate type of housing for most AB 109 inmates.
TRGConsulting
K.4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page125 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page95 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
4. Construction Phasing for 2030 Bed Need. Recommended construction phasing cannot be determined until the 2030 bed need is finalized. This will occur once the Sheriff’s Office and/or the Board of Supervisors:
• understand the impact of Phase II of the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007;
• fully understand the impact of AB 109 as modified by AB 117 on the Monterey County criminal justice system; and
• the funding sources for construction, operations and staffing are determined.
5. Disposition of the Components of the Existing Monterey County Jail. The Monterey County Jail consists of three components:
1. The Rehabilitation Facility. 2. The Main Jail. 3. The Woman’s Jail.
The near term and ultimate disposition of these three components will depend upon:
• how rapidly the county can “catch up” with the needed number of beds so that consideration can be given to replacing any or all of the three components (particularly the Rehabilitation Facility, which has outlived it’s useful life);
• the useful life of all three components when considering the cost of replacing antiquated and worn out building systems and components;
• the adequacy of the housing and support spaces in terms of the type of inmates held; • the need for the site on which any of the three components is located for a higher and better purpose
(e.g. replacing the Rehabilitation Facility with housing that is more appropriate for the inmates being held, etc.).
6. Location. At this stage of the planning process it appears as though any new construction will occur in the parking area northwest of the existing jail between the jail and the juvenile hall; this area is bordered on the northeast by the Sheriff’s Public Safety Building and on the southwest by county property (including the County Hospital);
The total number of beds and the associated support space requirements may need to be increased because of the remaining uncertainty associated with the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 and the impact of AB 109 as modified by AB 117. If a large number of additional beds are added to the county needs already identified, then it may be necessary to expand into the area occupied by county structures associated with the old hospital (to the southwest of the existing jail). An alternative would be to construct a new juvenile hall and Probation Department offices on another site and take over the area currently occupied by the Probation Department between Natividad Road and the existing jail parking lot.
The actual construction site(s) for the new adult detention facility will be chosen after the total bed need is determined for each new construction project. At that point a detailed architectural program will be written to further define the project. The architectural program will identify the building gross square footages of the new housing pods and any associated program and support buildings. The required site amenities including mandated recreation space, parking, etc. also will be identified. Future long-term expansion of the new adult detention facility will be addressed as well.
Implementation Strategy to Resolve Issues. The remaining activities required to resolve these issues are discussed below. Monterey County is committed to continuing this implementation strategy until all issues are
TRGConsulting
K.5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page126 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page96 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
resolved and new adult detention beds and support spaces are constructed and occupied.6 The implementation schedule will be reviewed periodically and accelerated as appropriate. The six unresolved issues identified above will be resolved as part of this strategy.
Conceptual Schedule and Budget. A conceptual schedule and budget will be developed based on this needs assessment in order to determine the feasibility of the next project.
The conceptual schedule will contain all major milestones from the refinement of the needs assessment as more is learned about the impact of AB 109 and AB 117 to the occupancy of the new adult detention beds and support spaces. Included will be the milestone dates on which decisions to continue the project must be made if the projected occupancy date is to be met.
Three conceptual budgets will be developed. The first will present the estimate of probable construction costs for the new adult detention construction.7 Secondly the estimate of probable project costs will be developed based on the estimate of construction costs.8 Finally, the estimate of probable operational costs will be prepared.9 The combination of the three estimates will provide the leadership of Monterey County with the anticipated costs to design, bid and construct the new adult detention beds and support spaces as well as the costs to operate the facility once it is occupied. All three estimates will be refined as more information becomes available during each step of the process.
The conceptual schedule and budget will establish baselines that will be adjusted appropriately throughout the process leading to new detention beds and support spaces. Project participants and county leadership continuously will be updated with information concerning the timeline and projected costs for the new construction. The feasibility of the project will be assessed at each stage of the implementation strategy.
Operational Program Statement. Section 13-102(c) 3 of Title 24, Part 1 requires the operational program statement to be submitted to the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) with the schematic design architectural documents.10 Monterey County has elected to prepare the program statement early in the conceptual process to be certain that the architectural program and any design work are driven by program requirements.
The operational program statement will include a description of the following:
A. Intended capacity of facility. B. Security and classification of inmates to be housed. C. Inmate movement within the facility and entry and exit from security areas. D. Food preparation and serving. E. Staffing. F. Intake/release/processing. G. Visiting and attorney interviews. H. Exercise. I. Programs. J. Medical services, including the management of communicable diseases. K. Cleaning and/or laundering.
6 Monterey County has limited resources (as is the case with a number of California counties). Nonetheless county leaders intend to move forward as rapidly as scarce resources permit.
7 “Construction costs” are the costs associated with “bricks and mortar” and construction labor. 8 “Project costs” include such things as architectural and engineering design fees, construction management and
environmental consulting fees, testing and inspection fees, project management costs, etc. 9 Operational costs cover such things as staffing, utilities, maintenance, operational supplies, janitorial services, move-in
costs, etc. 10 The major divisions in architectural services typically are planning (e.g. architectural programming, master planning,
operational programming, staffing planning, conceptual design including floor plans, elevations and a rendering, etc.), schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding and negotiation, construction administration, move-in/project closeout and post-occupancy services.
TRGConsulting
K.6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page127 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page97 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
L. Inmate segregation as specified in Penal Code Sections 4001 and 4002 and Article 5 of Title 15, CCR.
M. Court holding and inmate movement. N. Mental health services. O. Facilities for jail administration and operations staff. P. Staff to staff communications system. Q. Management of disruptive inmates. R. Management and placement of persons with disabilities with provisions for wheelchairs, gurney
access, and for evacuation during emergencies. S. Architectural treatment of space relative to preventing suicides by inmates. T. Method of implementing Penal Code Section 4030 relating to the holding of misdemeanant arrestees
without the necessity of unjustified strip searches. U. Intended type of facility. V. Sobering cells(s) as referenced by Title 15, Section 1056, with the ability to segregate. W. Safety cell(s) as referenced by Title 15, Section 1055.
The construction, project and operational estimates of probable costs along with the milestone schedule will be adjusted as necessary based on the program statement.
Staffing Plan. Similarly Monterey County has elected to prepare the staffing plan early in the conceptual process to be certain that staffing requirements “drive” the architectural program and any design work. This will ensure a staff efficient design and reduce operating expenses.11
The staffing plan will include:
• the number of FTE staff required to fill post positions; • staff requirements during construction; • relief factors for each post position; • selection of new staff (by post position); • new staff hiring and training schedules; and • program/operational requirements.
The operational estimate of probable costs and the project schedule will be adjusted as necessary based on the staffing plan.
Architectural Program. An architectural program will be developed to determine the detailed requirements for each space, area and component of the new detention beds and support spaces. Activities and operations for each component will be described so that the architectural design will reflect the requirements of Titles 15 and 24 as well as the programs and staffing desired by Monterey County. Building gross square footages of all housing, program and support spaces will be determined. The architectural program will identify the building systems to be used and the site area required along with all site amenities (e.g. outdoor recreation areas, security perimeters, vehicular and pedestrian sally ports, secure and non-secure parking, security and site lighting, loading docks/delivery areas, etc.).
The project schedule and the construction and project estimates of probable costs will be adjusted as necessary based on the architectural program. The specific location of the components of the new adult detention facilities on the Natividad site will be confirmed based on the site requirements developed in the architectural program.
11 Previous grants administered by CSA included a requirement that a detailed staffing plan be submitted with the architectural design development documents. The Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 requires that all funded detention facilities be staffed and operational within ninety days of the completion of construction.
TRGConsulting
K.7

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page128 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page98 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Conceptual Design. At this point a conceptual design consisting of a site plan, floor plans, elevations and an architectural rendering will be developed to further refine the construction and project estimates and to provide the architectural design concepts necessary for most grant applications and other funding initiatives.
Identification of Funding Sources. The county will research traditional and non-traditional potential funding sources such as:
– Federal, state and private grants – Impact fees – Lease/purchase financing (lease payments with purchase option) – California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Loans – Industrial Revenue Bonds – Local option sales tax – General obligation bonds – Certificates of Participation (COPs)
More creative funding sources such as the following also may be considered:
– Agreements with other counties to participate in a regional detention facility – Homeland Security funds – United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development ($100,000 to $2,000,000 to finance
essential community facilities) – California Energy Commission loans (loans up to $2,500,000 for financing energy conservation
measures as part of new detention facilities) – Environmental Protection Agency grants (e.g. by proving a new facility will reduce transportation
emissions through such initiatives as providing on-site court facilities to eliminate the need to transport inmates to distant court facilities).
The project budget will be adjusted based on funding sources available and the timeline in which those funds will become available. The milestone schedule will be modified as necessary based on the funding timeline.
Resolution. Once the funding sources are identified all unresolved items will be satisfied since, by this time, the impact of the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 and the final impact of AB 109 as modified by AB 117 will be known. The architectural program and master plan will identify the parts of the existing jail that are to be retained or demolished for new construction. The specific location of the new detention beds and support spaces on the jail site will have been determined.
When these issues are resolved Monterey County will be in a position to obtain the necessary funding, move forward with the architectural design and construction documents and advertise the project for competitive bid.12 Selection of the contractor, construction, transition and phased occupancy then will follow in the normal course of events.
12 Monterey County staff also may consider using the design build project delivery methodology.
TRGConsulting
K.8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page129 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page99 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Appendix
The Appendix includes a list of stakeholders for the project.
Stakeholders
Revision 03; December 12, 2011
Introduction. Below is a list of potential stakeholders.
1. Monterey County Board of Supervisors
A. Monterey County Board of Supervisors Capital Subcommittee
2. Adult Detention Facility Needs Assessment Executive Steering Committee
3. Law Enforcement
A. Monterey County Sheriff’s Office B. Sheriff’s Commission on Budget and Finance C. Monterey County Probation Department D. Monterey County Chief Law Enforcement Officers’ Association E. Corrections Standards Authority F. California State Parole Office G. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
4. Courts/Legal
A. Monterey County Superior Court/California State Administrative Office of the Courts B. Monterey County District Attorney C. Public Defender D. Monterey County Bar Association
5. Monterey County Departments (particularly those providing services to the jail)
6. Services
A. Monterey County Fire B. Fire Departments in Monterey County D. Utility Providers (e.g. gas, water, sewer, telephone, irrigation, etc.) E. County Hospital F. Ambulance Services
7. Cities in Monterey County
A. Mayor of Salinas
8. Media
A. Print Media (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc.) B. Radio C. Television D. Foreign Language Media

TRGConsulting

AP1.1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page130 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-1 Filed06/12/14 Page100 of 100
MONTEREY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
9. Community Interests
A. Neighbors Adjacent to Selected Site B. Service Clubs C. Churches and Religious Organizations D. Civil Rights Coalition (CRC) E. Prisoners Rights Groups or Advocates (only those active in Monterey County) F. Community Advocacy Groups (e.g. for mental health, substance abuse, literacy, etc.)
10. Monterey County Office of Education

TRGConsulting

AP1.2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page131 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page1 of 19
Complaint for Damages
Exh. 2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page132 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page2 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page4 of 79
Exhibit M

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page133 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page3 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page5 of 79
DRAFT Review of Mental Health Services at the Monterey County Jail
December 6, 2013
Based on my review and analysis of the materials identified in this report and my review of the Monterey County correctional facilities, I have prepared the following summary of my findings regarding the mental health services at the Monterey County Jails. I would like to thank everyone that assisted by providing access to the documents needed for the review in addition to access to the jails. I also would like to thank Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller and all of his staff for being exceptionally accommodating during my three days of visiting the jails. Additionally, Dr. Taylor Fithian, Correctional Health Services (CHS) Manager Dave Harness and the mental health clinicians provided extensive information regarding the mental health services.
Collection of data for the report:
I reviewed the Monterey County Correctional Facilities including the Main Jail and the Rehabilitation Center located on the campus in Salinas, California. My site visits were completed on September 25, October 4 and October 25, 2013. I interviewed Commander Jim Bass and Classification Sgt. Durham who work collaboratively with mental health staff at the jail. I additionally interviewed Deputies Pritchett and DiMaggio who routinely supervise inmates in the jail. I also interviewed Taylor Fithian, M.D., the primary psychiatrist; Elaine Finnberg, the primary psychologist; Kim Spano, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (L.M.F.T.) and Charlotte Gage, Licensed Psychiatric Nurse. I reviewed 23 mental health records including records of inmate-patients that were treated with antipsychotic medication, inmate-patients that refused mental health treatment, inmates evaluated for competency to stand trial, inmates that attempted or completed suicide, inmates that were placed in a Safety Cell or in the restraint chair, and inmatepatients that required housing in administrative segregation areas. I conducted six interviews with inmate-patients including four that were accepting mental health treatment and two that were refusing treatment. I additionally reviewed incident reports on suicides, suicide attempts, placement in the Safety Cells and the use of the restraint chair. I also reviewed the policies and procedures regarding Mental Health Services, Developmental Disabilities, and the use Safety Cells and the Restraint chair. I reviewed the Complaint, records of community treatment of mentally ill inmates, and deputy training programs for suicide prevention and management of inmates having problems with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance use disorders.
1. Review of Intake and Receiving Screening:
 All arrestees that are accepted into the custody of the Sheriff complete an intake screening provided by Sheriff's deputies at the Main Jail. The screening officers receive specific training regarding the identification of arrestees that may present
[10354491]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page134 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page4 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page6 of 79
a risk of self-harm or may require mental health evaluation or treatment. Arrestees that are determined to have a possible risk of self-harm or to require additional mental health evaluation are referred to medical staff. A registered nurse (R.N.) then evaluates the inmate and completes a form requesting mental health evaluation.
 All inmates identified as requiring a mental health evaluation are seen by a mental health clinician, usually within 24 hours on Monday through Fridays. The clinicians include Taylor Fithian, M.D., Elaine Finnberg, Ph.D., Kim Spano, L.M.F.T. and Charlotte Gage, R.N. Dr. Fithian typically sees only the inmates that are referred for additional psychiatric evaluation following an intake assessment by Charlotte Gage, R.N. However, all of the clinicians respond to urgent requests for mental health assessments of inmates.
 The mental health clinicians at the jail are available to provide urgent mental health evaluations within a brief period of time on Monday through Fridays. There are no mental health clinicians assigned to the jail on weekends although Dr. Fithian or Dr. Finnberg always would be available on call. The medical nurses respond to inmates that need mental health services on the weekend and telephone the on-call doctor for consultation. Any inmate that requires urgent services may be placed on a W&I 5150 hold and transported by deputies to Natividad Medical Center which is a short distance from the jail campus. The lack of mental health staff in the facility on weekends results in insufficient services to mentally ill inmates and is further discussed below.
 The intake screening process would be improved by several additional questions designed to increase the identification of arrestees with a potential for self-harm or a history of mental disorder.
Recommendation: add the following (or similar) questions to the Intake Health Screening form: a. Have you been admitted to a hospital during the past five years? Were you ever admitted on a (W&I) 5150? b. Have you ever had problems with depression? Are you feeling depressed now? c. Have you ever had mental health counseling or treatment?
 Inmates are able to access mental health services through multiple routes. As noted above, many inmates are identified as possible mental health clients based on positive responses to the initial health screening questions. Healthcare staff and deputies also refer inmates based on their observations of emotions or behaviors that suggest the inmate may be able to benefit from a mental health evaluation or that suggest a risk of self-harm.
 Inmates request mental health services by completing a Health Request form or by verbally making a request to any deputy or healthcare staff. Inmates are advised how to complete a Health Request form during the booking process and
2
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page135 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page5 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page7 of 79
bilingual staff provide intake screening in Spanish or other languages as needed. Translation services for all languages are available from facility staff and through a telephone service.
 Health Request forms are available from nursing staff and once completed the forms are handed to any medical staff or deposited in locked boxes. These boxes also are used for grievance forms and only selected Sheriff's officers have keys to open the boxes and collect the grievances and Health Request forms. This practice requires modification since current correctional healthcare standards require that inmates have privacy of their healthcare requests. The simple solution would be to provide keys to the locked boxes to healthcare staff who would collect the Health Request forms and the grievances daily. This may require some additional time of the health care staff to separate the grievances and give them to the deputies. An alternate solution would be to add an additional locked box for Health Request forms in each pod, which also would be collected by healthcare staff. The Health Request forms are triaged daily by a registered nurse and requests for mental health services are provided to the mental health clinicians.
Recommendation: modify the current practice of retrieving Health Request forms from inmates to ensure that they are collected and reviewed only by healthcare staff.
 The medical nurses accept health requests that are written on anything including blank paper or scrap paper. This is a commendable practice since it facilitates the inmates’ access to health services. Review of the charts indicated that written responses usually are provided to inmates within an appropriate period of time. However, several inmates complained during interviews that they did not receive responses to some of their written health requests. The current procedures lack a systematic method of auditing receipt of and responses to all inmate requests for health services. It is recommended that Correctional Health Services modify the Health Request form as follows:
Recommendation: It is recommended that Correctional Health Services develop a triplicate NCR form for health requests. The inmate completes the triplicate form and retains one copy before forwarding the form to nursing staff. The nurse provides a written response on the form and returns it to the inmate while retaining a copy for the health record. This system would enable the Quality Management program to audit the processing of inmate health requests and ensure timely responses to all requests.
 Mental health referrals and inmate requests for mental health services frequently are forwarded to the psychiatric nurse for a mental health intake evaluation. The psychiatric nurse dictates a note briefly summarizing the inmate's symptoms and history and formulating an initial treatment plan that may include referral to the psychiatrist or the LMFT. Review of the records confirms that the psychiatric
3
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page136 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page6 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page8 of 79
nurse has access to the Monterey County Behavioral Health Services system and routinely obtains relevant information by telephone and fax.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Correctional Mental Health Services develop a mental health intake form with a checklist to summarize the inmate-patient's symptom and treatment history, community provider(s), prior diagnoses and medications, co-occurring disorders, substance use, and history of self-harm or suicidal ideation and attempts. The intake form would ensure that all relevant information is obtained at the time of the initial contact.
 The psychiatric nurse inquires of each new inmate-patient if he or she has any recent history of taking psychiatric medications and also asks where the inmatepatient obtained the medications. The nurse then contacts the pharmacy to verify the prescription and telephones Dr. Fithian to obtain a voice order to start the medications. Review of the records indicates that this procedure is effective and inmate-patients often are started on psychiatric medications within 72 hours and sometimes within 24 hours during the week. Continuity of mental health care would be improved by modifying the current system to have nursing staff initiate psychiatric medication verification when the nurse completes the first health evaluation. Once the medications are verified the psychiatric nurse can obtain a telephone order from Dr. Fithian during the week and the medical nurse would obtain the order on weekends.
Recommendation: modify the current practice to have nursing staff initiate psychiatric medication verification at the time that the nurse completes the first health evaluation. This would apply to any inmate-patient that offers information regarding the pharmacy that supplies the psychiatric medication. Once a current or recent prescription is verified the psychiatric nurse can obtain a telephone order from Dr. Fithian during the week and the medical nurse would obtain the order on weekends.
 Once the psychiatric medications are ordered by Dr. Fithian the inmate-patient can begin receiving the medication. There is an onsite stock supply of the frequently used psychiatric medications and most of them are on the formulary for the facility. Non-formulary medications also can be requested by Dr. Fithian. Review of the health records indicate that inmate-patients usually begin receiving the medication on the same day it is ordered or by the following day.
 Timeliness of continuing psychiatric medications should be routinely reviewed by the Quality Management program. Overall, the current system of screening arrestees for possible mental disorders and risk of self-harm is effective and meets minimal standards for the identification of arrestees with mental disorders. However, the above recommendations are needed to ensure that mental health evaluation and treatment begins within a short period following acceptance to the jail and that psychiatric medications are verified and initiated on weekends as quickly as during the week whenever possible.
4
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page137 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page7 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page9 of 79 2. Review of mental health treatment services:
 Mental health evaluation and treatment services are provided by a total of four mental health professionals including Taylor Fithian, M.D., Elaine Finnberg, Ph.D., Kim Spano, L.M.F.T. and Charlotte Gage, R.N. The number of mental health professionals is insufficient to meet the mental health needs of the inmates in the Monterey County Jails.
 Once an inmate has demonstrated a stable clinical status, he or she is eligible for housing in almost any of the various correctional pods or at the Rehabilitation Center. The LMFT and psychiatric nurse provide on-site outpatient therapeutic and supportive services. Dr. Fithian primarily provides psychiatric evaluation and medications and Dr. Finberg primarily provides psychological evaluations and crisis intervention.
 Inmates that display signs of an acute mental illness may be maintained in Intake until evaluated by a mental health clinician. As noted above, the mental health clinicians are not in the facility on weekends although either the psychiatrist or a psychologist is always on call. Inmates that require mental health services on weekends are evaluated by a medical nurse who then consults with the on-call psychiatrist or psychologist. The facility has the capability of transporting an inmate to Natividad Medical Center for acute psychiatric services on weekends. However, review of the records indicates that this rarely occurs and most inmatepatients remain in the jail until the mental health clinicians arrive on Monday. They may be placed in a safety cell on suicide precautions for observation until they can be evaluated by a mental health clinician. The safety cells are used excessively for this purpose and inmates may remain in the safety cell over the weekend until a clinician provides evaluation and release on Mondays. Weekend mental health coverage is insufficient to meet the multiple needs of mentally ill inmate-patients, which include timely assessments, continuation of psychiatric medications and early release from the safety cells. It is recommended that Correctional Health Services hire part-time licensed mental health clinicians to provide weekend services.
Recommendation: hire part-time licensed mental health clinicians to provide six to eight hours of mental health services on each Saturday, Sunday and holiday. These clinicians would provide mental health intake assessments, crisis intervention services, evaluations of inmates in the safety cells or the restraint chair and supportive counseling to seriously mentally ill inmate-patients housed in the administrative segregation pods. A total of 20 hours of additional clinician services would be sufficient to meet minimal standards for correctional mental health care. This would include 12 to 16 hours of weekend services and four to eight additional hours during the week as described below.
 Inmates identified as having impaired intellectual functioning (a developmental disability) also are screened initially by a nurse and then by a mental health
5
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page138 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page8 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page10 of 79
clinician. The classification deputy is notified of the inmate-patient's disability and provides appropriate housing to ensure safety. The regional developmental disability center is notified so that a case manager can plan to assist the inmatepatient upon return to the community.
 Inmates with psychotic symptoms that are secondary to the ingestion of a substance may be housed in a safety cell for observation and stabilization because they present an increased risk of self-harm or assault. Dr. Fithian evaluates these inmates and provides treatment with psychiatric medications as needed to stabilize their symptoms. Inmate-patients with substance-induced psychotic symptoms frequently stabilize within several days and then are housed by the classification deputy. Correctional Health Services also provides a withdrawal protocol for inmate-patients with acute alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal.
 The mental health clinicians collaborate with community providers of alcohol and other drug (AOD) services to ensure that inmate-patients are able to access chemical dependency treatment. Two of the AOD providers with Monterey County Behavioral Health Services are available for referrals of inmates including those with co-occurring disorders of mental illness and substance abuse. The jail also provides group AOD counseling services at the Rehabilitation Center. These services exemplify the commitment of Monterey County to provide integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders that include substance abuse and mental illness.
 Acutely mentally ill inmates are evaluated by Dr. Fithian and offered medication to stabilize their symptoms. The most commonly used psychiatric medications are available on the formulary and non-formulary medications can be ordered. Acute inmate-patients are evaluated frequently by the mental health clinicians.
 Mental health treatment is voluntary in the absence of a court order and inmatepatients that accept treatment frequently stabilize and may be housed in a general housing pod as determined by Classification. Inmate-patients that have not stabilized are usually housed in administrative segregation pods including the A and B pods for males and the R and S units for females. The psychiatric nurse provides socialization/support groups to the inmate-patients on these units when they are sufficiently stable to safely participate in a group. She provides groups in the A and B male pods during one week and to the women in the R and S units during the following week. Deputies that are familiar with the pods determine which inmate-patients are able to safely participate in the socialization groups. These groups are important to support and maintain stabilization of inmatepatients with serious mental illnesses and additional opportunities to participate would be beneficial. The Sheriff could facilitate participation by enhancing security procedures on the units. Other correctional facilities have accomplished this by welding links to the tables on the unit so that inmate-patients can be safely secured to the table with belly chains while they participate in the group. These
6
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page139 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page9 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page11 of 79 groups are voluntary and inmate-patients must be educated regarding the safety procedures before they begin participating in the groups.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff collaborate with Dr. Fithian and the Correctional Health Services Manager to facilitate additional participation of inmate-patients in the socialization groups provided by the psychiatric nurse. Sheriff’s administration can explore chaining the inmate-patients to a table on the unit and other methods of increasing security to facilitate additional participation. Any new construction at the jail may provide an opportunity to design a secure room for socialization groups. Some facilities have built group rooms with six individual locked cages that allow inmate-patients to safely participate in socialization groups.
 The socialization groups provide valuable opportunities for inmate-patients to receive support in addition to education about mental health treatment. The psychiatric nurse does not have sufficient time to provide weekly groups to both male and female inmate-patients in the facility. An additional total of 20 hours of licensed mental health clinician time is needed to provide sufficient services to seriously mentally ill inmate-patients as noted above. Most of these clinical hours are needed on Saturdays and Sundays when no mental health clinicians are available in the facility.
Recommendation: as described above, add part-time licensed mental health clinicians to provide a total of 20 additional hours of mental health services weekly, primarily on weekends. This would include six to eight hours of clinical services on each Saturday, Sunday and holiday. The additional staff would assume some of the current duties of the psychiatric nurse and allow her to provide weekly socialization/support groups for both male and female inmate-patients.
 Review of the records indicates that Dr. Fithian consistently sees inmate-patients within seven days of starting them on a psychiatric medication. The second faceto-face visit occurs within 30 days for stable inmate-patients and more frequently for those that have not stabilized. Subsequent face-to-face psychiatric evaluations occur at a minimum of every 90 days for stable inmate-patients and those who are not stable are seen more frequently. All inmate-patients are seen by a mental health clinician at least once every 30 days even if they refuse mental health treatment. Dr. Fithian's scheduling of face-to-face psychiatric evaluations meets nationally accepted minimal standards for the provision of psychiatric services to correctional inmate-patients.
 Inmates with acute mental illness may have difficulties as they attempt to communicate with an attorney during the process of developing a defense and they may be referred for evaluation of their competency to continue with legal procedures. Competency evaluations are requested by the Court and the Court often appoints Dr. Fithian and Dr. Finnberg to complete evaluations. There is a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists qualified to provide competency evaluations and the court has the option to select other examiners from the panel.
7
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page140 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page10 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page12 of 79
The Court frequently prefers the services of Dr. Fithian and Dr. Finnberg for these evaluations because they often are familiar with the defendants after providing them with mental health services in the jail. However, this practice fails to meet community standards for independent evaluations that avoid compromising the defendant’s ability to make decisions about accepting mental health treatment in the jail. Defendants may believe that their decisions regarding accepting mental health treatment at the jail present a risk of significant consequences since a finding of incompetence by Dr. Fithian or Dr. Finnberg could result in a commitment to the state hospital. Although this practice may be favored by the Court in Monterey County it compromises the provision of impartial mental health services to inmate-patients.
Recommendation: it is recommended that Behavioral Health Services Manager Robert Jackson communicate to the Court that the practice of appointing Dr. Fithian and Dr. Finberg to complete competency evaluations pursuant to Penal Code 1368 is improper due to the conflict with their roles as treating mental health clinicians in the jail. Other members of the panel should be appointed to complete the competency evaluations.
 When inmates-patients are found not competent to stand trial on felony cases they are committed by the Court to a state hospital. Male inmate-patients often are committed to Atascadero State Hospital and females usually are committed to Patton State Hospital. The court commitments include orders for involuntary treatment with psychiatric medication and most inmate-patients return as competent to stand trial after they stabilize on the medications. Review of the records indicates that Dr. Fithian frequently continues the same psychiatric medications that are prescribed at the state hospital. Inmate-patients remain on a status of having court ordered treatment when they are discharged from the state hospital and they are involuntarily medicated by injection in the jail if they refuse the oral medications. The Mental Health Services program at the Monterey County Jails offers voluntary treatment to inmate-patients as they are processed through trial competency procedures and continues to provide treatment for those inmate-patients having a court order for involuntary treatment.
 Planning for continuity of care at the time of release from the jail into the community begins when the inmate is initially evaluated by the mental health clinicians. Inmates that are designated as having a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) in the community may already have a case manager at Behavioral Health Services. The psychiatric nurse contacts the case manager to advise that the client is incarcerated and to begin the process of planning for housing and continuing care at the time of the inmate-patient’s release. Case managers may visit the inmate at the jail. The case manager is responsible for continuity of care at the time of release from the jail including transportation to housing and obtaining continuing psychiatric medications from the community providers. Inmates that have not stabilized at the jail may be placed on a W&I 5150 and transported to Natividad Medical Center for further evaluation and treatment. Behavioral Health Services
8
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page141 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page11 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page13 of 79
Manager Robert Jackson meets monthly with Dr. Fithian, Commander Bass and the jail mental health clinicians to review inmate-patients that have not stabilized and require additional efforts to ensure continuity of care into the community. Review of the records indicates that the current system meets minimal standards for continuity of care from the jail into the community.
 Individual supportive counseling and psychotherapy services are provided by Kim Spano, L.M.F.T., based primarily on the acuity of the inmate-patient. She uses a brief intervention model with a focus on supporting the inmate-patient's coping skills. She provides crisis intervention services in the jail as needed and she assists inmate-patients that are suffering from insomnia, anxiety, depression or stress. The inmate interviews and the record review indicated that inmate-patients consistently find her therapeutic services very helpful as they manage the multiple stresses of incarceration. It was noted that most of her therapeutic interventions are brief, which allows her to respond to a substantial number of inmates that are requesting mental health services.
 Although the inmate-patients housed in the administrative segregation units have insufficient socialization opportunities with other inmates the availability of contact with mental health clinicians meets the nationally accepted minimal standards of mental health care for inmates housed in administrative segregation units.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff adopt a policy of having Classification review the status of mentally ill inmates housed in administrative segregation at least once monthly to determine if the inmate can be moved to less restrictive housing.
 The Monterey County Case Management Team meets monthly to review inmatepatients who require additional supportive services. The committee includes the Jail Commander, the Behavioral Health Services Manager (Robert Jackson), Dr. Fithian, two chemical dependency case managers and the jail mental health clinicians. The meetings focus on behavior management, treatment and continuity of care problems and the Team develops strategies to assist the inmate-patients with improving their impulse control and to encourage acceptance of mental health treatment. The Commander provides briefings regarding the behavior management plans to the lieutenants, sergeants and deputies responsible for supervising inmate-patients in the jail. The functioning of this committee evidences a collaborative relationship between the Sheriff's staff, Correctional Mental Health Services and the community Behavioral Health Services program.
 The Mental Health Services team provides medically necessary evaluation and treatment services to inmate-patients with acute mental illnesses. As inmatepatients stabilize with treatment they become eligible for housing in less restrictive environments where they continue to receive mental health services. The treatment system is effective, and the addition of 20 hours of mental health
9
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page142 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page12 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page14 of 79 clinician time primarily on weekends will ensure that it meets nationally accepted minimum standards of correctional mental health care. All of the mental health clinicians that were interviewed displayed substantial enthusiasm for providing high quality care to the inmate-patients. Review of the records and interviews with the inmate-patients indicate that they mostly feel respected by the mental health staff and usually are satisfied with the mental health services provided.
3. Review of the Suicide Prevention Program:
 CHS and the Sheriff's staff deserve commendation for many positive aspects of the current Suicide Prevention Plan. Any inmate that mentions suicidal ideation or displays overt signs of possible suicide risk is placed in a safe area until he or she is evaluated by a nurse or by mental health staff. Review of the records indicates a reasonably rapid response by nurses and mental health clinicians to any inmate requiring an assessment for risk of suicide. The nurses and the clinicians often recommend that the inmate be placed in a safety cell on suicide precautions and the Sheriff’s deputies invariably comply with the recommendations.
 Review of the suicide prevention training materials and logs of deputy training indicates that the Sheriff maintains a commitment to ensuring that the officers receive appropriate training to help them identify and refer inmates that may present a risk of self-harm or suicide, in addition to training to help them understand and manage mentally disordered inmates. It was noted that suicide prevention training to deputies has been somewhat repetitive over the past few years and a novel training program would be beneficial by providing additional information and skills.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff collaborate with Dr. Fithian and the other mental health clinicians to add the "On Your Watch" training package to the annual STC training for deputies. The package is available from the California Institute for Mental Health (CIMH) in Sacramento at a cost of less than $50. The contact person at CIMH is Gloria Hurd at 916-3795326. The training package includes videos of suicidal inmates that can be used to promote discussion and role-playing regarding how to identify and talk to potentially suicidal inmates.
 Identification of inmates that may be at risk of self-harm begins at Intake when the booking deputy questions the arrestee and refers those with possible risk signs to the medical nurse. The screening questionnaire contains two questions designed to identify arrestees with thoughts of self-harm or a history of suicidal behavior. Three additional questions are recommended as noted above. Any arrestee with a positive response to the self-harm questions is evaluated by a medical nurse who subsequently makes a referral to the licensed mental health clinicians. The nurses also receive annual training to help them identify signs of potential self-harm and they consistently referred inmate-patients to the mental health clinicians for further evaluation. There is no formal plan for encouraging
10
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page143 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page13 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page15 of 79
inmates to report observations of other inmates in their housing area that may suggest potential self-harm or suicide risk.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff collaborate with Dr. Fithian and the other mental health clinicians to develop a plan to encourage all inmates to report observations of other inmates that suggest a possible risk self-harm. The plan may include an information sheet that describes risk signs and suggests ways to report observations to the deputies.
 Any deputies or Correctional Health Services licensed staff can initiate placement of an inmate displaying signs of potential self-harm in a Safety Cell at the Main Jail. There are five Safety Cells in the Intake area. One additional Safety Cell located in the female section of the jail was not available for use at the time of the site visit. The Safety Cells are padded and contain only a hole in the floor to be used as a toilet. Flushing is controlled externally. The Safety Cells that were inspected at the time of the site visit were sufficiently clean to meet minimal acceptable standards. However, review of the records indicates recurrent complaints by inmates that they were placed in safety cells that were filthy and smelled of feces. Since Correctional Health Services assumes significant responsibility for placing, monitoring and evaluating inmate-patients in the Safety Cells, it is recommended that the Quality Management Team develop a plan for routine audits of safety cell hygiene and complaints, and collaborate with Sheriff's staff to ensure complete decontamination of the cells following each use.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the CHS Quality Management Team monitor problems with the Safety Cells and collaborate with Sheriff's administration to ensure that sufficient cleaning and decontamination occurs following each use.
 Inmates in the Safety Cells are provided Safety garments by policy. Inmate interviews and review of the records indicated that there were recurrent complaints that some inmates were naked in the safety cell for many hours prior to receiving the safety gown. One inmate complained that he was naked for 16 hours before receiving the safety garment. Even if the claim was exaggerated there is no justification for an inmate to be placed in a safety cell without a safety garment. Inmates in safety cells also require a safety blanket that can be folded to provide padding for sleep and a second safety blanket as needed for warmth. Failure to provide these basic necessities may increase the inmate's feelings of despondency and suicidal intent.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff modify the Safety Cell Log to add a section for required documentation of the time at which a safety gown is provided to the inmate and also the times at which one or two safety blankets are provided as needed. Safety sleeping bags can be utilized in lieu of the safety blankets.
11
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page144 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page14 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page16 of 79
 Inmates in Safety Cells are checked every 15 minutes by deputies. The checks are documented on logs. Review of the Safety Cell logs indicated that many deputy checks were out of compliance with the required frequency of two every 30 minutes. Some logs document delays of an hour or more between checks. This presents an increased risk of inmate self-harm in addition to a potential liability for the Sheriff.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriffs Administration develop a corrective action plan to ensure that safety cell checks occur twice every 30 minutes as required by the Sheriff's policy.
 Inmates in Safety Cells also are evaluated by CHS staff and mental health clinicians and their observations are noted in the health record in addition to documentation of their checks on the Safety Cell Log. Review of the logs indicated that nursing and mental health evaluations occurred within the time frames required by policy. Continued suicide watch in the Safety Cell beyond 24 hours must be approved by Dr. Fithian or Dr. Finnberg. Review of the logs indicated that most inmates were removed from suicide watch and from the safety cell within 72 hours.
 The use of safety cells for suicide watch at the Monterey County Jail is excessive. In most other correctional facilities, safety cells are used only for inmates that are acutely suicidal. Review of the records indicates that many of the inmates placed on suicide watch in a safety cell reported suicidal ideation but were not acutely suicidal. It is recommended that Correctional Health Services and the Sheriff’s Administration collaborate to develop a suicide prevention plan that minimizes use of the safety cells for suicide watch.
 Recommended modifications of the Suicide Prevention Plan: the current plan provides a comprehensive response to inmates that verbally express suicidal ideation or display self-harm behavior. However, the most lethal suicidal inmates usually say nothing about their suicidal thinking and are cautious to avoid any verbalizations that might suggest to others that they are planning to suicide. These inmates often can be assessed for risk of suicide by using a comprehensive suicide risk assessment form. An example is provided in Appendix A. The suicide risk assessment form ensures that relevant factors have been considered and allows the mental health clinician to determine that the inmate presents a minimal, moderate or high risk of suicide. High risk inmates can be placed in a safety cell if there are indications of acute suicide risk such as statements that the inmate plans to hang or cut himself. High risk inmates that are not determined to be acutely suicidal by the mental health clinicians can be placed in an administrative segregation cell that is stripped of any items that might be used for self-harm such as bedding, clothing, shaving or writing instruments. The inmate must be provided with a safety gown and two safety blankets to provide sufficient padding for sleep in addition to adequate warmth. Safety sleeping bags that are remarkably tear
12
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page145 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page15 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page17 of 79
resistant also are made specifically for this purpose and they provide sufficient warmth and padding in addition to being washable. Hourly checks of high risk inmates can be logged by the deputies and evaluations of the inmate by nursing and mental health clinicians can be documented at least once on their respective shifts. The mental health clinicians would reduce the inmate from high risk to moderate risk based on their evaluations and clinical judgment in addition to consultation with Dr. Fithian or Dr. Finnberg if indicated. The addition of weekend mental health clinicians as recommended above will allow assessment of inmate-patients on Saturdays and Sundays and a capability of reducing their risk level and enabling early release from the safety cell.
 CHS and the Sheriff’s Administration can collaborate to develop additional protocols for housing and monitoring inmates that are determined by the mental health clinicians to present a low or moderate risk of suicide. Minimal risk inmates may require no more than monthly mental health checks and housing with other inmates, or housing where they can be monitored if they are not able to share a cell. Moderate risk inmates would require weekly mental health checks and housing that allows increased monitoring by deputies or at least increased communication with deputies on a regular basis.
Recommendation: it is recommended that the Sheriff and CHS collaborate to develop protocols for housing and monitoring inmates that present a minimal, moderate or high risk of suicide as described above. It is also recommended that the mental health clinicians complete a suicide risk assessment form for each inmate at the time of the initial evaluation and at subsequent evaluations if there are indications of any modification of risk factors. It is recommended that Correctional Health Services develop a program for training deputies and CHS staff on the use of the updated suicide prevention protocols.
 Inmates that have been on a moderate or high level of suicide precautions while incarcerated require an additional evaluation by a mental health clinician prior to being released to the community. Suicide risk levels are ideally identified in the Sheriff's computer, which facilitates appropriate housing of these inmates and also alerts the release officer that the inmate requires a mental health screening prior to being released. An alternative would be to identify the risk level with color-coded jackets that are used to contain hard copies of required custody documentation. The mental health clinicians can reassess the inmate for suicide risk at the time of release and make appropriate referrals to resources as indicated by the needs of the inmate. Any inmate that presents a high risk of suicide at the time of release may be placed on a W&I 5150 for further evaluation and treatment at Natividad Medical Center.
 Inmate-patients that display self-harm or assaultive behavior may be placed in the restraint chair, which requires approval by a facility Sergeant. The restraint chair is authorized for continued restraint up to two hours and additional approval is required to continue beyond two hours with documentation of the reason for
13
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page146 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page16 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page18 of 79
continued restraint. The Sheriff appropriately limits use of the restraint chair to a maximum of six hours and there was no indication in the records that the chair was used longer than six hours. The records also document infrequent use of the restraint chair and no indication of any other type of restraints other than routine cuffs and belly chains. The nurse and any on-site mental health clinicians are notified as soon as inmate is placed in the chair and nurses provide a medical check within a brief period of time. Mental health assessment is provided as needed. The deputies are required to monitor the inmate-patients while in restraints and document their observations twice every 30 minutes. Review of the records indicated that inmates frequently are removed from the restraint chair by the end of the initial two-hour time frame or prior to the end of the second two hours if the restraint approval is renewed.
4. Review of the Health Records:
 A total of 23 mental health records were reviewed. The records were selected for review based on the following categories: inmate-patients with a serious mental illness that refuse treatment, inmate-patients with a serious mental illness that accept treatment, inmate-patients that attempted or completed suicide within the past three years, inmate-patients that have been involuntarily medicated via court ordered treatment pursuant to P.C. 1370, inmate-patients that were involuntarily medicated due to emergency conditions, inmate-patients that were placed in Safety Cells and inmate-patients that were placed in the restraint chair. The health records were sufficiently thorough to meet minimal standards of documentation of correctional mental health services. Documentation of the reasons for continued retention in the safety cell was marginally adequate. There was sufficient CHS documentation of required nursing and mental health checks of inmate-patients placed in Safety Cells, and the restraint chair.
 The records contained signed consents for mental health treatment for inmates that were accepting voluntary treatment. The records contained sufficient problem lists to assist with the coordination of services for co-occurring medical, chemical dependency and mental health disorders. Progress notes consistently were signed and there were individualized treatment plans for inmate-patients receiving mental health services. There is evidence that the mental health clinicians obtain prior treatment records when appropriate and also coordinate continuity of care with community mental health providers. The health records meet nationally accepted minimal standards for documentation of mental health services.
 A strong quality improvement program is critical to the development of effective correctional mental health services. Correctional Health Services maintains a Quality Management (QM) program that includes evaluations of several aspects of mental health services. The QM program has completed audits of important indicators of successful functioning of the mental health program including the response time for inmate-patients to receive mental health evaluations and to start
14
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page147 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page17 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page19 of 79 their psychiatric medications following intake. There is evidence that action plans resulting from chart audits and system reviews are improving the quality of mental health services and it can be anticipated that additional QM activities will continue to advance the quality of care.
 The QM plan also includes a peer review component with an annual review of the psychiatrist services by an independent psychiatrist that is not associated with Monterey County services. The QM program meets nationally accepted minimal standards for quality improvement review of mental health services.
Summary
The Mental Health Services program at the Monterey County correctional facilities has mental health clinicians who demonstrate substantial expertise and a commitment to provide quality mental health care. As noted above, the mental health service suffers from understaffing and would benefit by the addition of part-time clinicians to provide an additional 20 hours of mental health services primarily on weekends. Inmate-patients in need of mental services are identified through multiple resources and most receive timely services from professional mental health clinicians that are providing high quality care. The administrative and line staff of Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller deserve commendation for providing substantial support of the mental health services in addition to maintaining a professional level of communication that ensures effective problem solving. There is evidence of extensive collaboration between Correctional Health Services and Sheriff’s deputies to provide sufficient services despite limited staffing as noted above. This report contains multiple recommendations for improving the quality of the mental health services and CHS will need to provide training for updated protocols in addition to monitoring the effectiveness of the modifications through the Quality Management program. It is my opinion that implementation of the recommendations in this report will ensure that the mental health services at the Monterey County correctional facilities meet all nationally accepted standards of care for correctional mental health programs.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Hayward, Ph.D. Clinical and Forensic Psychology California License #PSY 4972
15
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page148 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page18 of 19 Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page20 of 79
Appendix A

Suicide Prevention Assessment Form

Name_________________________ DOB__________________________

AKA___________________________ ID#_________________________

QUESTIONS
1. Do you have serious problems that worry you? Serious health or money problems? Family or relationship problems (children, parents, significant other)? Problems in the jail? Other serious problems (drugs/alcohol)

YES

NO

1

0

1

0

1

0

2. Have you experienced any of the following in the past year? Loss of relationship? Loss of job or income? Loss of housing? Death in the family?
3. Have you ever seriously considered suicide? Are you thinking of killing/harming yourself now? What do you think you might do? Lethal plan or refuses to answer ________________________________

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

2

0

Were you hospitalized?

1

0

Has anyone in your family committed suicide?

1

0

5. Do you have communication with friends? Family?

0

1

Will anyone visit you in jail?

0

1

Will family/friends put money in your account?

0

1

6. What are your plans for the future? (Prison or no plans = 1)

0

1

Will you have employment, school or financial resources?

0

1

Do you have a place to live? Chemical dependency program?

0

1

7. Signs of depression:

Withdrawn, sad, tearful, psychomotor retardation, other ____________

1

0

Does not want to talk; halting or slowed speech

1

0

Feels hopeless

3

0

8. Signs of psychosis or impaired reality contact:

Agitated, responds to internal stimuli or is pressured

1

0

Delusional or paranoid thoughts or bizarre thoughts/behavior

1

0

9. Charges are serious

1

0

Charges include murder, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, mayhem,

child molest, domestic violence or other serious offenses

2

0

Charges involve a child/minor or family member

1

0

[10354491]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page149 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-2 Filed06/12/14 Page19 of 19
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document49-7 Filed04/29/14 Page21 of 79

QUESTIONS 10. What will (or has) happen to you if convicted?
Expect sentence of at least 90 days? Expect to be sent to prison? Expect more than 3 years? 11. Arresting/transporting officer reports that: Arrestee may be at risk of self-harm/suicide Arrestee made suicide threat 12. Inmate is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs
13. Inmate anticipates problems with withdrawal
14. Inmate is dependent on alcohol and/or drugs
15. Inmate has a position of respect in the community
16. Inmate feels embarrassed, ashamed or humiliated
17. Inmate is anxious, afraid or angry
18. Inmate is impulsive or unable to cope with jail (e.g. first arrest)
19. Inmate has significant health problems
20. Prior records suggest suicide risk
21. Inmate has history of mental health treatment or counseling
22. Inmate has a serious mental disorder
23. Inmate is male = 2 female = 0
Total Points

YES

NO

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

0

2

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

0

2

0

Suicide risk level is determined by clinical evaluation of the inmate. A higher number of points suggests a higher risk level. Protective factors such as supportive relationships and positive future plans may reduce the risk level. Assign a higher risk level if you are unable to obtain sufficient information to complete the assessment. The risk level can be reduced when you acquire additional information that indicates a lower risk.

No Precautions

Minimal Risk

Moderate Risk

High risk Acute risk

Comments:

Clinician: ________________________________________ Date: __________________

17
[1035449-1]

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page150 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page1 of 12
Complaint for Damages
Exh. 3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page151 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page2 of 12

ROSEN BIEN
GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLF'

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 T: (415) 433-6830 • F: (415) 433-7104 www.rbgg.com
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Email: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com

April15, 2013

VIAFEDEX

The Honorable Scott Miller Sheriff County of Monterey 1414 Natividad Road Salinas, California 93906

The Honorable Fernando Armenta Monterey County District 1 Supervisor 168 West Alisal, 2nd Floor Salinas, California 93901

The Honorable Louis R. Calcagno Monterey County District 2 Supervisor Castro Plaza 11140 Speegle Street P.O. Box 787 Castroville, California 95012

The Honorable Simon Salinas Monterey County District 3 Supervisor 168 West Alisal, 3rd Floor Salinas, California 93901

The Honqrable Jane Parker Monterey County District 4 Supervisor 2616 1st Avenue Marina, California 93933

The Honorable Dave Potter Monterey County District 5 Supervisor Monterey Courthouse 1200 Aguajito Road, Suite 1 Monterey, California 93940

Re: Remedying the Illegal Conditions in the Monterey County Jail Our File No. 1187-6
Dear Sheriff Miller and Monterey County Supervisors:
We write on behalf of prisoners housed in Monterey County Jail ("the Jail"). Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and the Monterey County Public Defender's Office have been investigating the conditions in the Jail for some time. Though our investigation is still ongoing, we have already identified serious violations of federal and California law.
The County of Monterey ("the County") and the Monterey County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff's Office"), through their operation of the Jail, violate the civil rights

685239-9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page152 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page3 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors Aprill5,2013 Page2
of prisoners by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities, by failing to operate an adequate medical and mental health care system, and by failing to protect prisoners from violence and injury at the hands of other prisoners. The illegal conditions prevailing at the Jail are the direct result of the County's inadequate policies and practices. In particular, the County refuses to take common sense, cost-effective, safety enhancing steps to ameliorate the overcrowding in the Jail, which is a root cause of many of the violations of federal and state law we have identified.
The conditions in the Jail cause very real harm to the more than ll 00 prisoners in the Jail. From a deaf signer who has been repeatedly denied sign language interpretation in medical and due process settings to mentally ill prisoners forced to spend time in revolting rubber rooms covered with feces to an extremely ill prisoner whose colonoscopy has been poorly handled to a mobility impaired prisoner who has failed to receive adequate medical care and accommodations for the nerve injury he sustained when he was attacked by another prisoner, to a prisoner with serious mental health and medical issues (including diabetes, bone cancer, and fibromyalgia) who has not once been evaluated by a doctor in the six weeks she has been at the Jail, the conditions of the Jail and the harm they cause shock the conscience.
At the conclusion of this letter, we propose a framework for remedying the conditions in the Jail and avoiding the expense and delay of protracted litigation. If, however, the County does not agree by May 16, 2013 to a framework for resolving the grave problems described below, we will have no choice but to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of prisoners in the Jail.
I. The Jail Fails to Provide Adequate Accommodations to Prisoners with Disabilities Under Federal and State Law
Our investigation has uncovered widespread violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, California Government Code§ 11135, and relevant regulations interpreting those laws. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. § 794; 28 C.P.R.§ 35.101 etseq.; Cal. Civ. Code§ 54etseq.; Cal. Gov't Code§ 11135. The ADA and similar laws apply with full force to all correctional facilities, including the Jail. See, e.g., Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d ll90, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Pa. Dep't of Carr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 209-10 (1998)). Put simply, the County lacks policies and practices necessary to ensure the accommodation of prisoners with disabilities, and, as a result, routinely discriminates against prisoners with disabilities in violation of state and federal law.
685239·8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page153 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page4 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors Aprill5, 2013 Page3
To begin with, the Jail does not adequately screen incoming prisoners to determine whether they have disabilities that require accommodations. In addition, the Jail does not maintain a central list, electronic or otherwise, of prisoners with disabilities and the accommodations they require. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 876 (9th Cir. 2001) (prison system's lack of disability tracking system violates the ADA). The Jail's failure to identify and track prisoners with disabilities contributes to pervasive violations of prisoners' rights under federal and state disability laws.
The Jail has no mechanism for providing notice to prisoners of their rights under the ADA, as required by federal regulation. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.106. The Jail also lacks an adequate grievance procedure for prisoners to request accommodations while incarcerated, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b). Prisoners have reported problems obtaining grievance forms, which are controlled by staff. Our interviews with prisoners and review of custody files indicate that even when prisoners are able to submit a grievance about disability-related issues, they frequently receive delayed or incomplete responses or no response at all.
The Jail routinely fails to provide accommodations to prisoners with hearing, vision, speech, and other impairments that affect communication. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160. Specifically, the Jail rarely, if ever, provides prisoners with sign language interpreters, hearing aids, or other auxiliary aids to ensure that prisoners with disabilities can effectively communicate with custody and medical staff. This failure to ensure effective communication affects access to nearly every program and service offered by the Jail, including the booldng process, telephones, disciplinary proceedings, religious services, recreational programs, medical and mental health care, and educational and vocational programs. For example, at a medical appointment for a hearing impaired prisoner who primarily communicates using American Sign Language, medical staff not only refused his request for a sign language interpreter, but also refused the prisoner's alternative request to communicate using written notes. Instead, the staff member forced the prisoner to read lips, which the prisoner is unable to do, leaving him unable to understand most of what the staff member conveyed during the medical visit and placing the prisoner at a significant risk of misdiagnosis and harm. This same prisoner was also found guilty of a disciplinary infraction and sanctioned at a hearing in which he was unable to effectively participate because he was denied a sign language interpreter.
In the course of the investigation, we learned that the Jail, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.152, frequently fails to provide prisoners with disabilities with safe and accessible housing. Only a few areas of the Jail have accessible showers and toilets. The Jail lacks adequate policies and practices to ensure that prisoners who require such facilities are placed and retained in these accessible housing units. For example, a wheelchair-bound
685239·9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page154 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page5 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors Aprill5, 2013 Page4
prisoner who was assigned to a housing unit that lacked toilets and showers with grab bars fell repeatedly trying to take care of his basic needs and hygiene. Moreover, the exercise yard for the Rotunda, all of the Pods, the clinic, and the Women's Section of the Jail can only be accessed by traveling up one long flight and then down a shorter flight of stairs. The Jail routinely houses prisoners with mobility impairments in these units even though these architectural barriers deny such prisoners access to the yard.
The Jail often refuses to provide assistive devices--including but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, tapping canes, hearing aids, and pocket talkers-to prisoners with disabilities. Without such accommodations, prisoners are unable to move around the Jail and access the Jail's programs and services, in violation of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. As an example, one prisoner, who required, but was denied, a wheelchair, was forced to have other prisoners carry him to and from the toilet and shower.
The Jail's woefully inadequate program for accommodating prisoners with disabilities not only denies prisoners access to programs and services, it threatens their safety and well-being. Prisoners with unidentified and unaccommodated disabilities are at greater risk of harm in the case of emergencies, including fires, alarms, and earthquakes. Such prisoners are also at increased risk of exploitation by other prisoners as a result of their need to rely upon other prisoners for assistance to access basic services.
II. The Jail Fails to Provide Adequate Health Care to Prisoners
The Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 to the California Constitution, require the County to provide adequate health care to all prisoners in the Jail. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); see also In re Alva, 33 Cal. 4th 254, 291 (2004). Our investigation has uncovered distressing evidence of a manifestly unconstitutional health care system, in which the County is deliberately indifferent to the medical and mental health care needs of its prisoners. 1
1 It is our understanding that the County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group ("CFMG") to provide medical and mental health care to prisoners in the Jail. The County is nonetheless liable for all constitutional violations suffered by prisoners, whether those violations were caused by County personnel or employees of CFMG. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 56 (1988).
655239·9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page155 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page6 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors Aprill5, 2013 PageS
"A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society." Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011).
A. Inadequate Mental Health Care
The County violates prisoners' rights under the federal and state constitutions by failing to provide adequate mental health care. The minimum elements of a constitutional mental health system are:
(l) a systematic program for screening and evaluating inmates to identify those in need of mental health care; (2) a treatment program that involves more than segregation and close supervision of mentally ill inmates; (3) employment of a sufficient number of trained mental health professionals; (4) maintenance of accurate, complete and confidential mental health treatment records; (5) administration of psychotropic medication only with appropriate supervision and periodic evaluation; and (6) a basic program to identify, treat, and supervise inmates at risk for suicide.
Coleman v. Brown, S-90-520 LKK/JFM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50900, at *55-56 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) (quoting Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 198 n.lO (E.D. Cal. 1995), citing Balla v. Idaho, 595 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984)).
The mental health care system in Monterey County Jail falls far short of these minimum standards. The Jail's screening and evaluation processes fail to identify numerous prisoners with serious mental illness. From our interviews and review of custody and medical files, it appears that mental health care treatment in the Jail consists almost entirely of medication. Therapy, on either a group or individual basis, is nearly non-existent. Contrary to law, prisoners with mental illness are segregated from the general population and placed in the A and B Pods for men and the R and S Pods for women. Prisoners in these Pods are frequently denied access to programs and servicesincluding day room access and yard-from which other prisoners benefit. Though medication constitutes the primary mechanism of treatment in the Jail, all medications, including psychotropic medications, are provided to prisoners in an inconsistent manner; medications are frequently changed or discontinued without medical justification.
Most troublingly, the Jail's program for supervising prisoners at risk of suicide is patently deficient. Among the most shocking discoveries is theJail's regular placement of prisoners in mental health care crisis (and for that matter, prisoners who are simply
68523g.g

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page156 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page7 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors April15, 2013 Page 6
misbehaving) in "rubber rooms." These "rubber rooms," which lack any furniture or features save for a grate in the floor which serves as the toilet, are punitive, antitherapeutic, disgusting, and inhumane. The floors (on which prisoners sleep, urinate, and defecate) and walls of the "mbber rooms" are frequently covered in feces.
The shortcomings in the Jail's mental health care system have had tragic consequences. Over the past three years, there have been two completed and more than a dozen attempted suicides. The rate of completed suicides at the Jail significantly exceeds the national average for local jails.
In addition, many prisoners in the Jail suffer from obvious, untreated psychiatric problems. One prisoner, who had been found incompetent to stand trial because of his mental illness, did not receive any medications for his first 10 days in the Jail; as a result, he became depressed and began to hear voices. Another prisoner simply asked to see a mental health clinician, and was placed naked in a rubber room for a significant period of time. Other prisoners we interviewed were floridly psychotic during our meetings and clearly were not receiving adequate mental health care treatment.
B. Inadequate Medical Care
The County routinely and systemically violates the federal and state constitutional rights of prisoners by failing to provide minimally adequate medical care.
The Jail's screening process is inadequate for identifying prisoners with serious and chronic medical issues; as a result, many prisoners receive no treatment for serious conditions for significant periods of time (if ever) after being booked into the jail. Even when the Jail identifies a new prisoner with chronic or serious medical concerns, the Jail frequently refuses to continue the prescribed treatment the prisoner was receiving. In particular, the Jail employs a remarkably punitive "detox protocol" for prisoners who arrive at the Jail, refusing to provide prisoners with pain medication prescribed by their outside doctors. See Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated in part on other grounds by Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer (Estate ofFord), 301 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference to ignore outside doctors without medical justification). Prisoners placed on the "detox protocol" suffer from intense, untreated pain as well as powerful, dangerous, and unnecessary withdrawal symptoms.
The Jail also has a systemic practice of delaying necessary treatments until prisoners are released in order to avoid the expense of treatment. This is particularly true when the care required by a prisoner involves referral to an outside medical provider.
68523g.g

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page157 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page8 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors April15, 2013 Page 7
These and other practices violate established precedent governing adequate medical care. See LeMarbe v. Wisneski, 266 F.3d 429, 440 (6th Cir. 2001).
Prisoners have difficulty requesting assistance through the sick call procedure, and often experience substantial delays before being seen by an appropriate medical provider. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982) (medical care is deficient when prisoners are unable to make their needs known to medical and mental health care staff). As a result, medical issues often go untreated for weeks or months. See lett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference "may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment") (quotation marks and citations omitted). It is our understanding that the inability of patients to be seen in a timely manner is both a product of the Jail's overcrowding (discussed below) as well as the County's refusal to hire sufficient health care workers. See Anderson v. Atlanta, 778 F.2d 678, 685-89 (11th Cir. 1985) (deliberate indifference where insufficient number of medical professionals employed to provide care).
When prisoners are able to meet with medical staff, staff routinely fail to address the prisoners' concerns or fail to provide care when care is medically indicated. See lett, 439 F.3d at 1098 (deliberate indifference where correctional facility refused to provide medically indicated treatment).
These policies and practices have resulted in significant harm to numerous prisoners. We are aware that the Jail has been prone to several outbreaks of infectious disease, including scabies, measles, and staph infections. At least three prisoners with colostomies did not receive appropriate supplies or follow-up treatment, including reversal procedures, while at the Jail. Prisoners who arrive at the Jail with serious chronic medical issues, including ulcerative colitis, a rare stomach fungus, and high blood pressure, consistently reported delays or lack of appropriate treatment. Other prisoners reported that the Jail was refusing to provide them with prescribed medications, some of which the prisoners had been taldng for years to manage chronic issues. Many prisoners described patently insufficient treatment for traumatic injuries; for example, one prisoner, who had his collar bone fractured by a Jail deputy, received no treatment for his injury other than an ice pack for four days. Another prisoner received no treatment for vaginal bleeding that occurred for two months. A number of prisoners received grossly inadequate treatment after being released from the hospital back to the Jail.
685239-9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page158 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page9 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors April15, 2013 Page 8
III. The Jail Fails to Protect Prisoners from Harm
Pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution, the County must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1970). The County violates the constitutional rights of inmates because it "knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." !d. at 847.
Prisoners housed in Monterey County Jail face a constitutionally unacceptable risk of violence from other prisoners. Our review of Monterey County Jail Incident Reports for January 2011 to September 2012 indicates that scores of prisoners are attacked and injured by other prisoners. Most of the incidents require medical attention for at least one of the participants, either at the Jail or the local hospital. These incidents occur in almost every area of the Jail, including housing units, the kitchen, infirmary, and visiting area. Violent incidents talce place among male prisoners and female prisoners at approximately the same rate. Jail staff almost never intervene to stop incidents of prisoner violence before they are complete. Moreover, in many cases, Jail staff never identify the assailants.
Rather than take steps to mitigate the risk of violence, Jail officials, through their deliberate policy choices, create the environment in which violence flourishes. The County has elected to operate the Jail with an insufficient number of officers, accepting the risk that its staff will not be able to monitor and protect all prisoners. As is discussed in more detail below, the Jail is extraordinarily overcrowded, which makes it considerably more difficult for the County to protect prisoners from violence. The Jail itself is a patchwork of malceshift spaces, thrown together to keep up with Monterey's fast-growing Jail populations. Consequently, throughout the housing units and other spaces, there are numerous blind spots where staff cannot safely monitor prisoners. And finally, the Jail does not adequately classify and assign prisoners to housing locations in the Jail where they will be safe from injury and violence. Prisoners who are incompatible, including because of rival gang memberships and/or histories of assaultive behaviors, are regularly housed together in the Jail.
IV. The County Refuses to Utilize Available Solutions to Reduce Overcrowding in the Jail
Each of the constitutional and statutory violations discussed above are caused, at least in part, by the severely overcrowded conditions in the Jail. As the United States Supreme Court has explained:
685239·9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page159 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page10 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors Aprill5, 2013 Page9
Crowding ... creates unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that hamper effective delivery of medical and mental health care.... Cramped conditions promote unrest and violence, maldng it difficult for prison officials to monitor and control the prison population.... [O]vercrowding may prevent immediate medical attention necessary to avoid suffering, death, or spread of disease.... Living in crowded, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions can cause prisoners with latent mental illnesses to worsen and develop overt symptoms. Crowding may also impede efforts to improve delivery of care.
Plata, 131 S. Ct. at 1933-34 (citations omitted).
These conditions prevail in the Jail; as Monterey County Civil Grand Jury concluded, "[t]he County Jail is suffering a condition of gross overcrowding." The Jail has a rated capacity for 829 prisoners, but has in the recent past housed as many as 1200 prisoners, nearly 150 percent of capacity. Some areas of the Jail are considerably more overcrowded than the Jail as a whole, especially in the Women's Section.
County officials have repeatedly acknowledged the severity of the Jail's overcrowding problem. For many years now, Monterey County has applied on a monthly basis to the Superior Court for the County of Monterey for an order to release prisoners on an accelerated basis pursuant to California Penal Code section 4024.1. To support the applications, the former Chief Deputy Sheriff for the County has sworn on multiple occasions that unless the Jail is able to release some inmates, the overcrowding in the Jail would "compromise[] the inmate classification plan as well as the safety and security of the detention facilities." In support of the applications, Dr. Taylor Fithian, Director of CFMG, "advised that the excessive number of inmates housed in the Jail compromises the health of the inmates and the staff worldng at the facility." As recently as late 2012, Sheriff Miller stated that "[o]vercrowding has been a serious problem at the jail for many years, creating a dangerous situation for inmates, jail staff and the community."
Despite the profound and persistent overcrowding, the County has not availed itself of all opportunities to reduce the Jail population. In particular, the County fails to utilize any form of pre-trial risk assessment for all but a handful of detained defendants, refuses to expand capacity for its existing work release program for sentenced individuals, and has failed to investigate opportunities for collaboration between agencies to expand its capacity to supervise individuals on mandatory community supervision as part of a split sentence. If the County used these policies and programs to reduce the Jail's census, the population in the Jail would quickly fall below the Jail's rated capacity without harm to public safety.
685239·9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page160 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page11 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors April 15, 2013 Page 10
Instead, the County has unwisely decided to try building its way out of its overcrowding problem. In the fall, the County announced plans to expand the Jail at a cost of more than $40 million; this project will not be completed until2017 at the earliest. And most recently, Sheriff Miller announced that the County was planning to send as many as 50 prisoners to be housed in Alameda County Jail because the Monterey County Jail is too overcrowded; this program will cost a minimum of $1.5 million annually. These proposed expenditures amount to a needless waste of public funds. Moreover, they will do little to alleviate the illegal conditions in the existing Jail facilities.
V. Framework for Ameliorating the Illegal Conditions in the Jail
The violations of state and federal law we have identified must be remedied, and the unnecessary suffering of prisoners in the Jail must come to an end. To achieve that end without the need for costly and protracted litigation, we propose entering into an enforceable agreement with certain minimum criteria.
First and most importantly, the agreement would provide for a process of retaining mutually agreeable neutral experts to review the Jail's practices with respect to accommodations for prisoners with disabilities, medical and mental healthcare, overcrowding, and violence. Within 120 days of the appointment of the experts, they would issue reports proposing standards and remediation for conditions found to be below the minimum federal and state standards.
Second, at the same time that the experts are reviewing Jail policies and practices, county officials must agree to engage in serious efforts consistent with law and public safety to reduce crowding at the jail, including implementing pre-trial services and alternatives to incarceration for the individuals who present the lowest risk and stand to benefit significantly from accessing employment, education, substance abuse treatment, and other services only available in the community. The county should also investigate the possibility of utilizing split sentencing to a greater extent. These and other measures would be expected to reduce the jail population significantly over the next six to nine months.
Third, the settlement process must ultimately result in a settlement agreement filed with the court and over which the court retains continuing jurisdiction. The agreement would require that the County, where necessary to comply with state and federal law, revise policies and procedures, implement a system for quality control, and permit outside monitoring of conditions.
685239-9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page161 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-3 Filed06/12/14 Page12 of 12
The Honorable Scott Miller Monterey County Supervisors April 15, 2013 Page 11

Please let us know as soon as possible whether the County is open to pre-litigation discussions consistent with this letter. If we do not agree on a framework for resolution by May 16,2013, we will have no choice but to file a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to ameliorate the illegal conditions in the Jail.
Very truly yours,

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

Is/ Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

Is/ James Egar

By: Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

By: James Egar

GCG:amc cc: (by Federal Express)
Charles J. McKee, County Counsel Manuel Real, Chief Probation Officer

68523g.g

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page162 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page1 of 66
Complaint for Damages
Exh. 4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page163 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page2 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page1 of 65

MICHAEL W.BIEN — 096891

GAY C. GRUNFELD — 121944

2 VAN SWEARINGEN — 259809

MICHAEL FREEDMAN — 262850

SARAH P. ALEXANDER — 291080

ROSEN BIEN

4 GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-1823

Telephone: (415)433-6830

6 Facsimile: (415)433-7104

Email:

mbien@rb g.com

7

ggrunfeld a~rbgg.com

vswearingen@rbgg.com

8

mfreedman~~rbgg.com

spalexander rbgg.com

9

JAMES EGAR — 065702

10 Public Defender

DONALD E.LANDIS,JR. — 149006

11 Assistant Public Defender

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

12 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

111 West Alisal Street

13 Salinas, California 93901-2644

Telephone: (831)755-5806

14 Facsimile: (831)755-5873

Email:

EgarJS@co.monterey.ca.us

15

LandisDE@co.monterey.ca.us

ALAN SCHLOSSER— 049957

MICAELA DAMS — 282195

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA,INC.

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111-4805

Telephone: (415)621-2493

Facsimile: (415)255-8437

Email:

aschlosser@aclunc.org

mdavis@aclunc.org

ERIC BALABAN*

CARL TAKEI

ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT

915 15th Street N.W.,7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005-2302

Telephone: (202)393-4930

Facsimile: (202)393-4931

Email:

ebalaban@npp-aclu.org

ctakei@npp-aclu.org

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

21 JESSE HERNANDEZ et al., on behalfof themselves and all others similarly situated,
22 Plaintiffs,
23 v.
24 COUNTY OF MONTEREY;IVIONTEREY
25 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
26 GROUP,INCORPORATED,a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,
27 Defendants.
28

Case No. CV 13 2354 PSG
DECLARATION OF PABLO STEWART IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Judge: Hon.Paul S. Grewal Date: June 3,2014 Time: 10:00 A.M. Crtrm.: 5,4th Floor
Trial Date: None Set

CV 13 2354 PSG DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page164 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page3 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page2 of 65

1

I, Pablo Stewart, declare:

2

1. I am aboard-certified psychiatrist and Clinical Professor in the Department

3 ofPsychiatry at the University ofCalifornia, San Francisco. My curriculum vitae is

4 attached hereto as Exhibit A. I have more than 25 years ofexperience in correctional

5 mental health care, including serving as the court's expert in class action cases challenging

6 the provision of mental health care to prisoners.

7

2. I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the policies and practices

8 ofthe County ofMonterey,the Monterey County Sheriff's Office, California Forensic

9 Medical Group("CFMG"), and their agents as they relate to the provision of mental health

10 care to prisoners in Monterey County Jail(the "Jail").

11

3. In order to prepare this report, I have reviewed the following materials:

12

a. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint

13

b. Draft Review of Mental Health Services at the Monterey County Jail,

14 ~ Dr. Richard Hayward,Ph.D.,Dec.6,2013

15

c. Monterey County Jail Health Care Evaluation, Dr. Mike Puisis, D.O.,

16 ~ Nov.29,2013

17

d. Rule 26 Report, Michael Hackett, Dec.9,2013

18

e. The CFMG Staffing Plan for Monterey County

19

£ All declarations submitted by named plaintiffs in support ofPlaintiffs'

20 Motion for Class Certification

21

g. Inmate Daily Count Sheets from January 1, 2013 to March 13, 2013

22

h. California Forensic Medical Group,Inc.,Policy and Procedure

23 Manual, Monterey County Adult Detention Facility

24

i. Monterey County Sheriffs Office, Custody Operations, Policies and

25 Procedures

26

j. Minutes, Quality Assurance/Peer Review Committee Meeting,

27 Monterey County Jail &Juvenile Hall Medical Services, Oct.28,2010

28

I

~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page165 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page4 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page3 of 65

1

k. Minutes, Quality Assurance/Peer Review Committee Meeting,

2 Monterey County Jail &Juvenile Hall Medical Services, Jan. 27,2011

3

1. Letter from Gay Grunfeld,Plaintiffs' counsel, to Dr. Hayward,Dec.

4 ~ 20,2013

5

m. Initial Response to Feedback to Draft ofReview ofMental Health

6 Services at the Monterey County Jail, Dr. Hayward,Jan. 17,2014

7

n. Letter from Michael Philippi, Deputy County Counsel, Monterey

8 County,to Dr. Hayward,Jan. 13,2014

9

o. Letter from Gay Grunfeld to Dr. Hayward,Feb. 11,2014

10

p. Email from Susan Blitch, Senior Deputy County Counsel, Monterey

11 ~ County,to Dr. Hayward,Feb. 11, 2014

12

q. Applications by the Monterey County Sheriffls Office pursuant to

13 California Penal Code § 4024.1

14

r. ADA Assessment &Review,Monterey County Jail, SZS Consulting,

15 Nov.30,2013, Appendix

16

s. Redacted documents related to the suicide ofDaniel Lariviere,

17 including the Coroner Report, July 25,2011; Monterey County Postmortem Examination,

18 July 11,2011; Toxicology Report, July 19,2011; Monterey County, Office ofthe Sheriff,

19 Crime/Incident Reports and Supplements,July 8,2011; Safety Cell Log,July 5,2011;

20 Classification Inmate Intake Screening Questionnaire, July 5,201l; Intake Health

21 Screening form,July 5, 2011; and Pre-Booking Sheet, July 5,2011

22

t. Documents(some redacted)related to the suicide ofJessie Crow,

23 including the Coroner Report, August 30,2010; Monterey County Postmortem

24 Examination, August 11,2010; Toxicology Report, August 13, 2010; and documents from

25 Mr.Crow's medical file

26

u. Redacted incident reports related to the suicide of Joshua Claypole

27

v. Incident reports from September 1, 2012 to March 2014 involving

28 ~ ~ suicide attempts

II

2

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page166 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page5 of 66

(i~ao~ea-~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page4 of 65

1

4. My opinions set forth below are based upon the documents and other

2 evidence listed above and on my professional knowledge and my experiences working in

3 ~ correctional settings.

4

5. This case is still in a very early stage. I am informed that the parties have not

5 yet exchanged any formal discovery. For example,I have not conducted any inspection of

6 the Jail facilities,I have not interviewed any staffor prisoners, and I have only reviewed a

7'. small number ofrecords for the named plaintiffs. As a result, I have not been able to form

8 opinions regarding certain elements ofthe mental health care system at the Jail. For

9 example,at the present time, I do not have access to the information necessary to form

10 opinions regarding whether Defendants maintain appropriate medical records. I would

11 expect to consider this and other issues not addressed in this report in the future once

12 Plaintiffs propound discovery. Based upon the documents and information I have

13 reviewed, however,I am able to offer the following preliminary opinions. I reserve the

14 right to supplement or modify these opinions as more information becomes available.

15

6. From my preliminary review, it is my opinion that the mental health care

16 program at the Jail is not sufficient to meet prisoners' serious mental health needs and

17 needlessly places prisoners in the Jail at a substantial risk ofserious harm. The serious,

18 system-wide problems with the mental health care system at the Jail include the following:

19

• Defendants fail to staffthe Jail with sufficient mental health, medical, and

20

custody staffto deliver timely and appropriate mental health care to

21

prisoners with serious mental illness.

22

• Defendants' intake processes are inadequate, in that they fail to adequately

23

identify prisoners with mental illness booked into the Jail and also fail to

24

appropriately continue care that prisoners were receiving in the community.

25

• Defendants lack an effective and timely mechanism for prisoners to request

26

mental health care services.

27

• Defendants fail to appropriately and safely manage and monitor the

28

administration of psychotropic medication.

II

~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page167 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page6 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page5 of 65

1

• Defendants do not offer adequate group and individual therapy to prisoners

2

with serious mental illness.

3

• Defendants lack adequate policies and practices for transferring prisoners

4

who require higher level inpatient or crisis care to facilities that can meet

5

prisoners' serious mental health needs.

6

• Defendants, pursuant to policy, house prisoners with the most serious mental

7

illness in restrictive administrative segregation units that aggravate prisoners'

8~1

mental health and deny prisoners access to programs and services in the Jail.

91

• Defendants lack an adequately functioning suicide prevention program;

10

expose acutely suicidal prisoners to unnecessarily harsh conditions in safety

11

cells that exacerbate prisoners' suicidality and inhibit prisoners from coming

12

forward with suicidal feelings; fail to adequately observe prisoners placed on

13

suicide watch; and have a higher than average suicide rate.

14

• Defendants' quality improvement program is inadequate to ensure

15

Defendants identify and fix systemic problems.

16

• Additionally, the Jail is overcrowded, which magnifies the negative effects

17

ofeach ofthe problems listed above.

18

7. As I discuss below, it is my opinion that, collectively and individually, these

19 problems place all prisoners at a substantial risk ofserious harm. Any prisoner, whether

20 they enter the Jail with a diagnosed mental illness or not, may develop symptoms ofmental

21 illness while in the Jail. This is especially true given the harsh, overcrowded conditions in

22 the Jail. And any prisoner with mental illness in the Jail is endangered by Defendants'

23 problematic policies and practices, which do not ensure that prisoners receive timely,

24 appropriate, and effective mental health care. Consequently, all prisoners, notjust

25 prisoners with diagnosed mental illness, are placed at great risk ofserious harm by

26 Defendants' deficient mental health care system.

27

28

4

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page168 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page7 of 66

[~~ao~ea-~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page6 of 65

1

Defendants' Insufficient Staffing of Mental Health Care Clinicians, Medical

Clinicians, and Custody Staff Affects All Prisoners With Serious Mental Illness.

2

3

8. From the information I have reviewed, it is my opinion that the County and

4 CFMG do not employ sufficient mental health care, medical, and custody staffto ensure

5 ~ prisoners receive mental health care in a timely and appropriate manner. Defendants'

6 ~ understaffing affects all prisoners in the Jail, especially those who have serious mental

7 illness.

8

9. The number of mental health care clinicians employed at the Jail is not

9 ~ adequate to deliver mental health care to prisoners in the Jail. As part ofthe contract for

10 CFMG to provide medical, mental health, and dental services to prisoners at the Jail,

11 Defendants developed a staffing plan for the Jail. Pursuant to the staffing plan, CFMG

12 employs three staff members who provide mental health services to prisoners: a

13 Psychiatrist who works 15 hours a week,a Licensed Clinical Social

14 Worker/Psychologist/Marriage and Family Therapist who works 20 hours a week,and a

15 psychiatric registered nurse who works 40 hours per week. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. H.

16 According to the staffing plan,collectively there are 1.88 Full-time Equivalent("FTE")

17 positions for mental health care staff at the Jail.

18

10. Dr.Richard Hayward,Ph.D., wasjointly retained by the parties to conduct

19 an evaluation ofthe mental health care system at the Jail. In his draft report summarizing

20 his findings,Dr. Hayward indicated that he was informed that CFMG employs four

21 employees to provide mental health treatment to prisoners: Dr. Taylor Fithian, a

22 psychiatrist who works about 25 hours a week in the Jail, Dr. Elaine Finnberg,Ph.D., a

23 psychologist who works 20 hours per week in the Jail, Charlotte Gage,R.N.,a registered

24 nurse who works 40 hours per week at the Jail, and Kim Spano,L.M.F.T.,a licensed

25 marriage and family therapist who works 40 hours per week. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. O,at

26 4. According to Dr. Hayward,collectively there are 3.125 FTE positions for mental health

27 care staff at the Jail.

28

11. Regardless of whether the Defendants staffthe Jail at the level indicated in

I

5

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page169 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page8 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page7 of 65 1 the staffing plan agreed to by CFMG and the County or at the level indicated in

2 Dr. Hayward's report,the number and type ofclinical staffin the Jail are not sufficient for

3 ajail the size ofMonterey County Jail. In his draft report, Dr. Hayward described a

4 shortage of mental health care clinicians and the risks the shortage poses to prisoners. He

5 found that CFMG needed to add an additional 0.5 FTE staffing for a mental health

6 clinician in addition to the psychiatrist and psychologist"to provide a minimally adequate

7 ~ level of mental health services ..." at the Jail. See id. Dr. Hayward found that the

8 '~ additional staffis necessary for Defendants to "provide mental health intake assessments,

9 crisis intervention services, evaluations ofinmates in the safety cells or the restraint chair

10 and supportive counseling to seriously mentally ill inmate-patients housed in the

11 administrative segregation pods." See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. M,at 5.

12

12. Dr. Hayward also identifies as a problem that there are no mental health

13 ~ care clinicians on site at the Jail on weekends and holidays. See id. at 2,5. One

14 consequence ofthis staffing deficiency is that prisoners who require acute psychiatric

15 services on weekends remain in the Jail, largely untreated, until the mental health

16 clinicians arrive on Monday. My review ofthe declaration for PlaintiffBrandon Mefford,

17 a prisoner who Defendants knew suffered from serious mental illness, indicates that this is

18 exactly what happened to him. He was identified as being in mental health crisis on a

19 Friday afternoon at about 3:00 P.M. Over the weekend,PlaintiffMefford was not seen by

20 any mental health care staffand was housed in a safety cell(sometimes being placed in a

21 restraint chair with belly chains and a helmet)or a booking cell. He was not seen by a

22 mental health clinician until Monday. This lack ofqualified mental health staffon-site on

23 weekends poses a serious risk to prisoners who are suicidal. Any prisoners, newly booked

24 or otherwise, who present with any mental health needs on a Friday, Saturday,or Sunday

25 will be at risk for deterioration ofhis or her condition and needless suffering over the

26 weekend without mental health care staffing. Accordingly,I agree with Dr. Hayward that

27 the understaffing of mental health clinicians at the Jail results in inadequate mental health

28 care services for prisoners in the Jail.

II

~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page170 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page9 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page8 of 65

1

13. In order to provide minimally adequate mental health care to prisoners in the

2 Jail, Defendants will,for the following reasons, need to add significantly more than 0.5

3 FTE mental health clinicians to the staff.

4

14. To begin with, Dr. Hayward's recommendation for additional staffing did

5 ~ not include a relieffactor. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. O,at 4. A relieffactor indicates how

6 ~ many FTEs it takes to fill a position,taking into account the inevitable absences of

7 ~ employees for vacation,sickness, leave, and training. Any evaluation ofstaffing that does

8 not include a relieffactor necessarily underestimates the minimum amount ofnecessary

9 staff.

10

15. More importantly, Dr. Hayward's recommendation appears to be based upon

11 ~ an under-estimation ofthe needs ofprisoners for mental health care services. Dr. Hayward

12 explained that Defendants house prisoners with the most serious mental illness in

13 administrative segregation: A and B Pods for men,and R and S Pods for women. See

14 Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 6. He also explained that his staffing recommendation was

15 based on the Jail needing to provide socialization groups to those prisoners once per week

16 for one hour. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 7. It is my opinion that one hour ofstructured

17 out-of-cell time once per week for prisoners who are "not stabilized" falls far below the

18 standard ofcare and is insufficient to provide adequate psychiatric therapy to prisoners

19 who have serious mental illness. Dr. Hayward's estimate for additional needed staff does

20 not take into account the need for significantly greater group therapy offerings necessary to

21 meet the standard ofcare.

22

16. It is my opinion that Defendants also do not staffthe Jail with sufficient

23 ~ medical staff, placing all prisoners, including prisoners with serious mental illness, at risk

24 ofsignificant harm. Dr. Mike Puisis, who evaluated the quality of medical care provided

25 in the Jail as ajoint expert for the parties, found that the staffing pattern for providing

26 medical care in the Jail "is not capable ofaccomplishing all assigned duties ...." Grunfeld

27 Decl., Ex. J, at 7;see id. at 3("Staffing is inadequate."). According to Dr. Hayward,the

28 mental health care staff at the Jail relies heavily on medical stafffor a number ofcritical

']

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART iS0 PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page171 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page10 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page9 of 65

1 ~ tasks, including, but not limited to, screening ofprisoners with mental illness during the

2 ~ intake process, distributing psychiatric medications, verifying prescriptions for psychiatric

3'~ medications, attending to prisoners in acute psychiatric distress on weekends and holidays,

4 ~ and processing and routing requests for mental health care treatment. See Grunfeld Decl.,

5 ~ Ex. M,at 1-4. The shortages ofmedical providers identified by Dr. Puisis would

6 ~ necessarily have an impact on the ability ofprisoners to receive timely, adequate mental

7 health care in the Jail.

8

17. It is my opinion that Defendants also do not staffthe Jail with sufficient

9 ~ custody staffto ensure the timely delivery ofappropriate mental health care, which affects

10 all prisoners in the Jail. Each ofthe experts who reviewed staffing found that custody

11 staffing was insufficient to complete all necessary tasks. Dr. Hayward found that custody

12 stafffrequently failed to make required safety checks ofprisoners in safety cells twice

13 every thirty minutes, as required by Sheriff's Office and CFMG policies, a deficiency

14 possibly caused by lack ofsufficient staff. See id. at 12. Dr.Puisis concluded that custody

15 staffing in the Jail was insufficient to adequately facilitate the provision of medical care to

16 prisoners. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J, at 3("Because there are limitations with respect to

17 officers transporting inmates for their scheduled appointments, officer staffing should be

18 evaluated along with medical staffing."). Michael Hackett, who evaluated the safety in the

19 Jail as ajoint expert for the parties, also concluded that custody staffing at the Jail was

20 inadequate in a number ofrespects. See generally Grunfeld Decl., Ex.I, at ¶~ 3.1-.14. In

21 addition,TRG Consulting, who produced a Jail Needs Assessment for the County and

22 Sheriffs Office in December 2011,also found that the Jail employed nowhere near enough

23 custody staffto, among other things,"provide medical care ... and move inmates within

24 the facility." Second Am.Compl.,Ex.B(Dkt. No.41), at EX.6.

25

18. These custody staffing shortages create serious problems for all prisoners.

26 For example, many ofthe named plaintiffs were unable, at some point during their time in

27 the Jail, to receive needed medical treatment because ofthe unavailability ofcustody staff.

28

19. In my experience, mental health care staff members in correctional settings

g

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page172 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page11 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page10 of 65 1 rely upon custody staffto assist in the provision of mental health care to prisoners. Among

2 ~ other critical tasks, custody staff members escort prisoners to and from mental health care

3 ~ treatment and monitor prisoners with mental illness in administrative segregation and in

4 ~ safety cells. Custody staffis also responsible for supervising prisoners on the exercise

5 ~ yard, in the day room,and for other programs and activities. The shortages ofcustody

staff identified by Drs. Puisis and Hayward and by Mr. Hackett and TRG Consulting

7 necessarily impede the delivery of mental health care and the provision ofother activities.

8 It is thus my opinion that the Jail's failure to employ sufficient custody staffto ensure that

9 prisoners with mental illness receive the care that they require affects all prisoners at the

10 Jail.

11

20. Without more information regarding the incidence and acuity of mental

12 ~ illness in the Jail population, I cannot provide a recommendation regarding the quantity of

13 additional mental health care and medical clinicians and custody staffnecessary to provide

14 adequate mental health care to prisoners in the Jail I am,however,confident that, as

15 found by Dr. Hayward,Defendants currently do not staffthe Jail with sufficient mental

16 health clinicians to ensure that prisoners receive the mental health treatment they require. I

17 am also confident that Dr. Hayward's estimate—that an additional 0.5 FTE for mental

18 health clinicians would result in minimally adequate mental health care staffis too low,

19 likely by a significant amount.

20

21. Lack of sufficient mental health, medical, and custody staff inevitably has a

21 negative impact on the quality and quantity ofthe mental health care delivered to

22 prisoners. An understaffed facility, and particularly one that appears to be as understaffed

23 ~ as the Jail, is simply not capable ofproviding all ofthe mental health care services that

24 prisoners require. The problems caused by understaffing are exacerbated by the

25 overcrowding in the Jail, which I discuss below. As a result ofthe lack ofsufficient

26 mental health, medical, and custody staff at the Jail, all prisoners with, or who may

27 develop, mental illness, are placed at serious risk ofsubstantial harm.

28

II

9

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page173 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page12 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page11 of 65
Defendants Fail to Adequately Identify Prisoners with Mental Illness During the Intake and Booking Process, and Thereby Fail to Continue Providing the Care 2 Prisoners Were Receiving in the Community and/or Fail to Provide Care Prisoners
Require When They Arrive at the Jail. 3

4

22. One ofthe most important functions ofajail mental health care system is to

5 ensure that newly booked prisoners quickly receive the mental health care services they

6 require. For prisoners who were receiving mental health treatment up to the time oftheir

7 arrest, ajail must identify the nature ofthe person's mental illness, the types oftreatments

they were receiving in the community, and ensure such treatment is continued unless a

9 provider makes a reasonable clinical determination to discontinue or change treatment

10 following aface-to-face assessment ofthe patient. For prisoners who were not receiving

11 treatment in the community,ajail must determine whether the person suffers from mental

12 illness and devise an appropriate treatment plan. The Jail's intake process fails to ensure

13 that necessary mental health treatment is continued or initiated.

14

23. Any failure to quickly diagnose new prisoners' mental illnesses, identify

15 their community mental health treatment(ifany), and devise an appropriate treatment plan

16 for their time in the Jail, can have devastating consequences. As is discussed more fully

17 below,prisoners with mental illness who are introduced to a Jail environment are,for a

18 number ofreasons, at a heightened risk ofsuicide; any delay in identifying such prisoners

19 and mitigating that risk can result in self-harm and attempted or completed suicide. In

20 addition, and as is also discussed more fully below,for those prisoners who were taking

21 psychotropic medications in the community,any interruption of medication can cause a

22 prisoner to mentally decompensate, may result in a permanent worsening oftheir

23 underlying mental illness, and may make future treatment more difficult and potentially

24 less efficacious.

25

24. The intake process is also important for ensuring that prisoners are placed in

26 appropriatejail housing. Prisoners with unstable mental illness should be placed into

27 housing units capable ofaddressing their mental health needs. And prisoners who are at

28 risk ofsuicide must be placed in suicide-safe housing,in which suicide hazards have been

CV 13 2354 PSG DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page174 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page13 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page12 of 65 1 ~ eliminated and where there is increased observation. The Jail's intake process fails to

2 ~ ensure that mentally ill prisoners are appropriately housed after intake.

3

25. The policies and practices at the Jail for identifying newly-booked prisoners

4 ~ with mental illness and ensuring they receive appropriate treatment and housing are

5 ~ inadequate in a number ofrespects. Pursuant to Sheriff's Office and CFMG policy,the

6 ~ process ofidentifying prisoners with mental illness and their mental health needs occurs in

7 three steps. First, during the booking process, custody staffcompletes an Intake Health

8 Screening form for all prisoners. Second,for prisoners identified as receiving psychiatric

9 medications, medical staffis supposed to conduct an Intake Triage Assessment

10 immediately. And third, if medical staffrefers a patient for a psychiatric evaluation, a

11 psychiatrist is supposed to assess the prisoner within five to seven days. Each ofthese

12 steps is deficient in ways that expose prisoners to substantial risk ofserious harm.

13

26. Both the Intake Health Screening form and the custody officers who

14 ~ complete it are inadequate for the task. Though the form does include some questions

15 about prisoners' mental health, Dr. Hayward found it was insufficient to capture adequate

16 information regarding prisoners with mental illness. As Dr. Hayward explains,the form

17 should, but does not, include questions regarding whether the prisoner has ever been

18 hospitalized at a psychiatric facility in the past five years, whether the prisoner ever has

19 been or is currently depressed, or has ever had mental health counseling or treatment. See

20 Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 2. I agree with Dr. Hayward's recommendations.

21

27. Dr. Puisis, in his report, concluded that the Intake Health Screening process

22 ~ "does not provide for accurate or appropriate medical intake screening and therefore does

23 not protect incoming detainees from harm." Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, at 15. He found that

24 the "responsibilities placed upon correctional officers ... are well beyond their ability to

25 perform" and that the officers were not properly trained for the function. Id. He

26 recommended that, for ajail the size ofMonterey County Jail, all screening be conducted

27 by nurses. See id. I agree with Dr. Puisis. Having custody staffconduct initial health care

28 screenings is ineffective and dangerous. Prisoners with mental illness, many ofwhom also

~~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page175 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page14 of 66

~~~ao~aa-~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page13 of 65 1 have co-occurring substance abuse problems, are frequently reluctant to provide truthful

2 information to correctional officers, especially before the charges against them have been

3 ~ resolved. Having non-medical, poorly-trained staffconduct initial healthcare evaluations

4 ~ places all prisoners, especially those with mental illness, at risk ofharm.

5

28. At this first stage ofthe intake process,Dr.Puisis also observed that custody

6 ~ staff members make decisions regarding whether to place prisoners in sobering or safety

7 ~ cells. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J, at 19-20. Dr.Puisis found that the officers making these

8 decisions "are not trained to identify persons at risk for withdrawal,to evaluate persons

9 who appear to be intoxicated, or to make medical decisions with respect to isolation for

10 this purpose.... The altered mental status ofalcoholism or drug withdrawal can mask

11 serious injury or other medical conditions." Id. at 20. Dr.Puisis recommended that these

12 decisions should be made "by medical professionals not custody officers." Id. And he

13 concluded that the current practice "places detainees at risk for harm." Id.

14

29. I agree with Dr. Puisis. As he correctly states, substance intoxication and/or

15 ~ withdrawal can mask serious injury or other medical conditions. These conditions also

16 heighten the risk ofsuicide. It is particularly difficult to identify prisoners with mental

17 illness in the context ofsubstance intoxication and withdrawal. For that reason, medical

18 and mental health screening should be conducted by properly trained medical or mental

19 health care staff.

20

30. At the first step, Dr. Puisis also found that Defendants lack any policy to

21 ~ govern the housing ofprisoners with mental illness. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, at 13. This

22 systematic deficiency places all prisoners at risk by increasing the likelihood(1)that a

23 prisoner with mental illness is housed in an inappropriate setting that increases the

24 prisoner's risk ofsuicide or decompensation or(2)that the prisoner with mental illness is

25 involved in a conflict with other prisoners or staff while experiencing a behavioral

26 disturbance secondary to his or her inadequately treated mental illness.

27

31. The second step ofthe intake process,the Intake Triage Assessment, is

28 ~ conducted by medical staff at the Jail. Dr.Puisis found that during the Intake Triage

~ 2

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART 1S0 PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page176 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page15 of 66

[~iao~ea-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page14 of 65 1 ~ Assessment, medical staffsignificantly under-identifies chronic diseases,including

2 tuberculosis, hypertension, diabetes, and asthma, among newly-booked prisoners. See

3 Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J, at 17-19. If medical staffsimilarly under-identifies prisoners with

4 ~ mental illness, and therefore fail to refer them to mental health care staff, it would also

5 ~ place prisoners at risk ofharm. Dr. Hayward indicated that this does occur in the Jail. See

6 ~ Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. N,at 5(asking Dr. Hayward ifthere were "any prisoners who suffered

7 ~ from mental illness at the time ofintake but who were not identified as having mental

8 illness"); Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. O,at 2(responding that"some inmates were not identified as

9 having a mental illness until sometime following their intake").

10

32. In order to reach the third step ofthe mental illness identification process,

11 prisoners must be referred by medical staffto see mental health care staff. According to

12 Dr. Hayward, mental health care staffis available for urgent mental health care referrals

13 during the week,but are not available over the weekends or on holidays. See Grunfeld

14 Decl.,Ex. M,at 2. This staffing deficiency, discussed above,places all prisoners at risk.

15 ~ It also appears, at least with respect to the suicide ofDaniel Lariviere, discussed below,

16 that mental health evaluations do not always occur in a timely manner during the week.

17

33. According to Dr. Hayward,even when prisoners get to see mental health

18 ~ care stafffor an initial evaluation, clinicians do not use any standardized mental health

19 intake form to summarize a prisoner's "symptom and treatment history, community

20 provider(s), prior diagnoses and medications, co-occurring disorders, substance use,[or]

21 history ofself-harm or suicidal ideation and attempts." Id. at 4. As I discuss further

22 below, mental health care staff also does not utilize any comprehensive suicide risk

23 assessment tool to evaluate prisoners' risk ofsuicide. These lack ofstandardized practices

24 place prisoners at risk.

25

34. It also appears that Defendants do not identify and continue needed mental

26 health care treatment for prisoners who were receiving care in the community. Any

27 disruption ofpsychiatric medications can be dangerous for a number ofreasons. First,

28 individuals who take prescribed medication to control their mental illness often

I

~ 3

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page177 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page16 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page15 of 65 1 ~ decompensate iftheir medication is interrupted. This can lead to increased symptoms and

2 ~ risk ofsuicide. Second, a disruption ofprescribed psychiatric medication can actually

3 ~ exacerbate the underlying mental illness by altering brain physiology and causing an

4 ~ expansion offoci in the brain ofthe condition at issue. This is called the "kindling

5 ~ phenomenon." Finally, because disruption of medication can cause a worsening ofthe

6 underlying condition, it can also make it more difficult to treat the metal illness.

7

35. For all ofthese reasons, it is important that Defendants minimize the

8 disruption in receipt ofprescribed psychotropic medications. One ofthe most important

9 means for accomplishing this task is to quickly obtain outside pharmacy records for

10 prisoners to confirm their prescriptions and dosages. This process does not appear to

11 function properly, especially on weekends. Dr. Hayward found that only mental health

12 care staff members, not medical staff, initiate requests for pharmacy records for prisoners

13 with mental illness. See id. at 4. Because ofthe lack ofmental health care staffon site

14 during the weekends,Defendants do not even begin the process ofobtaining mental health

15 care records for prisoners booked on Fridays and weekends until the following Monday.

16 See id. This can result in significant disruptions in the receipt ofprescribed psychotropic

17 ~ medications, which creates the risks I describe above.

18

36. Dr. Puisis found that Defendants' policies and practices for continuing

19 ~ medications begun prior to incarceration are fundamentally flawed. Troublingly, he found

20 that "ifa detainee does not remember the name ofhis medication or ifthe health staffcan

21 not verify a prescription ofmedication at a local pharmacy, no medication is provided even

22 when medication is medically necessary." Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, at 23. Dr.Puisis also

23 found that Defendants lack an adequate process for physician intervention for when staff

24 cannot verify outside medical records. See id. at 13. He concluded that "[b]ased on chart

25 reviews, it appears that MCJ is systematically denying necessary medication to patients

26 with chronic disease." Id. at 23. Similar failures with respect to continuing psychiatric

27 treatment for prisoners newly-booked into the Jail would place prisoners at serious risk of

28 harm.

~ 4

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page178 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page17 of 66

[~iao~ea-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page16 of 65

1

37. The problems identified by Dr. Puisis are likely caused by serious

2 ~ deficiencies and lack ofclarity in the policies regarding continuation of medications

3 ~ prescribed prior to incarceration. There appear to be two policies that might govern the

4 provision ofpsychotropic medications to prisoners newly arrived at the Jail. First, CFMG

5 policy includes a list of medications that can be continued prior to being seen by a mid-

6 level provider or a physician in the sick call process. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. G,at 371.

7 Psychotropic medications are not on this list ofmedications. This means it is critically

8 important that a process exist to ensure prisoners on psychotropic medications have

9 immediate access to a prescribing provider. This is not, however,the case. CFMG has a

10 second, more specific policy, entitled "Psychotropic Medications," which sets forth the

11 procedure for continuing psychotropic medications. See id. at 361. It states that"[n]o

12 psychotropic medications shall be unilaterally discontinued without consultation with the

13 facility physician or psychiatrist." Id. But it then explains that no prisoner will receive

14 psychotropic medications until staffrequests their outside psychiatric records and they are

15 seen by a psychiatrist at the Jail. The policy only requires that the prisoner be seen by the

16 psychiatrist within 5-7 days ofbooking. As I read the policy,this means that, at best, even

17 a prisoner who brings his medication to the Jail and for whom the Jail immediately verifies

18 his prescriptions, will suffer, at a minimum,a five day interruption in medication. As I

19 discuss above, a five day interruption of medication can cause very serious problems. This

20 policy for continuing prescriptions for psychotropic medications begun prior to

21 incarceration places prisoners at a substantial risk ofserious harm.

22

38. Defendants also appear to engage in a very dangerous detoxification process

23 ~ for prisoners who arrive at the Jail intoxicated or with a history ofdrug or alcohol abuse.

24 Individuals suffering alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal are at increased risk of

25 seizures. Most antipsychotic medications lower the seizure threshold. Consequently,it is

26 ~ clinically appropriate to remove a person experiencing alcohol or benzodiazepine

27 withdrawal from antipsychotic medications they are taking for up to 72 to 96 hours for

28 alcohol withdrawal and up to a week depending on the type ofbenzodiazepine. After that

I

15

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page179 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page18 of 66

~>>aa~aa-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page17 of 65 1 time, it is safe and appropriate to restart the antipsychotic medications. As far as I am

2 aware, alcohol and benzodiazepine withdrawal present the only circumstances where, as

3 part ofa detoxification process, it is clinically appropriate to temporarily remove a prisoner

4 ~ from antipsychotic medications. There is no medical reason to remove people from

5 I~ psychotropic medications as part ofthe detoxification process from opiates or

6 ',~ psychostimulants.

7

39. From my limited review, however, it appears that Defendants utilize a

8 ~ punitive, medically contraindicated detoxification process for some prisoners that involves

9 removing them from all psychotropic medications for 90 days or longer. For example, my

10 review ofthe declaration for Plaintiff Gist shows that she was booked into the Jail on

11 March 15, 2012. She informed medical and custody staffthat she was taking a number of

12 psychotropic medications,including Risperidone, Fluoxetine, Benztropine, and Trazodone.

13 Four days later, on March 19,2012, her relatives brought those psychotropic medications

14 to the Jail for her. That same day,the Jail obtained pharmacy records that confirmed that

15 she was prescribed the same medications. On March 20,2012,a psychologist at the Jail

16 consulted with Dr. Fithian about whether PlaintiffGist should be provided with her

17 prescription medication. Dr. Fithian instructed that"due to history ofalcoholism, ... we

18 should hold off medicating her for now to allow her to detox from alcohol while in

19 custody." On March 27,Plaintiff Gist was again seen by the psychologist. In a progress

20 note,the psychologist wrote that "[p]rior to seeing inmate, writer conferred with

21 Dr.Fithian. It was agreed that she is to remain medication free and clean and sober for 90

22 ~ days." It appears that mental health care staff at the Jail also refused to provide Plaintiff

23 Greim with psychiatric medications for 90 days on the basis that he suffered from alcohol

24 dependence.

25

40. There was no clinical justification for denying Plaintiffs Gist and Greim

26 ~ psychotropic medications for 90 days because ofa history ofalcohol abuse. In fact, such a

27 process is medically contraindicated for the reasons I described above regarding the risks

28 ofinterrupting psychotropic medications. This 90-day detoxification "protocol" places

I I

1 h

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page180 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page19 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page18 of 65 1 prisoners with mental illness at a substantial risk ofserious harm.

2

41. Plaintiff Gist's experience also included examples of other problems with the

3 ~ intake process. Defendants did not even consider continuing her previously prescribed

4 ~ medications for at least five days after booking. As I discuss above, afive-day delay to

5 ~ determine whether to continue prescribed medications does not meet the standard ofcare.

6 ~ In addition,Plaintiff Gist did not receive aface-to-face evaluation from Dr.Fithian,the

7 ~ only mental health care staff with prescribing authority at the Jail, prior to discontinuing

8 Plaintiff Gist's psychotropic medications. The standard ofcare for starting or stopping

9 medication is for the prescriber to conduct aface-to-face evaluation.

10

42. As evidenced by the circumstances surrounding the suicide ofDaniel

11 ~ Lariviere, which occurred in July 2011,problems with the intake process can have fatal

12 consequences. I discuss additional problems with Mr.Lariviere's suicide below, but his

13 tragic experience with the intake process is revealing. In short, Mr.Lariviere committed

14 suicide approximately 72 hours after he arrived at the Jail. Upon his arrest, which took

15 place on a Tuesday, Mr.Lariviere was placed in a safety cell in restraints without any prior

16 consultation with mental health care staff. He remained in the safety cell for

17 approximately 2.5 hours, and was released without approval from any mental health care

18 staff. About 12 hours later, Mr. Lariviere was finally interviewed by custody stafffor the

19 Intake Health Screening assessment. Mr. Lariviere informed custody staffthat he was

20 under the care ofa doctor for psychiatric reasons, had a history ofalcohol abuse, and had

21 recently been discharged from a psychiatric hospital. Despite this information,custody

22 staffrecommended that he be placed in the general population. Mr.Lariviere was then

23 evaluated by medical staff, who confirmed the information Mr.Lariviere provided to

24 custody staffand learned that Mr.Lariviere was having auditory hallucinations and had

25 been discharged from the psychiatric hospital only four days earlier. The medical staff

26 conducting the Intake Triage Assessment set a medical appointment for Mr.Lariviere the

27 next day, but did not request an urgent psychiatric consultation, and instead, made an

28 appointment with mental health stafffor Friday,three days later. It is not clear whether

~ ']

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART 1S0 PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page181 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page20 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page19 of 65 1 staffinitiated the process for obtaining Mr.Lariviere's outside mental health care records,

2 ~ including records ofany prescribed medications. For reasons unclear, Mr.Lariviere was

3 then single-celled in an administrative segregation housing unit in a cell that contained

4 ~ suicide hazards. It appears that the medical appointment did not occur as scheduled. And

5 before Mr.Lariviere's scheduled psychiatric evaluation, he committed suicide by hanging

6 ~ in his cell. When Mr. Lariviere committed suicide early on Friday morning, he had

7 ~ received no psychiatric medications and had not been evaluated by either mental health or

8 medical staff. It is my opinion, based on the records I have reviewed,that this suicide was

9 completely preventable. Ifany one ofa number ofthings that should have happened did

10 take place—mental health care consultations before and upon release from placement in

11 safety cell, a mental health suicide risk evaluation prior to being placed in housing, a

12 timely request for and review ofoutside medical treatment and prescription medication

13 records,the continuation ofpreviously prescribed medications, and a safe housing

14 placement for a seriously mentally ill and suicidal prisoner—his suicide would have been

15 prevented.

16

43. The intake process is more difficult to conduct adequately in overcrowded,

17 ~ understaffed facilities, like the Jail, than in jails that have adequate staffand are not

18 overcrowded.

19

44. For all ofthe above-stated reasons, it is my opinion that the Jail's intake

20 ~ process for.identifying and treating prisoners with mental illness is broken and places all

21 prisoners at risk ofharm.

22

Defendants Lack an Adequate Method for Prisoners to Request

Mental Health Care Services.

23

24

45. Another important element of an adequate correctional mental health care

25 ~ system is a functioning, effective process for prisoners to request mental health care

26 services and be timely seen by appropriate stafffor treatment. An inadequate and

27 unreliable health care request process places all prisoners and staff at risk. Those with

28 mental illness are denied access to timely care and others may be harmed ifprisoners with

I

~ ~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page182 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page21 of 66

~~iao~a¢~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page20 of 65 1 mental illness have behavioral disturbances secondary to their untreated mental illness. In

2 ~ my experience, many prisoners with mental illness will underreport their mental health

3 ~ conditions during the intake process. As a result, it is critical to have a means for them to

4 ~ confidentially communicate their mental health needs at a later time. This system is also

5 ~ vital in suicide prevention in that prisoners will often use the system to seek help for

6 ~ suicidality.

7

46. Health requests should be collected and triaged at least twice in any 24 hours

8 ~ period. The system must also have in place mechanisms for the most acute patients to be

9 seen immediately by appropriate staff after the request is triaged.

10

47. The current health care request process at the Jail does not provide prisoners

11 with a reliable and effective means for requesting mental health care services and being

12 timely seen and assessed. Pursuant to policy,the primary method prisoners have for

13 requesting either medical or mental health care services is to fill out and submit what is

14 called a "sick call slip." See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. G,at 230. According to Dr. Puisis, there

15 are a variety ofproblems with the current policy and practices for triaging sick slips. The

16 policy itselfis very brief: It does not address how nurses are to evaluate health requests; it

17 does not include a timeframe for evaluating sick call slips; it does not require vital signs

18 for all symptomatic complains; and it does not require that sick call slips and/or the

19 response to sick call slips be tracked. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J, at 11,22.

20

48. Two additional problems identified by Dr.Puisis are particularly relevant to

21 the delivery ofmental health care. First, even though there are as many as 200 prisoners

22 housed in segregation at any time, including two male(A and B)and two female(R and S) 23 pods ofprisoners with serious mental illness,there is no policy for how such prisoners are 24 to obtain and submit sick call slips. See id. at 22. Second,though all sick call slips are 25 evaluated by medical nurses,there is no policy regarding what is to be done with requests 26 that raise psychiatric issues. See id. at 11. I have reviewed the policy and agree with

27 Dr.Puisis' conclusions.

28

49. The sick call process appears to be even more dysfunctional in practice.

II

lq

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page183 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page22 of 66

~t iao~ea-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page21 of 65

1 ~ Dr.Puisis concluded from his review that the "follow up ofcare ofhealth requests was not

2 ~ consistently timely ...." Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J, at 22. Moreover,according to Dr.Puisis,

3 ~ Defendants do not track "how many people place requests, how many are seen, or whether

4 ~ their care was timely," and thus are "unable to evaluate [their] own performance with

5 ~ respect to detainee access to care." Id. Dr. Hayward reached a similar conclusion. See

6 Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 3("The current procedures lack a systematic method ofauditing

7 ~ receipt and responses to all inmate requests for health services.")

8

50. I have reviewed the declarations ofall ofthe named plaintiffs in this action.

9 ~ Most ofthese declarations describe serious problems using the sick call process to access

10 appropriate care.

11

51. In addition, Defendants do not provide a confidential place for prisoners to

12 ~ submit sick call slips. Instead, as found by both Dr.Puisis and Dr. Hayward,prisoners

13 submit sick call slips in the same boxes into which prisoners also submit grievances

14 regarding non-medical issues. Only custody officers have keys to access the boxes and

15 collect the sick slips and grievances. As Dr.Hayward wrote,"[t]his practice requires

16 modification since current correctional healthcare standards require that inmates have

17 privacy oftheir healthcare requests." Id. at 3;see also Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J at 21 (Dr.

18 Puisis recommending that medical requests should be secure, confidential, and only

19 reviewed by medical staff. I agree with both Dr. Hayward and Dr.Puisis that it is

20 problematic ifDefendants do not have a confidential means for prisoners to request mental

21 health care services.

22

52. These problems with the sick call process at the Jail, which deny prisoners

23 ~ timely access to needed care, affect all prisoners, especially those with mental illness, and

24 place them at risk ofserious harm.

25 The Medication Administration and Prescription Drug Renewal Processes at the Jail Place All Prisoners at Risk of Serious Harm.
26

27

53. The proper administration of psychotropic medications prescribed for

28 prisoners with mental health issues is another critical element ofan adequate mental health

2~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DELL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page184 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page23 of 66

~~~ao~ea-~]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page22 of 65 1 care program in a correctional facility. Many psychotropic medications can cause

2 ~~ significant and adverse side effects, including, but not limited to, extrapyramidal and

3 'I~ metabolic syndromes and cardiac complications, which can cause unnecessary pain and be

4 life threatening. As a result, medical and custody staffin the Jail play a very important

5 'I ~ role monitoring drug side effects, efficacy, and compliance. Staffadministering

6 I~ medication must record their clinical impression ofprisoners taking psychotropic

7 medication, any reports ofside effects, and any instances ofnon-compliance. It appears

8 that Defendants do not adequately utilize the medication administration process to monitor

9 prisoners on psychotropic medications. Dr. Puisis found that "[m]edication administration

10 records are not used to record administration of medication at the time medication is

11 administered. Instead, ... [recording medication administration is performed at a later

12 time by virtue ofevaluating the envelopes [in which the medications were packaged for

13 prisoners] after return to the medication room which may be a few hours after starting

14 medication administration. The nurse records an empty envelope as a successful

15 medication administration. Envelopes which still contain medication are recorded as not

16 given. The reason for not administering medication is recollected from memory. This is

17 ~ not good nursing practice. Medication administration should be documented at the time it

18 is performed." Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. J at 24-25. I agree with Dr.Puisis. The process

19 currently in place for documenting medication distribution places prisoners at risk because

20 it is not adequate for monitoring the side effects, efficacy, and compliance for prisoners

21 taking psychotropic medications.

22

54. In addition, a number ofthe plaintiffs' declarations indicate significant

23 ~ problems renewing expiring prescriptions for medication. From these declarations, it

24 appears that rather than scheduling prisoners for medical appointments prior to the

25 expiration ofa prescription, Jail staff, before taking any action, waits for prisoners to file

26 sick call slips for renewal. For many ofthe plaintiffs, this frequently resulted in

27 disruptions in medications. As I discussed above,any disruption in the receipt of

2811 psychotropic medications can cause serious harm to prisoners.

~~

21

CV 13 2354 PSG'

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page185 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page24 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page23 of 65
1 The Group and Individual Therapy Offered to Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness Is Not Sufficient to Adequately Treat the Mentally Ill Population in the Jail.
2

3

55. Mental health therapy is an essential component of any mental health care

4 ~ system. As important as it is to have an adequate psychiatric medication system, mental

5 ~ illness requires additional treatments besides medication.

6

56. Defendants offer very few opportunities for prisoners to receive mental

7 ~ health therapies. It appears from Dr. Hayward's draft report that the only therapy available

8 to prisoners is individual supportive counseling and psychotherapy offered by the L.M.F.T.

9 and group socialization/support groups run by the psychiatric nurse. Dr. Hayward does not

10 specify how many hours oftherapy the L.M.F.T. offers on weekly basis. He does indicate

11 that prisoners who are cleared by custody staff are eligible to receive one hour ofgroup

12 therapy every two weeks.

13

57. As I discussed above, the quantity of group therapy offered at the Jail—once

14 every other week for one hour—falls well below the standard ofcare for seriously

15 mentally ill prisoners housed in restricted housing units. Individual therapy should be

16 provided as often as clinically indicated. Because I do not know how often individual

17 therapy is offered,I cannot draw any opinion regarding its adequacy for all mentally ill

18 prisoners.

19

58. Pursuant to Defendants' policies and according to Dr. Hayward,it appears

20 ~ that the prisoners with the most severe mental illness may be denied access to group

21 therapy. Dr. Hayward explained in his draft report that only prisoners who "are

22 sufficiently stable to participate in group"therapy are permitted to participate. Grunfeld

23 Decl.,Ex. M,at 6. Plaintiffs' counsel requested clarification from Dr. Hayward regarding

24 ~ who determines whether a prisoner is "sufficiently stable." Dr. Hayward explained that

25 "deputies have the responsibility to determine which inmate-patients can participate safely

26 in groups. The deputies consider only safety issues not clinical issues." Grunfeld Decl.,

27 ~ Ex. O,at 5. IfI understand Dr. Hayward correctly, because only "stable" prisoners can

28 participate in group therapy,the prisoners with the most severe mental illness, who are the

II

22

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page186 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page25 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page24 of 65 1 ~ least stable but also the most in need ofsocialization and therapy, are more likely to be

2 denied access to therapy. Moreover, custody staff, not clinical staff, makes the decisions

3 regarding who can participate in socialization groups. This is very problematic. Custody

4 staff members lack clinical training to determine what treatment a prisoner with serious

5 mental illness requires. As far as I could determine from my review ofthe Jail and CFMG

6 policies, there is no policy governing which prisoners custody staffshould permit to

7 participate in group therapy. Though I have not had an opportunity to observe group

8 ~ therapy offered at the Jail, I have serious concerns that the most seriously ill and difficult

9 prisoners will be denied access to therapy.

10

59. It is considerably more difficult to offer adequate mental health therapy to

11 ~ prisoners in overcrowded facilities. In order to offer individual and group therapy,the

12 facility must have sufficient staffto transport prisoners to and from the location ofthe

13 therapy and confidential and adequately-sized locations that are conducive to therapy. In

14 overcrowded facilities, like the Jail, both adequate transportation staff and adequate space

15 to offer therapy are frequently lacking. It appears that both areas are problems at the Jail.

16 Defendants Lack Adequate Policies and Practices for Transferring Prisoners Who

Require Higher Levels of'Psychiatric Care to Facilities Licensed to Provide That

17

Level of Care.

18

60. Another critical element of any adequate correctional mental health system is

19 the ability to provide inpatient mental health care services to prisoners who require higher

20 levels ofcare. Prisoners must have access to inpatient units with appropriately trained

21 ~ mental health care staff. Prisoners must also have access to units licensed to provide care

22 ~ to prisoners in acute psychiatric crisis.

23

61. From my review,the Jail is not licensed to provide any higher levels ofcare

24 ~ to prisoners with serious mental illness. Accordingly, Defendants must have in place

25 adequate policies and practices for transferring prisoners to a licensed facility that can

26 provide such care. I have not fully evaluated the processes in place at the Jail, but it

27 appears that, in theory, Defendants utilize a mental health care unit at Natividad Medical

28 Center("NMC")when prisoners require higher levels ofcare. According to Dr. Hayward,

I

V 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS?MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page187 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page26 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page25 of 65

however,transfers to NMC do not always take place when necessary. Dr. Hayward writes

2 that:

3

The [Jail] has the capability oftransporting an inmate to Natividad Medical

Center for acute psychiatric services on weekends. However,review ofthe

4

records indicates that this rarely occurs and most inmate-patients remain in

the jail until the mental health clinicians arrive on Monday. They may be

5

placed in a safety cell on suicide precautions for observation until they can

be evaluated by a mental health clinician. The safety cells are used

6

excessively for this purpose and inmates may remain in the safety cell over

the weekend until a clinician provides evaluation and release on Mondays.

7

8 Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M at 5. I agree with Dr. Hayward that Defendants' failures to timely

9 transfer prisoners to inpatient mental health care units when necessary is a significant

10 ~ problem and places prisoners with mental illness at risk ofserious harm.

11 By Housing Prisoners With Serious Mental Illness in Administrative Segregation, Defendants Place Prisoners' Mental Health In Serious Jeopardy.
12

13

62. As discussed above,Defendants have a policy ofhousing the prisoners with

14 ~ the most serious mental illness in administrative segregation units— A and B Pods for

15 men,R and S Pods for women. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 6.1 According to policy,

16 ~ prisoners in these units are locked in their cells for 23 hours per day. Grunfeld Dec.,

17 ~ Ex. G,at 217. This policy is confirmed by named Plaintiffs who have been housed in

18 administrative segregation in the Jail, who describe how they and other prisoners in such

19 pods are only permitted one hour outside oftheir cells per day. The hour that prisoners are

20 permitted outside oftheir cell is the only opportunity they have to exercise,shower,and

21 use the telephone.

22

63. Prisoners with mental illness are likely to deteriorate and decompensate in

23 segregation units under isolated conditions. This deterioration and decompensation often

24 takes the form ofacting out and other actions that may violate the rules ofthe correctional

25

26 i C,D,G,H,I, and J-Pods also are administrative segregations units. It is my understanding that Defendants house prisoners with mental illness in these units as well.
27 However,according to Dr. Hayward,A,B,R,and S-Pods are the only administrative segregation units in which Defendants house prisoners because oftheir mental illness.
28

CV 13 2354 PSG DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page188 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page27 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page26 of 65

facility. In these cases,the prisoners'"bad" conduct is the direct product oftheir mental

2 illness. Their illness exacerbates the psychological and behavioral reactions they have to

3 the pain and stress ofisolated confinement.

D

64. Scientific literature establishes the risk ofharm posed to seriously mentally

ill persons who are placed in solitary confinement or segregation. The recognition ofthis

6 ~ risk has led professional mental health organizations to prohibit the placement ofthe

7 ~ seriously mentally ill in such units or,ifit is absolutely necessary(and only as a last resort)

8 to confine them there, but under strict limits and with significant amounts ofout-of-cell

9 time and enhanced access to care. For example,the American Psychiatric Association

10 i( ~ "APA")has issued a Position Statement on Segregation ofPrisoners with Mental lllness

11 stating:

12

Prolonged segregation of adult inmates with serious mental illness, with rare

exceptions, should be avoided due to the potential for harm to such inmates.

13

If an inmate with serious mental illness is placed in segregation, out-of-cell

structured therapeutic activities (i.e., mental health/psychiatric treatment) in

14

appropriate programming space and adequate unstructured out-of-cell time

should be permined. Correctional mental health authorities should work

15

closely with administrative custody staff to maximize access to clinically

indicated programming and recreation for the individuals.

16

17 ~ The APA's position on this issue reflects the accepted fact that mentally ill prisoners are

18 ~ especially vulnerable to isolation- and stress-related regression, deterioration, and

19 ~ decompensating that worsen their psychiatric conditions and intensify their mental health-

20 ~ related symptoms and maladies(including depression, psychosis, and self-harm). I share

21 this view.

22

65. Correctional professionals likewise have recognized the risk ofplacing

23 mentally ill prisoners in isolated confinement. Mental health staffin awell-functioning

24 prison orjail system is required by policy and practice to screen prisoners in advance of

25 their possible placement in isolation to identify those who are mentally ill and to exclude

26

27 2Am.Psych. Assoc.,Position Statements: Segregation ofPrisoners with Mental Illness (2012), available at http://www.psychiatry.org/advocacy--newsroom/position-statements.
28

CV 13 2354 PSG DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page189 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page28 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page27 of 65 1 them from such confinement ifindicated. Moreover,they are charged with regularly

2 ~ monitoring isolated prisoners to identify any who may be manifesting the signs and

3 ~ symptoms ofemerging mental illness and to remove them from these harmful

4 environments ifindicated.

5

66. The concerns about placing prisoners with serious mental illness in isolated

6 ~ conditions generally emanate from the conundrum faced by correctional staff when a

7 ~ prisoner with serious mental illness violates the rules ofa facility. Standard correctional

8 practice is to place prisoners who break facility rules in the isolated conditions of

9 administrative segregation as a punishment. A consensus has been reached in mental

10 health care and correctional communities, however,that when a prisoner who breaks the

11 rules suffers from serious mental illness,the facility must take into account the prisoner's

12 mental illness when devising an appropriate response to his or her rule breaking. This

13 break from ordinary practice is necessitated by the risks that a prisoner with mental illness

14 faces in administrative segregation.

15

67. Defendants' use ofadministrative segregation as a place to house prisoners

16 ~ with mental illness who have not violated any Jail rules is an extremely dangerous

17 practice. Instead oftrying to avoid placing prisoners with serious mental illness in

18 administrative segregation unless absolutely necessary, Defendants place such prisoners in

19 administrative segregation because oftheir serious mental illness. Thus,as a matter of

20 policy and practice, Defendants intentionally expose prisoners with serious mental illness

21 to the dangerous conditions of administrative segregation. This practice is far outside the

22 accepted norms in the correctional or mental health care communities, and places prisoners

23 at risk ofgrave harm.

24

68. Not only do Defendants place prisoners in administrative segregation

25 ~ because oftheir mental illness, Defendants have no policy governing how and when

26 prisoners placed in administrative segregation should be transferred to less restrictive

27 housing environments. Dr. Hayward recommended in his draft report that"the Sheriff

28 adopt a policy ofhaving Classification review the status of mentally ill inmates housed in

II

26

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page190 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page29 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page28 of 65 1 ~ administrative segregation at least once monthly to determine ifthe inmate can be moved

21'~ to less restrictive housing." Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 9. I infer from Dr. Hayward's

3 ~ recommendation that such reviews do not occur monthly and may not occur at all. Failing

4 ~ to reevaluate prisoners with serious mental illness to transfer them out ofadministrative

5 ~ segregation as soon as possible further contributes to the risks ofharm faced by such

6 ~ prisoners.

7

69. Approximately halfofall suicides committed in correctional facilities take

8 ~ place in administrative segregation units. In fact, all three suicides since 2010 in the Jail

9 have occurred in administrative segregation. One ofthe suicides occurred in A Pod,one of

10 the housing units in which Defendants specifically place prisoners with serious,

11 unstabilized mental illness.

12

70. In recognition ofthe risks posed to prisoners with mental illness in

13 ~ administrative segregation, it is the correctional standard that security checks occur twice

14 every hour at intervals no longer than 30 minutes at unpredictable and intermittent times.

15 Pursuant to policy, custody staffonly conducts health and welfare checks ofprisoners in

16 administrative segregation once every hour. The policy also does not mandate that the

17 security checks be conducted at intermittent and unpredictable times or that stafflog their

18 observations ofprisoners. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex.E,at § 1 106.04. It is my opinion that

19 the inadequacies in the Defendants' policies for conducting safety checks on prisoners in

20 administrative segregation place all prisoners, especially those with serious mental illness,

21 at risk ofserious harm.

22

71. It is my opinion that Defendants overuse administrative segregation units to

23 house prisoners with mental illness. Overuse ofadministrative segregation is a common

24 problem in overcrowded facilities like the Jail.

25 Defendants' Suicide Prevention Program Is Deficient in a Number of Respects that

Significantly Increase the Likelihood of Self-Harm and Suicide For All Prisoners,

26

Especially Those With Mental Illness.

27

72. The suicide rate in the Monterey County Jail is nearly twice the average

28 ~ suicide rate forjails throughout the country. According to the most recent data available

2']

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page191 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page30 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page29 of 65

1 ~ from the Department ofJustice's Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the average suicide rate in

2 jails throughout the country was 43 suicides per 100,000 inmates in 2011.3 From 2010

3 ~ through 2013,three prisoners committed suicide in Monterey County Jail. Assuming the

4 Jail maintained an average daily population of 1000 prisoners throughout that time period,

5 ~ the suicide rate for the Jail for those four years is 75 suicides per 100,000 prisoners. That

6 rate is 74 percent above the national average for jail populations.

7

73. Having reviewed the Jail's suicide prevention policies, a number of

8 ~ documents related to completed and attempted suicides, and the declarations for the named

9 Plaintiffs, it is not surprising that the rate ofsuicide in the Jail is above the national

10 average. The suicide prevention program at the Jail has a number ofserious problems that

11 ~ place all prisoners at risk.

12

74. As is discussed above, Defendants' policies and practices during the intake

13 ~ process for identifying prisoners with serious mental illness, including those who are at

14 risk ofsuicide, are woefully inadequate. Prisoners newly booked into the Jail have a

15 higher risk ofsuicide than prisoners who have been in the Jail for a longer time.

16 Incarceration is one ofthe most stressful experiences people can encounter. The stress

17 associated with arrest incarceration increases the likelihood ofsuicide. People often are

18 booked into the Jail while intoxicated on drugs and alcohol; individuals experiencing acute

19 withdrawal are at an extremely high risk for suicide. Finally,the mentally ill are

20 overrepresented in the Jail population. As a result, Defendants' failures ofsuicide

21 prevention during the intake process place prisoners at great risk ofharm.

22

75. According to Dr. Hayward,Defendants do not utilize any comprehensive

23 ~ ~ suicide risk assessment tool. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 12. The only means by which

24 Defendants become aware ofprisoners who are at risk ofsuicide is when prisoners express

25 suicidal ideation to staffor display self-harm behavior. See id. Dr. Hayward,as an

26 3 See U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Mortality in Local Jails and State
27 Prisons, 2000-2011, at 8,Table 3(Aug.2013),available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0011.pdf.
28

II

28

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page192 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page31 of 66

~~~ao~a¢~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page30 of 65

1 appendix to his report, included an example ofone such form. See id. at Appendix A. 2 Without a suicide assessment tool, Defendants are unable to employ suicide prevention 3 efforts with respect to a subpopulation ofprisoners at high risk ofsuicide—those who have 4 any ofa variety ofindicia ofsuicidality, but who have not yet engaged in self-harm or 5 reported their suicidal feelings to any staff members. A suicide risk assessment tool is a
basic element of an adequate suicide prevention program.

7

76. When Jail staff members determine that a prisoner is at risk of harming him

8 or herself, staff members place prisoners in one ofthe six safety cells in the Jail. The

9 conditions in the safety cells are extraordinarily punitive. According to Plaintiffs'

10 declarations, the safety cells, which are often referred to as "rubber rooms," are empty

11 rooms with padded walls and floors. The safety cells have no features other than a

12 window and a tray slot in the door and a grate in the floor through which prisoners must

13 urinate and defecate. The safety cells have no beds,sinks, toilets(other than the grate in

14 the floor), chairs, tables, or windows for natural light. Prisoners must sit, sleep, and eat on

15 the same floor on which the toilet grate is located. In addition, according to Dr. Hayward,

16 the safety cells are not sufficiently maintained and cleaned. See id. at 11. As a result, they

17 frequently smell ofand are sometimes covered in feces.

18

77. Prisoners placed in the safety cells are denied nearly all privileges and

19 ~ human contact. From my review ofsafety cell logs attached to Plaintiffs' declarations,

20 prisoners are not provided with showers, any out ofcell time, exercise, or property while in

21 the safety cells, regardless ofhow long they are retained in those cells. Pursuant to policy,

22 Defendants are supposed to provide prisoners with meals and water;from my review of

23 Plaintiffs' declarations, it appears that this does not alwayshappen. In addition, Jail policy 24 explicitly permits staffto handcuffand shackle prisoners while they are in the safety cells. 25 See Grunfeld Decl., Ex.E,at § 1104.06(section improperly numbered in e~chibit as

26 11104.06). From my review ofsome ofthe Plaintiffs' declarations,it appears that staff

27 frequently engages in this practice.

28

78. As ifthe conditions discussed above were not sufficiently punitive,

29

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page193 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page32 of 66

~t~ao~sa-~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page31 of 65

1 Defendants frequently strip prisoners and place them naked in the safety cells. Jail policy

2 ~ requires that prisoners placed in the safety cells "shall be allowed to retain sufficient

3 ~ clothing or be provided with a safety smock to provide for their personal privacy unless

4 ~ specific identified risks to the inmate's safety or to the security ofthe facility are

5 ~ documented." Id. at § 1104.05(I)(section improperly numbered in ea~hibit as 1114.05).

6 ~ However, according to Dr. Hayward,Jail stafffrequently deprives prisoners ofclothing or

7 a safety smock gown for many hours. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 11.

8

79. It is my opinion that these conditions are overly restrictive and punitive.

9 Confining a suicidal prisoner to their cell for 24 hours a day only enhances isolation and is

10 anti-therapeutic. Under these circumstances, it is also difficult, ifnot impossible,to

11 accurately gauge the source ofthe prisoner's suicidal ideation. The punitive nature ofthe

12 safety cells also increases the risk ofsuicide in two very dangerous ways. First,the

13 conditions increase prisoners' suicidality, also increasing the risk that prisoners will follow

14 through on their suicidal feelings. Second,punitive conditions in the safety cells increase

15 the likelihood that a suicidal individual will not report feelings ofsuicidality in order to

16 avoid being placed in a safety cell.

17

80. These effects are very real, not hypothetical. For example, according to his

18 ~ declaration, when PlaintiffMefford was experiencing suicidal thoughts in January 2014,

19 he explicitly represented to mental health care staffthat he was unsure whether he should

20 report his true level ofsuicidality because he was afraid he would be placed in a safety

21 cell. Once he was placed in the safety cell, his suicidality increased markedly and he

22 engaged in repeated acts ofself-harm.

23

81. Defendants' policies and practices for observing prisoners in safety cells are

24 wholly inadequate and place prisoners at risk. Sheriff's Office policy requires that custody

25 staff members conduct and log a safety check at least twice every thirty minutes when a

26 prisoner is in a safety cell. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex.E,at § 1104.05(B)&(C)(section

27 improperly numbered in exhibit as 1114.05). CFMG policy requires that medical staff be

28 notified within one hour ofa prisoner's placement in a safety cell, that medical staff

II

3~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page194 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page33 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page32 of 65 1 ~ members check in on the prisoner at least once every six hours, and that mental health staff

2 ~ members evaluate a prisoner within 24 hours ofplacement. Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. G,at 289.

3

82. The policies, even iffollowed perfectly, are problematic in a number ofways

4 ~ that place prisoners at risk. First, Defendants lack any policy for suicide watch. Suicide

5 watch—where staffconstantly observes an acutely suicidal prisoner—is necessary to

6 ensure that certain, acutely suicidal prisoners do not engage in self-harm. To address this

7 danger,some correctional systems,for example the Federal Bureau ofPrisons,place all

8 suicidal prisoners under constant observation until such time that mental health care staff

9 determines the prisoner is no longer at risk ofself-harm. The complete lack ofa suicide

10 watch policy at the Jail places prisoners at risk ofserious harm.

11

83. Second,the custody policy for conducting safety checks ofsuicidal prisoners

12 ~ placed in safety cells does not require that the twice-every-half-hour safety checks be

13 conducted at unpredictable and non-repeating times. Safety checks at unpredictable times

14 are necessary to ensure that the patient cannot anticipate the amount oftime they will not

15 be observed and engage in suicidal acts.

16

84. Third, CFMG's policy permits a suicidal prisoner to be kept in a safety cell

17 ~ for up to 24 hours without any evaluation by mental health care staff. A suicidal patient

18 should be seen prior to being placed in a safety cell to determine ifthey require such

19 placement. In cases where that is not possible,the patient should be seen as soon as

20 possible after placement in a safety cell; 24 hours is far too long for a suicidal prisoner to

21 spend in a safety cell without being seen by mental health care staff. The lack ofan

22 adequate policy has, according to Dr. Hayward,resulted an "excessive" use ofsafety cells

23 at the Jail. Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 12. Dr. Hayward wrote that "[r]eview ofthe records

24 ~ indicates that many ofthe inmates placed on suicide watch in a safety cell reported suicidal

25 ideation but were not acutely suicidal." Id.

26

85. Fourth,the policy does not specify what level provider is authorized to

27 ~ evaluate and remove a suicidal prisoner from a safety cell, nor does it specify whether

28 evaluations must be in in-person. By potentially permitting low-level providers to admit,

3 j

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page195 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page34 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page33 of 65

1 evaluate, and discharge suicidal prisoners from safety cells,the policy places suicidal

2 ~ prisoners at risk ofserious harm.

3

86. Dr. Hayward found that Defendants do not even follow their flawed safety

4 cell policies. In his review ofsafety cell logs, he found "that many deputy checks were out

5 ofcompliance with the required frequency oftwo every 30 minutes. Some logs document

6 delays ofan hour or more between checks." Id. at 12. My review ofthe declaration for

7 PlaintiffMefford confirms Dr. Hayward's findings, as there were numerous times where

8 Plaintiff Mefford was in a safety cell and was not observed by stafftwice every halfhour.

9

87. Dr. Hayward concluded that staff's failures to perform safety checks

10 "presents an increased risk ofinmate self-harm ...." Id. I agree with his conclusion. The

11 failure to conduct safety checks on a timely basis is a hallmark ofovercrowded facilities

12 like the Jail.

13

88. Dr. Hayward also found that Defendants overuse the safety cells as holding

14 ~ cells for prisoners displaying acute mental illness while staff waits for a mental health

15 clinician to arrive. As he explains, prisoners"may be placed in a safety cell on suicide

16 precautions for observation until they can be evaluated by a mental health clinician....

17 [I]nmates may remain in the safety cell over the weekend until a clinician provides

18 evaluation and release on Mondays." Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. M,at 5. Keeping prisoners in a

19 safety cell for a prolonged period oftime,such as an entire weekend, without any attention

20 from mental health clinicians, can seriously harm a prisoner's mental health.

21

89. Defendants' use ofrestraint chairs also places prisoners at risk ofserious

22 harm. Restraint chairs should only be used when a prisoner is so out ofcontrol that the

23 only means for preventing harm to selfor others is to place them in a restraint chair. That

24 said, prisoners placed in restraint chairs are at significant risk ofphysical harm from being

25 restrained. As a result, prisoners who have been placed in a restraint chair must be

26 ~ constantly observed. Jail policy provides that prisoners in restraint chairs must be

27 observed twice every thirty minutes,the same frequency as for prisoners in safety cells.

28

90. Though I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review Defendants' use of

II

32

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page196 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page35 of 66

~i~ao~ea-~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page34 of 65

1 ~ restraint chairs, Defendants do not always follow their stated policy. For example,

2 ~ Plaintiff Mefford was placed in restraint chairs for approximately four hours and twenty

3 ~ minutes on December 15 and 16,2013. Staffshould have conducted a minimum of 18

4 ~ checks during that time period. Instead, staffonly conducted 13 checks. Moreover, during

5 ~ the time he was in the chair, periods of39 and 50 minutes passed without any checks.

6 ~ During such long periods without observation, it was possible that PlaintiffMefford could

7 have suffered grave injury or even death.

8

9L It also appears that the physical structure ofthe Jail does adequately protect

9 prisoners with mental illness from suicide. TRG Consulting found in its December 2011

10 assessment ofthe Jail that "suicide hazard elimination is not as stringent as it should be to 11 prevent self-harm ...." Second Am.Compl.,Ex.B(Dkt. No.41), at A.3. I have not yet 12 been able to inspect the facilities at the Jail. Nonetheless, a correctional facility should

13 have a sufficient number ofcells without suicide hazards in booking and in all places 14 where mentally ill prisoners are housed. IfDefendants have not sufficiently eliminated 15 suicide hazards at the Jail, it would increase the risk ofharm to which prisoners with

16 mental illness are exposed.

17

92. I have reviewed some4 documents related to the three completed suicides

18 ~ since 2010. In each case, problems with the Jail's mental health and suicide prevention

19 ~ programs appear to have contributed to the suicides.

20

93. Daniel Lariviere: Daniel Lariviere committed suicide on July 8, 2011.

21 Multiple failures in Defendants' mental health and suicide prevention programs preceded

22 Mr. Lariviere's suicide. The problems with Mr. Lariviere's intake, diagnosis, and

23 ~ intervention, discussed above in Paragraph 42, speak to deficiencies in Defendants' suicide

24 prevention program. Defendants' actions in the hours immediately preceding and

25 following Mr. Lariviere's death reflect additional inadequacies that place prisoners at risk.

26

27 4 I should note that I have only been able to review the medical file for Jessie Crow,and not for the other two prisoners who committed suicide.
28

II

~~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page197 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page36 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page35 of 65

1!~ Mr. Lariviere was ultimately housed in a single cell in I-Pod, an administrative segregation

2 ~ housing unit. Early in the morning,sometime between 2:05 and 3:06 a.m., Mr.Lariviere

3 ~ tied a ligature onto part ofthe window and hanged himself He was found with either a t-

4 ~ shirt or a sheet around his neck(Defendants' records are unclear) at 3:06 a.m. during an

5 ~ hourly safety check. A deputy cut Mr.Lariviere down using a knife, began shaking him to

6 ~ try to get a response, and then began to implement CPR. Medical staff was called, and,

7 ~ when Mr.Lariviere did not respond, he was pronounced dead.

8

94. Defendants' supervision of Mr. Lariviere and response to his suicide were

9 problematic in a number ofrespects. The safety checks in administrative segregation were

10 conducted hourly, as opposed to every half hour. Moreover,the checks were not staggered

11 and unpredictable, but rather, occurred almost exactly one hour apart(at 12:10, 1:10,2:05,

12 and 3:06 a.m.). Though Defendants maintained a log ofthe time at which they conducted

13 safety checks for Mr. Lariviere's unit(and presumably other units), they kept no log of

14 their observations ofindividual prisoners (i.e., whether the prisoner was awake or asleep,

15 standing or lying down,etc.). And rather,than start CPR immediately,the deputy shook

16 Mr. Lariviere, and only when he did not respond, did staff begin CPR. This series of

17 events highlight Defendants' inadequate policies and practices for monitoring prisoners in

18 administrative segregation,inadequate training ofofficers regarding how to respond to

19 medical and suicide emergencies,and lack ofsuicide-safe housing. Better policies,

20 practices, and training and safer housing may have been able to save Mr.Lariviere's life.

21

95. Jesse CYOw: Jesse Crow committed suicide on August 7,2011,by hanging

22 ~ in his cell in D-Pod,one ofthe administrative segregation pods. According to the

23 Coroner's Report, Mr. Crow used a rope that he manufactured himselfwhile in Jail that he

24 threaded through the air vent in the ceiling. He also used another rope he made in the Jail

25 to tie his cell door closed so securely that it took two deputies to pry open the door. A

26 number ofelements ofMr. Crow's suicide are problematic. First,that Mr. Crow was able

27 to construct two substantial ropes, and position one ofthem to hang himselfand the other

28 to prevent stafffrom opening his door, all without staffnoticing indicates that staff was not

34

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART 1S0 PLS.' MOT10N FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page198 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page37 of 66

(11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page36 of 65 1 ~ conducting effective checks ofprisoners in an administrative segregation unit. In addition,

2 ~ Mr. Crow's ability to access the air vent in his cell demonstrates that Defendants did not

3 ~ adequately eliminate suicide hazards in administrative segregation; suicide resistant air

4 ~ vents are generally available forjails and prisons. Finally, Mr. Crow submitted one sick

5 ~ call slip on June 22,2010 stating that he was depressed, and another on June 23,2010

6 ~ complaining oftrouble sleeping. Mr. Crow was not seen by any mental health care staff

7 ~ between his complaints and the date ofhis suicide.

8

96. Joshua Claypole: Joshua Claypole attempted suicide on May 4, 2013 by

9 ~ hanging,and died a few days later at a hospital in San Jose from complications from his

10 suicide attempt. As with the other two suicides, elements ofMr. Claypole's suicide

11 demonstrate problems with the Jail's suicide prevention program. At the time he

12 attempted suicide, Mr. Claypole was housed in A Pod,one ofthe administrative

13 segregation housing units utilized by Defendants to house prisoners with serious mental

14 illness. Mr.Claypole was found in his second-tier cell and had used his sheet as a noose.

15 The cell included a set ofsturdy metal braces on that wall to which the sheet had been tied,

16 which are serious suicide hazards. When an officer initially found Mr. Claypole,rather

17 than immediately open the cell to cut down the ligature, the officer requested back up by

18 custody and medical staff. Staffdid not open the cell and begin to assist Mr. Claypole

19 until other custody staff arrived on the scene. Staffcut Mr. Claypole's ligature using a

20 knife and appeared to have some difficulty doing so;this indicates that they lacked access

21 to a cut-down tool, a much more efficient tool for such a purpose.

22

97. My review ofincident reports involving attempted suicides also identified a

23 number ofproblems with Defendants' suicide prevention program. For example, an

24 incident report from September 2012 indicates that prisoners in the booking area have

25 access to material(a sheet)they can use to harm themselves. An incident report from

26 November 2012 involved a prisoner who engaged in self-harm(using fingernails and part

27 ofa prisoner ID wristband to open aself-inflicted wound)and was placed in a safety cell;

28 that prisoner was transferred directly from the safety cell to a general population holding

~5

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page199 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page38 of 66

[11407847]

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page37 of 65 1 cell, where the prisoner proceeded to assault another prisoner. An incident report from

2~~ Apri12013,in which a female prisoner ingested one ounce ofCombat germicide solution,

3 indicates that Defendants have poor control over items that can be used for self-harm.

4 ~ Finally, an incident report from September 2013—where a deputy, without consulting with

5 ~ mental health care staffor calling for backup,tased a mentally ill detainee who had

6 ~ threatened suicide after the prisoner refused to surrender her spork and leave her cell

7 ~ demonstrates that Defendants improperly use force against prisoners who are suicidal and

8 who have mental illness.

9 Defendants appear to lack an adequate quality improvement plan for identifying and

fixing problems with the delivery of mental health care and especially for responding

10

to completed and attempted suicides.

11

98. All adequately functioning correctional mental health systems must have a

12 robust quality improvement process in place. A quality improvement program provides an

13 essential forum for custody and medical staffto review performance, identify problems,

14 and devise,implement, and evaluate solutions. A quality improvement process is

15 particularly critical for ensuring the adequacy ofa suicide prevention program. Close

16 review ofprisoners' attempted and completed suicides is necessary to understand where

17 the suicide prevention program may have failed and to ensure such failures do not occur

18 again.

19

99. According to policy, Defendants have a quality management program.

20 ~ Pursuant to this policy, Defendants must conduct a medical review ofall in-custody

21 deaths,including suicides, and produce written findings that must note deficiencies and

22 include corrective action plans. See Grunfeld Decl.,Ex. G,at 31-32. The medical reviews

23 ofin-custody deaths are then supposed to be reviewed by the Quality Management/Peer

24 Review Committee, which consists ofkey members ofthe custody and medical staff. See

25 id. at 13. According to policy,"[t]he Committee shall be responsible for identifying

26 inappropriateness, deficiencies, and/or problems in health services delivery; developing a

27 corrective action plan and scheduled follow-up evaluation and reporting." Id.

28

100. I have reviewed the CFMG Quality Assurance/Peer Review Committee

3(~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page200 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page39 of 66

~~ iamea-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page38 of 65 1 ~ Meeting Minutes related to Jesse Crow's suicide. Mr. Crow's suicide was discussed at two

2 ~ Quality Assurance meetings. During the first meeting, on October 28,2010,the discussion

3 ~ in the minutes sets forth a chronology ofMr. Crow's time at the Jail and identified two

4 ~ problems with the care provided to Mr. Crow. First, a psychologist had dictated a note

5 ~ about an interaction with Mr. Crow,but the note was never placed in his medical file.

6 Second,Mr.Crow complained oftrouble sleeping a month and a half before he committed

7 suicide, but he was not referred for a psychiatric consultation. According to the

8 chronology, Mr.Crow was not seen by mental health care staff between the date ofhis

9 complaint about sleeping and the date ofhis suicide. There is no recommendation for

10 corrective action in the minutes.

11

101. The Quality Assurance Committee's second discussion of Mr. Crow's

12 ~ suicide took place on January 27,2011. This discussion was considerably shorter, and

13 only indicated that the autopsy had been reviewed and the missing transcribed progress

14 note had been posthumously placed in Mr. Crow's records. Again,there is no

15 recommendation for corrective action.

16

102. Ifthe quality improvementprogram's response to Mr. Crow's suicide is

17 ~ indicative ofDefendants' current quality improvement practices,they fall far short ofan

18 adequate. The Quality Improvement Committee should have examined Mr. Crow's

19 suicide more closely to determine ifany areas ofthe Jail's suicide prevention program

20 needed to be addressed. In fact,the Committee identified two serious systematic problems

21 ~ that may have contributed to Mr. Crow's suicide: the failure to refer him for psychiatric

22 care when he requested it shortly before his death and the improper maintenance ofhis

23 medical records. Nevertheless,the Committee did not propose any corrective action.

24

103. It should also be noted that, pursuant to policy, Defendants are only required

25 to review in-custody completed suicides in the Quality Assurance Committee. There is no

26 policy for reviewing suicide attempts. In my opinion,for ajail the size ofMonterey

27 County Jail, the quality improvement program should review both completed and

28 attempted suicides..Though the suicide rate in the Jail is very high,there will likely not be

~']

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page201 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page40 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page39 of 65

1 ~ enough suicides in the Jail during any given time period for Defendants to remedy the

2 ~ problems with their suicide prevention program by only reviewing completed suicides.

3 ~ Attempted suicides, which generally occur at a much higher rate than completed suicides,

4 ~ provide another critical source ofinformation regarding the holes in Defendants' suicide

5 ~ prevention program.

6

104. The lack of a properly functioning quality improvement program places all

7 ~ prisoners at risk ofserious harm by decreasing the likelihood that serious deficiencies in

8 the delivery ofhealth care will be identified and remedied.

9 The Jail Is Overcrowded,Which Magnifies the Negative Effects ofthe Problems Discussed Above.
10 105. I have significant experience evaluating overcrowded correctional systems.
11 In 2008,I was one ofthe testifying experts in the Coleman v. Schwarzenegger trial before
12 a federal threejudge district court;the question for the court was whether overcrowding
13 was the primary cause of deficiencies in the medical and mental health care provided to
14 prisoners in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I have also
15 evaluated, testified about, and helped to manage psychiatric care in other overcrowded
16 correctional systems, including the San Francisco County Jail, the Georgia youth
17 corrections system, and the California Youth Authority.
18 106. Overcrowded facilities suffer from a number of problems: staffing shortages,
19 insufficient treatment space,the unnecessary placement ofprisoners in administrative
20 segregation and other locked units, a marked increase in the number of prisoners
21 experiencing psychiatric crisis, medical problems, and/or psychiatric decompensation, a
22 reduction in programs, and overcrowded, dangerous, and chaotic housing environments.
23 These problems work as a feedback loop. A problem in one area tends to reinforce and
24 heighten problems in the other areas.
25 107. Monterey County Jail has been and continues to be an overcrowded facility.
26 Mr. Hackett, in his report regarding the security at the Jail, wrote that "[b]y any definition,
27 the jail population is such that the jail is overcrowded." Grunfeld Decl., Ex. I, at ¶ 1.4. As
28

3~

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL.OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page202 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page41 of 66

[11407847)

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page40 of 65

1 ~ evidence ofovercrowding, Mr. Hackett relied notjust on the fact that the Jail houses more

2 ~ prisoners than its Board Rated Capacity—which it does,see id.at ~ 1.9—but also on the

3 fact that prisoners "are housed in living areas not designed for inmate housing,inmates

4 ~ who should by most standards be housed in medium or maximum security housing are

5 ~ housed in les secure housing, and there are insufficient types ofhousing available to meet

6 ~ classification needs," id. at ¶ 1.4.

7

108. Both Dr. Puisis and TRG Consulting, in their reports about the problems

8 ~ with the Jail, highlighted the gross insufficiency ofavailable, confidential treatment space.

9 Dr.Puisis found that none ofthe treatment spaces in the Jail were originally designed for

10 clinical purposes. See Grunfeld Decl., Ex. J, at 8. He also found that nurses frequently

11 evaluated prisoners in non-clinical, non-confidential spaces. See id. at 21. TRG

12 Consulting,in their December 2011 report, wrote that"[m]edical/mental health treatment

13 spaces are not adequate for the rated beds, let alone the actual number ofinmates held."

14 Second Am.Compl.,Ex.B(Dkt. No.41), at EX.3. A number ofthe Plaintiffs describe

15 situations in which medical and mental health staff examined them in non-clinical, non-

16 confidential settings. Examinations conducted in such circumstances, especially mental

17 health evaluations in which prisoners communicate sensitive and personal information to

18 the mental health care clinicians, are highly prone to error because ofprisoners'

19 understandable reluctance to speak earnestly. The lack ofsufficient confidential treatment

20 space in the Jail places prisoners at a substantial risk ofserious harm by hindering their

21 ability to request and receive adequate treatment.

22

109. TRG Consulting also highlighted how the overcrowding in the facility

23 ~ "forces the entire facility to operate as an indirect supervision jail. Mental health issues are

24 considerably more difficult to recognize, manage and treat in an indirect supervision

25 facility." Id. I agree with TRG Consulting's conclusion.

26

110. The Defendants in this case have acknowledged that the overcrowding in the

27 Jail compromises their ability to deliver effective health care. For most ofthe last six

28 years,the County has applied to the Superior Court for the County ofMonterey for an

39

CV 13 2354 PSG

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS.' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page203 of 227

Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page42 of 66

~i~ao~aa-~~

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page41 of 65

1 ~ order to release prisoners on an accelerated basis pursuant to California Penal Code

2 § 4024.1. In many ofthese applications, including one from as recently as October 2012,

3 Dr. Fithian "advised that the excessive number ofinmates housed in the Jail compromises

4 the health ofthe inmates and the staff working at the facility." Grunfeld Decl.,Ex.Z,at 2.

5

111. In my more than 25 years evaluating and working with correctional facilities,

6 I have come across very few,if any,overcrowded facilities in which the overcrowding did

7 not negatively affect the delivery of mental health care. In light ofthe problems discussed

8 above, it is my opinion that overcrowding negatively affects the quality of mental health

9 care in the Jail and places all prisoners, especially those with serious mental illness, at risk

10 ofserious harm.

11

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States and the State

12 ofCalifornia that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed at

13 San Francisco, California this d~{'day of April, 2014.

14

15
Pablo Stewart 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V 13 2354 PSG

I

DECL. OF PABLO STEWART ISO PLS4MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page204 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page43 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page42 of 65
Exhibit A

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page205 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page44 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page43 of 65
CURRICULUM VITAE
PABLO STEWART, M.D. 824 Ashbury Street
San Francisco, California 94117 (415) 753-0321; fax (415) 753-5479; e-mail: pab4emi@aol.com
(Updated November 2013)

EDUCATION:

University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, M.D., 1982
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, B.S. 1973, Major: Chemistry

LICENSURE:

California Medical License #GO50899 Hawai’i Medical License #MD-11784 Federal Drug Enforcement Administration #BS0546981 Diplomate in Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Certificate #32564

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS:

September 2006Present

Academic Appointment: Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

July 1995 August 2006

Academic Appointment: Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

August 1989 June 1995

Academic Appointment: Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

August 1986 July 1989

Academic Appointment: Clinical Instructor, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

EMPLOYMENT:
December 1996Present

Psychiatric Consultant Provide consultation to governmental and private agencies on a variety of psychiatric, forensic, substance abuse and organizational issues; extensive experience in all phases of capital litigation and correctional psychiatry.

1

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page206 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page45 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page44 of 65

January 1997September 1998

Director of Clinical Services, San Francisco Target Cities Project. Overall responsibility for ensuring the quality of the clinical services provided by the various departments of the project including the Central Intake Unit, the ACCESS Project and the San Francisco Drug Court Also responsible for providing clinical inservice trainings for the staff of the Project and community agencies that requested technical assistance.

February 1996 November 1996

Medical Director, Comprehensive Homeless Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco. Overall responsibility for the medical and psychiatric services at the Homeless Center.

March 1995 January 1996

Chief, Intensive Psychiatric Community Care Program, (IPCC) Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco. Overall clinical/administrative responsibility for the IPCC, a community based case management program. Duties also include medical/psychiatric consultation to Veteran Comprehensive Homeless Center. This is a social work managed program that provides comprehensive social services to homeless veterans.

April 1991 February 1995

Chief, Substance Abuse Inpatient Unit, (SAIU), Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco. Overall clinical/administrative responsibility for SAIU.

September 1990 March 1991

Psychiatrist, Substance Abuse Inpatient Unit, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco. Clinical responsibility for patients admitted to SAIU. Provide consultation to the Medical/Surgical Units regarding patients with substance abuse issues.

August 1988 December 1989

Director, Forensic Psychiatric Services, City and County of San Francisco. Administrative and clinical responsibility for psychiatric services provided to the inmate population of San Francisco. Duties included direct clinical and administrative responsibility for the Jail Psychiatric Services and the Forensic Unit at San Francisco General Hospital.

July 1986 August 1990

Senior Attending Psychiatrist, Forensic Unit, University of California, San Francisco General Hospital. Administrative and clinical responsibility for a 12-bed, maximum-security psychiatric ward. Clinical supervision for psychiatric residents, postdoctoral psychology fellows and medical students assigned to the ward. Liaison with Jail Psychiatric Services, City and County of San Francisco. Advise San Francisco City Attorney on issues pertaining to forensic psychiatry.

2

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page207 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page46 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page45 of 65

July 1985 June 1986

Chief Resident, Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco General Hospital. Team leader of the Latino-focus inpatient treatment team (involving 10-12 patients with bicultural/bilingual issues); direct clinical supervision of 7 psychiatric residents and 3-6 medical students; organized weekly departmental Grand Rounds; administered and supervised departmental residents' call schedule; psychiatric consultant to hospital general medical clinic; assistant coordinator of medical student education; group seminar leader for introduction to clinical psychiatry course for UCSF second-year medical students.

July 1984 March 1987

Physician Specialist, Westside Crisis Center, San Francisco, CA. Responsibility for Crisis Center operations during assigned shifts; admitting privileges at Mount Zion Hospital. Provided psychiatric consultation for the patients admitted to Mount Zion Hospital when requested.

April 1984 July 1985

Psychiatric Consultant, Marin Alternative Treatment, (ACT). Provided medical and psychiatric evaluation and treatment of residential drug and alcohol clients; consultant to staff concerning medical/psychiatric issues.

August 1983 November 1984

Physician Specialist, Mission Mental Health Crisis Center, San Francisco, CA. Clinical responsibility for Crisis Center clients; consultant to staff concerning medical/psychiatric issues.

July 1982July 1985

Psychiatric Resident, University of California, San Francisco. Primary Therapist and Medical Consultant for the adult inpatient units at San Francisco General Hospital and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Medical Coordinator/Primary Therapist - Alcohol Inpatient Unit and Substance Abuse Clinic at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Outpatient Adult/Child Psychotherapist; Psychiatric Consultant - Adult Day Treatment Center - San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Primary Therapist and Medial Consultant - San Francisco General Hospital Psychiatric Emergency Services; Psychiatric Consultant, Inpatient Medical/Surgical Units - San Francisco General Hospital.

June 1973 July 1978

Infantry Officer - United States Marine Corps. Rifle Platoon Commander; Anti-tank Platoon Commander; 81mm Mortar Platoon Commander; Rifle Company Executive Officer; Rifle Company Commander; Assistant Battalion Operations Officer; Embarkation Officer; Recruitment Officer; Drug, Alcohol and Human Relations Counselor; Parachutist and Scuba Diver; Commander of a Vietnamese Refugee Camp. Received an Honorable Discharge. Highest rank attained was Captain.

3

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page208 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page47 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page46 of 65

HONORS AND AWARDS:

June 1995

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as the outstanding psychiatric faculty member for the academic year 1994/1995.

June 1993

Selected by the class of 1996, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as outstanding lecturer, academic year 1992/1993.

May 1993

Elected to Membership of Medical Honor Society, AOA, by the AOA Member of the 1993 Graduating Class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

May 1991

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as the outstanding psychiatric faculty member for the academic year 1990-1991.

May 1990

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as the outstanding psychiatric faculty member for the academic year 1989-1990.

May 1989

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as the outstanding psychiatric faculty member for the academic year 1988-1989.

May 1987

Selected by the faculty and students of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as the recipient of the Henry J. Kaiser Award For Excellence in Teaching.

May 1987

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Outstanding Psychiatric Resident. The award covered the period of 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986, during which time I served as Chief Psychiatric resident, San Francisco General Hospital.

May 1985

Selected by the graduating class of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Outstanding Psychiatric Resident.

1985

Mead-Johnson American Psychiatric Association Fellowship. One of sixteen nationwide psychiatric residents selected because of a demonstrated commitment to public sector psychiatry. Made presentation at Annual Hospital and Community Psychiatry Meeting in Montreal, Canada, in October 1985, on the “Psychiatric Aspects of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.”

4

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page209 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page48 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page47 of 65

MEMBERSHIPS:

June 2000May 2008

California Association of Drug Court Professionals.

July 1997June 1998

President, Alumni-Faculty Association, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

July 1996 June 1997

President-Elect, Alumni-Faculty Association, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

July 1995 June 1996

Vice President, Northern California Area, Alumni-Faculty Association, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

April 1995 April 2002

Associate Clinical Member, American Group Psychotherapy Association.

July 1992 June 1995

Secretary-Treasurer, Alumni-Faculty Association, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

July 1990 June 1992

Councilor-at-large, Alumni-Faculty Association, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine

PUBLIC SERVICE:
June 1992
November 1992 January 1994
September 2000April 2005
May 2001Present
January 2002June 2003
February 2003April 2004
December 2003January 2004
February 2004June 2004
April 2004January 2006

Examiner, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc.
California Tuberculosis Elimination Task Force, Institutional Control Subcommittee.
Editorial Advisory Board, Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report.
Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Consultant, San Francisco Police Officers’ Association.
Psychiatric Consultant, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Peer Support Program.
Proposition “N” (Care Not Cash) Service Providers’ Advisory Committee, Department of Human Services, City and County of San Francisco.
Member of San Francisco Mayor-Elect Gavin Newsom’s Transition Team.
Mayor’s Homeless Coalition, San Francisco, CA.
Member of Human Services Commission, City and County of San Francisco.

5

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page210 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page49 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page48 of 65

February 2006January 2007; April 2013present
February 2007March 2013

Vice President, Human Services Commission, City and County of San Francisco.
President, Human Services Commission, City and County of San Francisco.

UNIVERSITY SERVICE:

October 1999October 2001

Lecturer, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine Post Baccalaureate Reapplicant Program.

July 1999July 2001

Seminar Leader, National Youth Leadership Forum On Medicine.

November 1998November 2001

Lecturer, University of California, San Francisco, School of Nursing, Department of Family Health Care Nursing. Lecture to the Advanced Practice Nurse Practitioner Students on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Dependencies.

January 1994 January 2001

Preceptor/Lecturer, UCSF Homeless Clinic Project.

June 1990 November 1996

Curriculum Advisor, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

June 1987 June 1992

Facilitate weekly Support Groups for interns in the Department of Medicine. Also, provide crisis intervention and psychiatric referral for Department of Medicine housestaff.

January 1987 – June 1988

Student Impairment Committee, University of California San Francisco, School of Medicine. Advise the Dean of the School of Medicine on methods to identify, treat and prevent student impairment.

January 1986 – June 1996

Recruitment/Retention Subcommittee of the Admissions Committee, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Advise the Dean of the School of Medicine on methods to attract and retain minority students and faculty.

October 1986 September 1987

Member Steering Committee for the Hispanic Medical Education Resource Committee. Plan and present educational programs to increase awareness of the special health needs of Hispanics in the United States.

September 1983 June 1989

Admissions Committee, University of California, School of Medicine. Duties included screening applications and interviewing candidates for medical school.

6

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page211 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page50 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page49 of 65

October 1978 December 1980

Co-Founder and Director of the University of California, San Francisco Running Clinic. Provided free instruction to the public on proper methods of exercise and preventative health measures.

TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES:

July 2003Present

Facilitate weekly psychotherapy training group for residents in the Department of Psychiatry.

January 2002January 2004

Course Coordinator of Elective Course University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, “Prisoner Health.” This is a 1-unit course, which covers the unique health needs of prisoners.

September 2001June 2003

Supervisor, San Mateo County Psychiatric Residency Program.

April 1999April 2001

Lecturer, UCSF School of Pharmacy, Committee for Drug Awareness Community Outreach Project.

February 1998June 2000

Lecturer, UCSF Student Enrichment Program.

January 1996 November 1996

Supervisor, Psychiatry 110 students, Veterans Comprehensive Homeless Center.

March 1995Present

Supervisor, UCSF School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Substance Abuse Fellowship Program.

September 1994 June 1999

Course Coordinator of Elective Course, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Designed, planned and taught course, Psychiatry 170.02, “Drug and Alcohol Abuse.” This is a 1-unit course, which covers the major aspects of drug and alcohol abuse.

August 1994 February 2006

Supervisor, Psychiatric Continuity Clinic, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Drug Detoxification and Aftercare Project. Supervise 4th Year medical students in the care of dual diagnostic patients.

February 1994 February 2006

Consultant, Napa State Hospital Chemical Dependency Program Monthly Conference.

July 1992 June 1994

Facilitate weekly psychiatric intern seminar, “Psychiatric Aspects of Medicine,” University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

July 1991Present

Group and individual psychotherapy supervisor, Outpatient Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

7

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page212 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page51 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page50 of 65

January 1991

Lecturer, University of California, San Francisco, School of Pharmacy course, “Addictionology and Substance Abuse Prevention.”

September 1990 February 1995

Clinical supervisor, substance abuse fellows, and psychiatric residents, Substance Abuse Inpatient Unit, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

September 1990 November 1996

Off ward supervisor, PGY II psychiatric residents, Psychiatric Inpatient Unit, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

September 1990 June 1991

Group therapy supervisor, Psychiatric Inpatient Unit, (PIU), San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

September 1990 June 1994

Course coordinator, Psychiatry 110, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

September 1989 November 1996

Seminar leader/lecturer, Psychiatry 100 A/B.

July 1988 June 1992

Clinical supervisor, PGY III psychiatric residents, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Drug Detoxification and Aftercare Project.

September 1987 Present

Tavistock Organizational Consultant. Extensive experience as a consultant in numerous Tavistock conferences.

September 1987 December 1993

Course Coordinator of Elective Course, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Designed, planned and taught course, Psychiatry 170.02, “Alcoholism”. This is a 1unit course offered to medical students, which covers alcoholism with special emphasis on the health professional. This course is offered fall quarter each academic year.

July 1987June 1994

Clinical supervisor/lecturer FCM 110, San Francisco General Hospital and Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

July 1986 June 1996

Seminar leader/lecturer Psychiatry 131 A/B.

July 1986 August 1990

Clinical supervisor, Psychology interns/fellows, San Francisco General Hospital.

July 1986 August 1990

Clinical supervisor PGY I psychiatric residents, San Francisco General Hospital

July 1986 August 1990

Coordinator of Medical Student Education, University of California, San Francisco General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry. Teach seminars and supervise clerkships to medical students including: Psychological Core of Medicine 100 A/B; Introduction to Clinical Psychiatry 131 A/B; Core Psychiatric Clerkship 110 and Advanced Clinical Clerkship in Psychiatry 141.01.

8

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page213 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page52 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page51 of 65

July 1985 – August 1990

Psychiatric Consultant to the General Medical Clinic, University of California, San Francisco General Hospital. Teach and supervise medical residents in interviewing and communication skills. Provide instruction to the clinic on the psychiatric aspects of ambulatory medical care.

COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PRISON CONDITIONS EXPERT WORK:

October 2007 -Present
July/August 2008
February 2006December 2009 June 2004September 2012 November 2003June 2008 June 2003December 2004
October 2002August 2006

Plaintiffs’ expert in 2007-2010 overcrowding litigation and in opposing current efforts by defendants to terminate the injunctive relief in Coleman v. Brown, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM. The litigation involves plaintiffs’ claim that overcrowding is causing unconstitutional medical and mental health care in the California state prison system. Plaintiffs won an order requiring the state to reduce its population by approximately 45,000 state prisoners. My expert opinion was cited several times in the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the prison population reduction order. See Brown v. Plata, __ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1933 n.6, 1935, 179 L.Ed.2d 969, 992 n.6, 994 (2011).
Plaintiff psychiatric expert in the case of Fred Graves, et al., plaintiffs v. Joseph Arpaio, et al., defendants (District Court, Phoenix, Arizona.) This case involved Federal oversight of the mental health treatment provided to pre-trial detainees in the Maricopa County Jails.
Board of Directors, Physician Foundation at California Pacific Medical Center.
Psychiatric Consultant, Hawaii Drug Court.
Organizational/Psychiatric Consultant, State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services.
Monitor of the psychiatric sections of the “Ayers Agreement,” New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD). This is a settlement arrived at between plaintiffs and the NMCD regarding the provision of constitutionally mandated psychiatric services for inmates placed within the Department’s “Supermax” unit.
Juvenile Mental Health and Medical Consultant, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section.

9

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page214 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page53 of 66

Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page52 of 65

July 1998June 2000

Psychiatric Consultant to the Pacific Research and Training Alliance's Alcohol and Drug Disability Technical Assistance Project. This Project provides assistance to programs and communities that will have long lasting impact and permanently improve the quality of alcohol and other drug services available to individuals with disabilities.

July 1998February 2004

Psychiatric Consultant to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) in its monitoring of the State of Georgia's secure juvenile detention and treatment facilities. NCCD is acting as the monitor of the agreement between the United States and Georgia to improve the quality of the juvenile justice facilities, critical mental health, medical and educational services, and treatment programs. NCCD ceased to be the monitoring agency for this project in June 1999. At that time, the Institute of Crime, Justice and Corrections at the George Washington University became the monitoring agency. The work remained unchanged.

July 1998July 2001

Psychiatric Consultant to the San Francisco Campaign Against Drug Abuse (SF CADA).

March 1997Present

Technical Assistance Consultant, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

January 1996June 2003

Psychiatric Consultant to the San Francisco Drug Court.

November 1993June 2001

Executive Committee, Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC), University of California, San Diego.

December 1992 December 1994

Institutional Review Board, Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. Review all research protocols for the clinic per Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.

June 1991February 2006

Chief of Psychiatric Services, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. Overall responsibility for psychiatric services at the clinic.

December 1990 June 1991

Medical Director, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Drug Detoxification and Aftercare Project. Responsible for directing all medical and psychiatric care at the clinic.

October 1996-July 1997

Psychiatric Expert for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, in the case of Madrid v. Gomez, No. C90-3094-TEH. Report directly to the Special Master regarding the implementation of constitutionally mandated psychiatric care to the inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison.

April 1990 –January 2000

Psychiatric Expert for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in the case of Gates v. Deukmejian, No. C1V S-871636 LKK-JFM. Report directly to the court regarding implementation and monitoring of the consent decree in this case. (This case involves the provision of adequate psychiatric care to the inmates at the California Medical Facility, Vacaville).

10

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page215 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page54 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page53 of 65

January 1984 December 1990
July 1981December 1981

Chief of Psychiatric Services, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Drug Detoxification and Aftercare Project. Direct medical/psychiatric management of project clients; consultant to staff on substance abuse issues. Special emphasis on dual diagnostic patients.
Medical/Psychiatric Consultant, Youth Services, Hospitality House, San Francisco, CA. Advised youth services staff on client management. Provided training on various topics related to adolescents. Facilitated weekly client support groups.

SERVICE TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION:

January 1996 June 2002

Baseball, Basketball and Volleyball Coach, Convent of the Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, CA.

September 1994 Present

Soccer Coach, Convent of the Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, CA.

June 1991June 1994

Board of Directors, Pacific Primary School, San Francisco, CA.

April 1989 July 1996

Umpire, Rincon Valley Little League, Santa Rosa, CA.

September 1988 May 1995

Numerous presentations on Mental Health/Substance Abuse issues to the student body, Hidden Valley Elementary School and Santa Rosa Jr. High School, Santa Rosa, CA.

PRESENTATIONS:
1. San Francisco Treatment Research Unit, University of California, San Francisco, Colloquium #1. (10/12/1990). “The Use of Anti-Depressant Medications with Substance-Abusing Clients.”
2. Grand Rounds. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. (12/5/1990). “Advances in the Field of Dual Diagnosis.”
3. Associates Council, American College of Physicians, Northern California Region, Program for Leadership Conference, Napa, California. (3/3/1991). “Planning a Satisfying Life in Medicine.”
4. 24th Annual Medical Symposium on Renal Disease, sponsored by the Medical Advisory Board of the National Kidney Foundation of Northern California, San Mateo, California. (9/11/1991). “The Chronically Ill Substance Abuser.”

11

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page216 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page55 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page54 of 65
5. Mentoring Skills Conference, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics. (11/26/91). “Mentoring as an Art.”
6. Continuing Medical Education Conference, Sponsored by the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. (4/25/1992). “Clinical & Research Advances in the Treatment of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse.”
7. First International Conference of Mental Health and Leisure. University of Utah. (7/9/1992). “The Use of Commonly Abused Street Drugs in the Treatment of Mental Illness.”
8. American Group Psychotherapy Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. (2/20/1993). “Inpatient Groups in Initial-Stage Addiction Treatment.”
9. Grand Rounds. Department of Child Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine. (3/17/93, 9/11/96). “Issues in Adolescent Substance Abuse.”
10. University of California, Extension. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Studies Program. (5/14/93), (6/24/94), (9/22/95), (2/28/97). “Dual Diagnosis.”
11. American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting. (5/26/1993). “Issues in the Treatment of the Dual Diagnosis Patient.”
12. Long Beach Regional Medical Education Center and Social Work Service, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center Conference on Dual Diagnosis. (6/23/1993). “Dual Diagnosis Treatment Issues.”
13. Utah Medical Association Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah. (10/7/93). “Prescription Drug Abuse Helping your Patient, Protecting Yourself.”
14. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, Medical Staff Conference. (11/30/1993). “Management of Patients with Dual Diagnosis and Alcohol Withdrawal.”
15. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic’s 27th Anniversary Conference. (6/10/94). “Attention Deficit Disorder, Substance Abuse, Psychiatric Disorders and Related Issues.”
16. University of California, San Diego. Addiction Technology Transfer Center Annual Summer Clinical Institute: (8/30/94), (8/29/95), (8/5/96), (8/4/97), (8/3/98). “Treating Multiple Disorders.”
17. National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, A Training Institute for Psychiatrists. (9/10/94). “Psychiatry, Homelessness, and Serious Mental Illness.”
18. Value Behavioral Health/American Psychiatry Management Seminar. (12/1/1994). “Substance Abuse/Dual Diagnosis in the Work Setting.”
19. Grand Rounds. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry. (1/24/1995). “Models of Addiction.”
20. San Francisco State University, School of Social Work, Title IV-E Child Welfare Training Project. (1/25/95, 1/24/96, 1/13/97, 1/21/98, 1/13/99, 1/24/00, 1/12/01). “Demystifying Dual Diagnosis.”
12

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page217 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page56 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page55 of 65
21. First Annual Conference on the Dually Disordered. (3/10/1995). “Assessment of Substance Abuse.” Sponsored by the Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and Target Cities Project, Department of Public Health, City and County of San Francisco.
22. Delta Memorial Hospital, Antioch, California, Medical Staff Conference. (3/28/1995). “Dealing with the Alcohol and Drug Dependent Patient.” Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Office of Continuing Medical Education.
23. Centre Hospitalier Robert-Giffaard, Beoupont (Quebec), Canada. (11/23/95). “Reconfiguration of Psychiatric Services in Quebec Based on the San Francisco Experience.”
24. The Labor and Employment Section of the State Bar of California. (1/19/96). “Understanding Alcoholism and its Impact on the Legal Profession.” MCCE Conference, San Francisco, CA.
25. American Group Psychotherapy Association, Annual Training Institute. (2/13-2/14/96), National Instructor - Designate training group.
26. American Group Psychotherapy Association, Annual Meeting. (2/10/96). “The Process Group at Work.”
27. Medical Staff Conference, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Pleasanton, California, “The Management of Prescription Drug Addiction”. (4/24/96)
28. International European Drug Abuse Treatment Training Project, Ankaran, Slovenia, “The Management of the Dually Diagnosed Patient in Former Soviet Block Europe”. (10/510/11/96)
29. Contra Costa County Dual Diagnosis Conference, Pleasant Hill, California, “Two Philosophies, Two Approaches: One Client”. (11/14/96)
30. Faith Initiative Conference, San Francisco, California, “Spirituality: The Forgotten Dimension of Recovery”. (11/22/96)
31. Alameda County Dual Diagnosis Conference, Alameda, California, “Medical Management of the Dually Diagnosed Patient”. (2/4/97, 3/4/97)
32. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic’s 30th Anniversary Conference, San Francisco, California, “Indicators for the Use of the New Antipsychotics”. (6/4/97)
33. DPH/Community Substance Abuse Services/San Francisco Target Cities Project sponsored conference, “Intake, Assessment and Service Linkages in the Substance Abuse System of Care”, San Francisco, California. (7/31/97)
34. The Institute of Addictions Studies and Lewis and Clark College sponsored conference, 1997 Northwest Regional Summer Institute, “Addictions Treatment: What We Know Today, How We’ll Practice Tomorrow; Assessment and Treatment of the High-Risk Offender”. Wilsonville, Oregon. (8/1/97)
35. The California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies Winter Conference, Key Note Presentation, "Combining funding sources and integrating treatment for addiction problems for children, adolescents and adults, as well as coordination of addiction
13

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page218 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page57 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page56 of 65
treatment for parents with mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed children." Newport Beach, California. (2/12/98)
36. American Group Psychotherapy Association, Annual Training Institute, Chicago, Illinois. (2/16-2/28/1998), Intermediate Level Process Group Leader.
37. "Multimodal Psychoanalytic Treatment of Psychotic Disorders: Learning from the Quebec Experience." The Haight Ashbury Free Clinics Inc., sponsored this seminar in conjunction with the San Francisco Society for Lacanian Studies and the Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis. San Francisco, California. (3/6-3/8/1998)
38. "AIDS Update for Primary Care: Substance Use & HIV: Problem Solving at the Intersection." The East Bay AIDS Education & Training Center and the East Bay AIDS Center, Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, California sponsored this conference. (6/4/1998)
39. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic's 31st Anniversary Conference, San Francisco, California, "Commonly Encountered Psychiatric Problems in Women." (6/11/1998)
40. Community Networking Breakfast sponsored by San Mateo County Alcohol & Drug Services and Youth Empowering Systems, Belmont, California, "Dual Diagnosis, Two Approaches, Two Philosophies, One Patient." (6/17/1998)
41. Grand Rounds, Department of Medicine, Alameda County Medical Center-Highland Campus, Oakland, California, "Medical/Psychiatric Presentation of the Patient with both Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Problems." (6/19/1998)
42. "Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Reality: Community Treatment of the Dually Diagnosed Consumer." The Occupational Therapy Association of California, Dominican College of San Rafael and the Psychiatric Occupational Therapy Action Coalition sponsored this conference. San Rafael, California. (6/20/1998)
43. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with a Dual Diagnosis", Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health sponsored conference, Los Angeles, CA. (6/29/98)
44. Grand Rounds, Wai'anae Coast Comprehensive Health Center, Wai'anae, Hawaii, "Assessment and Treatment of the Patient who presents with concurrent Depression and Substance Abuse." (7/15/1998)
45. "Dual Diagnostic Aspects of Methamphetamine Abuse", Hawaii Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division sponsored conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. (9/2/98)
46. 9th Annual Advanced Pain and Symptom Management, the Art of Pain Management Conference, sponsored by Visiting Nurses and Hospice of San Francisco. "Care Issues and Pain Management for Chemically Dependent Patients." San Francisco, CA. (9/10/98)
47. Latino Behavioral Health Institute Annual Conference, "Margin to Mainstream III: Latino Health Care 2000." "Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Assessment: Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for the Dually Diagnosed", Los Angeles, CA. (9/18/98)
48. Chemical Dependency Conference, Department of Mental Health, Napa State Hospital, "Substance Abuse and Major Depressive Disorder." Napa, CA. (9/23/98)
14

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page219 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page58 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page57 of 65
49. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with a Dual Diagnosis", San Mateo County Drug and Alcohol Services, Belmont, CA. (9/30/98)
50. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with a Dual Diagnosis", Sacramento County Department of Mental Health, Sacramento, CA. (10/13/98)
51. California Department of Health, Office of AIDS, 1998 Annual AIDS Case Management Program/Medi-Cal Waiver Program (CMP/MCWP) Conference, "Triple Diagnosis: What's Really Happening with your Patient." Concord, CA. (10/15/98)
52. California Mental Health Director's Association Meeting: Dual Diagnosis, Effective Models of Collaboration; "Multiple Problem Patients: Designing a System to Meet Their Unique Needs", San Francisco Park Plaza Hotel. (10/15/98)
53. Northwest GTA Health Corporation, Peel Memorial Hospital, Annual Mental Health Conference, "Recognition and Assessment of Substance Abuse in Mental Illness." Brampton, Ontario, Canada. (10/23/98)
54. 1998 California Drug Court Symposium, "Mental Health Issues and Drug Involved Offenders." Sacramento, CA. (12/11/98)
55. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for the Dually Diagnosed", Mono County Alcohol and Drug Programs, Mammoth Lakes, CA. (1/7/99)
56. Medical Staff Conference, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Walnut Creek, CA, "Substance Abuse and Major Depressive Disorder." (1/19/99)
57. "Issues and Strategies in the Treatment of Substance Abusers", Alameda County Consolidated Drug Courts, Oakland, CA. (1/22/99 & 2/5/99)
58. Compass Health Care's 12th Annual Winter Conference on Addiction, Tucson, AZ: "Dual Systems, Dual Philosophies, One Patient", "Substance Abuse and Developmental Disabilities" & "Assessment and Treatment of the High Risk Offender." (2/17/99)
59. American Group Psychotherapy Association, Annual Training Institute, Houston, Texas. (2/22-2/24/1999). Entry Level Process Group Leader.
60. "Exploring A New Framework: New Technologies For Addiction And Recovery", Maui County Department of Housing and Human Concerns, Malama Family Recovery Center, Maui, Hawaii. (3/5 & 3/6/99)
61. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Dual Diagnostic Patient", San Bernardino County Office of Alcohol & Drug Treatment Services, San Bernardino, CA. (3/10/99)
62. "Smoking Cessation in the Chronically Mentally Ill, Part 1", California Department of Mental Health, Napa State Hospital, Napa, CA. (3/11/99)
63. "Dual Diagnosis and Effective Methods of Collaboration", County of Tulare Health & Human Services Agency, Visalia, CA. (3/17/99)
64. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals sponsored lecture tour of Hawai'i. Lectures included: Major Depressive Disorder and Substance Abuse, Treatment Strategies for Depression and Anxiety with the Substance Abusing Patient, Advances in the Field of Dual Diagnosis &
15

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page220 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page59 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page58 of 65
Addressing the Needs of the Patient with Multiple Substance Dependencies. Lecture sites included: Straub Hospital, Honolulu; Maui County Community Mental Health; Veterans Administration Hospital, Honolulu; Hawai'i (Big Island) County Community Mental Health; Mililani (Oahu) Physicians Center; Kahi Mohala (Oahu) Psychiatric Hospital; Hale ola Ka'u (Big Island) Residential Treatment Facility. (4/2-4/9/99)
65. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with Multiple Disorders", Mendocino County Department of Public Health, Division of Alcohol & Other Drug Programs, Ukiah, CA. (4/14/99)
66. "Assessment of the Substance Abusing & Mentally Ill Female Patient in Early Recovery", Ujima Family Services Agency, Richmond, CA. (4/21/99)
67. California Institute for Mental Health, Adult System of Care Conference, "Partners in Excellence", Riverside, California. (4/29/99)
68. "Advances in the Field of Dual Diagnosis", University of Hawai'i School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry Grand Rounds, Queens Hospital, Honolulu, Hawai'i. (4/30/99)
69. State of Hawai'i Department of Health, Mental Health Division, "Strategic Planning to Address the Concerns of the United States Department of Justice for the Alleged Civil Rights Abuses in the Kaneohe State Hospital." Honolulu, Hawai'i. (4/30/99)
70. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for the Patient with Dual/Triple Diagnosis", State of Hawai'i, Department of Health, Drug and Alcohol Abuse Division, Dole Cannery, Honolulu, Hawai'i. (4/30/99)
71. 11th Annual Early Intervention Program Conference, State of California Department of Health Services, Office of Aids, "Addressing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Needs of the HIV (+) Patient." Concord, California. (5/6/99)
72. The HIV Challenge Medical Conference, Sponsored by the North County (San Diego) AIDS Coalition, "Addressing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Needs of the HIV (+) Patient." Escondido, California. (5/7/99)
73. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with Multiple Disorders", Sonoma County Community Mental Health's Monthly Grand Rounds, Community Hospital, Santa Rosa, California. (5/13/99)
74. "Developing & Providing Effective Services for Dually Diagnosed or High Service Utilizing Consumers", third annual conference presented by the Southern California Mental Health Directors Association. Anaheim, California. (5/21/99)
75. 15th Annual Idaho Conference on Alcohol and Drug Dependency, lectures included "Dual Diagnostic Issues", "Impulse Control Disorders" and "Major Depressive Disorder." Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. (5/25/99)
76. "Smoking Cessation in the Chronically Mentally Ill, Part 2", California Department of Mental Health, Napa State Hospital, Napa, California. (6/3/99)
77. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse: Systems of Care and Treatment in the United States", Ando Hospital, Kyoto, Japan. (6/14/99)
16

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page221 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page60 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page59 of 65
78. "Alcoholism: Practical Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment", National Institute On Alcoholism, Kurihama National Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan. (6/17/99)
79. "Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Abuse", Kusatsu Kinrofukushi Center, Kusatsu, Japan. (6/22/99)
80. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with Multiple Diagnoses", Osaka Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Center Support Network, Kobe, Japan. (6/26/99)
81. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with Multiple Diagnoses", Santa Barbara County Department of Alcohol, Drug, & Mental Health Services, Buellton, California. (7/13/99)
82. "Drug and Alcohol Issues in the Primary Care Setting", County of Tulare Health & Human Services Agency, Edison Ag Tac Center, Tulare, California. (7/15/99)
83. "Working with the Substance Abuser in the Criminal Justice System", San Mateo County Alcohol and Drug Services and Adult Probation Department, Redwood City, California. (7/22/99)
84. 1999 Summer Clinical Institute In Addiction Studies, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Lectures included: "Triple Diagnosis: HIV, Substance Abuse and Mental Illness. What's Really Happening to your Patient?” "Psychiatric Assessment in the Criminal Justice Setting, Learning to Detect Malingering." La Jolla, California. (8/3/99)
85. "Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for the Patient with Dual and Triple Diagnoses", Maui County Department of Housing and Human Concerns, Maui Memorial Medical Center. Kahului, Maui. (8/23/99)
86. "Proper Assessment of the Asian/Pacific Islander Dual Diagnostic Patient", Asian American Recovery Services, Inc., San Francisco, California. (9/13/99)
87. "Assessment and Treatment of the Dual Diagnostic Patient in a Health Maintenance Organization", Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, the Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Santa Rosa, California. (9/14/99)
88. "Dual Diagnosis", Residential Care Providers of Adult Residential Facilities and Facilities for the Elderly, City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, Public Health Division, San Francisco, California. (9/16/99)
89. "Medical and Psychiatric Aspects of Methamphetamine Abuse", Fifth Annual Latino Behavioral Health Institute Conference, Universal City, California. (9/23/99)
90. "Criminal Justice & Substance Abuse", University of California, San Diego & Arizona Department of Corrections, Phoenix, Arizona. (9/28/99)
91. "Creating Balance in the Ohana: Assessment and Treatment Planning", Hale O Ka'u Center, Pahala, Hawai'i. (10/8-10/10/99)
92. "Substance Abuse Issues of Runaway and Homeless Youth", Homeless Youth 101, Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Oakland, California. (10/12/99)
17

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page222 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page61 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page60 of 65
93. "Mental Illness & Drug Abuse - Part II", Sonoma County Department of Mental Health Grand Rounds, Santa Rosa, California. (10/14/99)
94. "Dual Diagnosis/Co-Existing Disorders Training", Yolo County Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, Davis, California. (10/21/99)
95. “Mental Health/Substance Abuse Assessment Skills for the Frontline Staff”, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Los Angeles, California. (1/27/00)
96. "Spirituality in Substance Abuse Treatment", Asian American Recovery Services, Inc., San Francisco, California. (3/6/00)
97. “What Every Probation Officer Needs to Know about Alcohol Abuse”, San Mateo County Probation Department, San Mateo, California. (3/16/00)
98. “Empathy at its Finest”, Plenary Presentation to the California Forensic Mental Health Association’s Annual Conference, Asilomar, California. (3/17/00)
99. “Model for Health Appraisal for Minors Entering Detention”, Juvenile Justice Health Care Committee’s Annual Conference, Asilomar, California. (4/3/00)
100. “The Impact of Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Mental Disorders on Adolescent Development”, Humboldt County Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Eureka, California. (4/4-4/5/00)
101. “The Dual Diagnosed Client”, Imperial County Children’s System of Care Spring Training, Holtville, California. (5/15/00)
102. National Association of Drug Court Professionals 6th Annual Training Conference, San Francisco, California. “Managing People of Different Pathologies in Mental Health Courts”, (5/31 & 6/1/00); “Assessment and Management of Co-Occurring Disorders” (6/2/00).
103. “Culture, Age and Gender Specific Perspectives on Dual Diagnosis”, University of California Berkeley Extension Course, San Francisco, California. (6/9/00)
104. “The Impact of Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Mental Disorders on Adolescent Development”, Thunder Road Adolescent Treatment Centers, Inc., Oakland, California. (6/29 & 7/27/00)
105. “Assessing the Needs of the Entire Patient: Empathy at its Finest”, NAMI California Annual Conference, Burlingame, California. (9/8/00)
106. “The Effects of Drugs and Alcohol on the Brain and Behavior”, The Second National Seminar on Mental Health and the Criminal Law, San Francisco, California. (9/9/00)
107. Annual Conference of the Associated Treatment Providers of New Jersey, Atlantic City, New Jersey. “Advances in Psychopharmacological Treatment with the Chemically Dependent Person” & “Treatment of the Adolescent Substance Abuser” (10/25/00).
108. “Psychiatric Crises In The Primary Care Setting”, Doctor Marina Bermudez Issues In College Health, San Francisco State University Student Health Service. (11/1/00, 3/13/01)
18

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page223 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page62 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page61 of 65
109. “Co-Occurring Disorders: Substance Abuse and Mental Health”, California Continuing Judicial Studies Program, Center For Judicial Education and Research, Long Beach, California. (11/12-11/17/00)
110. “Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment”, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, Oakland, California. (12/5/00)
111. “Wasn’t One Problem Enough?” Mental Health and Substance Abuse Issues. 2001 California Drug Court Symposium, “Taking Drug Courts into the New Millennium.” Costa Mesa, California. (3/2/01)
112. “The Impact of Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Mental Health Disorders on the Developmental Process.” County of Sonoma Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Division. Santa Rosa, California. (3/8 & 4/5/01)
113. “Assessment of the Patient with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues.” San Mateo County General Hospital Grand Rounds. San Mateo, California. (3/13/01)
114. “Dual Diagnosis-Assessment and Treatment Issues.” Ventura County Behavioral Health Department Alcohol and Drug Programs Training Institute, Ventura, California. (5/8/01)
115. Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 4th Annual 3R Conference, “Strategies for Dealing with Teen Substance Abuse.” Berkeley, California. (5/10/01)
116. National Association of Drug Court Professionals 7th Annual Training Conference, “Changing the Face of Criminal Justice.” I presented three separate lectures on the following topics: Marijuana, Opiates and Alcohol. New Orleans, LA. (6/1-6/2/01)
117. Santa Clara County Drug Court Training Institute, “The Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of the Patient with Multiple Disorders.” San Jose, California. (6/15/01)
118. Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys Annual Conference, “Psychiatric Complications of the Methamphetamine Abuser.” Olympia, Washington. (11/15/01)
119. San Francisco State University, School of Social Work, Title IV-E Child Welfare Training Project, “Adolescent Development and Dual Diagnosis.” (1/14/02)
120. First Annual Bi-National Conference sponsored by the Imperial County Behavioral Health Services, “Models of Family Interventions in Border Areas.” El Centro, California. (1/28/02)
121. The California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators 16th Annual Conference, “Assessment, Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Multiple Diagnoses.” Burlingame, California. (4/25/02)
122. Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, Dual Diagnosis and Cultural Competence Conference, “Cultural Considerations in Working with the Latino Patient.” (5/21/02)
123. 3rd Annual Los Angeles County Law Enforcement and Mental Health Conference, “The Impact of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse on the Criminal Justice System.” (6/5/02)
124. New Mexico Department of Corrections, “Group Psychotherapy Training.” Santa Fe, New Mexico. (8/5/02)
19

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page224 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page63 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page62 of 65
125. Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, “Juvenile Delinquency and the Courts: 2002.” Berkeley, California. (8/15/02)
126. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, “Adolescent Development and Dual Diagnosis.” Sacramento, California. (8/22/02)
127. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic's 36th Anniversary Conference, San Francisco, California, “Psychiatric Approaches to Treating the Multiple Diagnostic Patient.” (6/6/03)
128. Motivational Speaker for Regional Co-Occurring Disorders Training sponsored by the California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and Mental Health and the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration-Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Samuel Merritt College, Health Education Center, Oakland, California. (9/4/03)
129. “Recreational Drugs, Parts I and II”, Doctor Marina Bermudez Issues In College Health, San Francisco State University Student Health Service. (10/1/03), (12/3/03)
130. “Detecting Substance Abuse in our Clients”, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Annual Conference, Berkeley, California. (10/18/03)
131. “Alcohol, Alcoholism and the Labor Relations Professional”, 10th Annual Labor and Employment Public Sector Program, sponsored by the State Bar of California. Labor and Employment Section. Pasadena, California. (4/2/04)
132. Lecture tour of Japan (4/8-4/18/04). “Best Practices for Drug and Alcohol Treatment.” Lectures were presented in Osaka, Tokyo and Kyoto for the Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Center of Japan.
133. San Francisco State University, School of Social Work, Title IV-E Child Welfare Training Project, “Adolescent Development and Dual Diagnosis.” (9/9/04)
134. “Substance Abuse and the Labor Relations Professional”, 11th Annual Labor and Employment Public Sector Program, sponsored by the State Bar of California. Labor and Employment Section. Sacramento, California. (4/8/05)
135. “Substance Abuse Treatment in the United States”, Clinical Masters Japan Program, Alliant International University. San Francisco, California. (8/13/05)
136. Habeas Corpus Resource Center, Mental Health Update, “Understanding Substance Abuse.” San Francisco, California. (10/24/05)
137. Yolo County Department of Behavioral Health, “Psychiatric Aspects of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.” Woodland, California. (1/25/06), (6/23/06)
138. “Methamphetamine-Induced Dual Diagnostic Issues”, Medical Grand Rounds, Wilcox Memorial Hospital, Lihue, Kauai. (2/13/06)
139. Lecture tour of Japan (4/13-4/23/06). “Assessment and Treatment of the Patient with Substance Abuse and Mental Illness.” Lectures were presented in Hiroshima and Kyoto for the Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Center of Japan.
20

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page225 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page64 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page63 of 65
140. “Co-Occurring Disorders: Isn’t It Time We Finally Got It Right?” California Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2006 Annual Conference. Sacramento, California. (4/25/06)
141. “Proper Assessment of Drug Court Clients”, Hawaii Drug Court, Honolulu. (6/29/06)
142. “Understanding Normal Adolescent Development,” California Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2007 Annual Conference. Sacramento, California. (4/27/07)
143. “Dual Diagnosis in the United States,” Conference sponsored by the Genesis Substance Abuse Treatment Network. Medford, Oregon. (5/10/07)
144. “Substance Abuse and Mental Illness: One Plus One Equals Trouble,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 2007 Annual Meeting & Seminar. San Francisco, California. (8/2/07)
145. “Capital Punishment,” Human Writes 2007 Conference. London, England. (10/6/07)
146. “Co-Occurring Disorders for the New Millennium,” California Hispanic Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Montebello, California. (10/30/07)
147. “Methamphetamine-Induced Dual Diagnostic Issues for the Child Welfare Professional,” Beyond the Bench Conference. San Diego, California. (12/13/07)
148. “Working with Mentally Ill Clients and Effectively Using Your Expert(s),” 2008 National Defender Investigator Association (NDIA), National Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. (4/10/08)
149. “Mental Health Aspects of Diminished Capacity and Competency,” Washington Courts District/Municipal Court Judges’ Spring Program. Chelan, Washington. (6/3/08)
150. “Reflection on a Career in Substance Abuse Treatment, Progress not Perfection,” California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2008 Conference. Burlingame, California. (6/19/08)
151. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Training, Wyoming Department of Health, “Diagnosis and Treatment of Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Abuse.” Buffalo, Wyoming. (10/6/09)
152. 2010 B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California, “Alcohol and Other Drugs and the Courts.” San Jose, California. (August 4th & 5th, 2010)
153. Facilitating Offender Re-entry to Reduce Recidivism: A Workshop for Teams, Menlo Park, CA. This conference was designed to assist Federal Courts to reduce recidivism. “The Mentally-Ill Offender in Reentry Courts,” (9/15/2010)
154. Juvenile Delinquency Orientation, “Adolescent Substance Abuse.” This was part of the “Primary Assignment Orientations” for newly appointed Juvenile Court Judges presented by The Center for Judicial Education and Research of the Administrative Office of the Court. San Francisco, California. (1/12/2011, 1/25/12, 2/27/13 & 1/8/14)
155. 2011 B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California, “Alcohol and Other Drugs and the Courts.” San Jose, California. (August 4th, 2011)
21

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page226 of 227
Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page65 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page64 of 65
156. 2012 B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California, “Alcohol and Other Drugs and the Courts.” San Jose, California. (August 2nd, 2012)
157. Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program Meeting, “Issues Related to Mental Illness in Mexican Nationals.” Santa Fe, New Mexico (10/12/12); Houston, Texas (4/23/13)
158. Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Capital Case Seminar, “Mental Illness and Substance Abuse.” Los Angeles, California. (9/27/13)
PUBLICATIONS:
1) Kanas, N., Stewart, P. and Haney, K. (1988). Content and Outcome in a Short-Term Therapy Group for Schizophrenic Outpatients. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 39, 437-439.
2) Kanas, N., Stewart, P. (1989). Group Process in Short-Term Outpatient Therapy Groups for Schizophrenics. Group, Volume 13, Number 2, Summer 1989, 67-73.
3) Zweben, J.E., Smith, D.E. and Stewart, P. (1991). Psychotic Conditions and Substance Use: Prescribing Guidelines and Other Treatment Issues. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 23(4), Oct.-Dec. 1991, 387-395.
4) Banys, P., Clark, H.W., Tusel, D.J., Sees, K., Stewart, P., Mongan, L., Delucchi, K., and Callaway, E. (1994). An Open Trial of Low Dose Buprenorphine in Treating Methadone Withdrawal. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 11(1), 9-15.
5) Hall, S.M., Tunis, S., Triffleman, E., Banys, P., Clark, H.W., Tusel, D., Stewart, P., and Presti, D. (1994). Continuity of Care and Desipramine in Primary Cocaine Abusers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 182(10), 570-575.
6) Galloway, G.P., Frederick, S.L., Thomas, S., Hayner, G., Staggers, F.E., Wiehl, W.O., Sajo, E., Amodia, D., and Stewart, P. (1996). A Historically Controlled Trial Of Tyrosine for Cocaine Dependence. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 28(3), pages 305-309, July-September 1996.
7) Stewart, P. (1999). Alcoholism: Practical Approaches To Diagnosis And Treatment. Prevention, (Newsletter for the National Institute On Alcoholism, Kurihama Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan) No. 82, 1999.
8) Stewart, P. (1999). New Approaches and Future Strategies Toward Understanding Substance Abuse. Published by the Osaka DARC (Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Center) Support Center, Osaka, Japan, November 11, 1999.
9) Stewart, P. (2002). Treatment Is A Right, Not A Privilege. Chapter in the book, Understanding Addictions-From Illness to Recovery and Rebirth, ed. by Hiroyuki Imamichi and Naoko Takiguchi, Academia Press (Akademia Syuppankai): Kyoto, Japan, 2002.
10) Stewart, P., Inaba, D.S., and Cohen, W.E. (2004). Mental Health & Drugs. Chapter in the book, Uppers, Downers, All Arounders, Fifth Edition, CNS Publications, Inc., Ashland, Oregon.
22

Case5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document55 Filed10/28/14 Page227 of 227 Case7:14-cv-02730 Document1-4 Filed06/12/14 Page66 of 66
Case5:13-cv-02354-PSG Document51 Filed04/29/14 Page65 of 65 11) James Austin, Ph.D., Kenneth McGinnis, Karl K. Becker, Kathy Dennehy, Michael V.
Fair, Patricia L. Hardyman, Ph.D. and Pablo Stewart, M.D. (2004) Classification of High Risk and Special Management Prisoners, A National Assessment of Current Practices. National Institute of Corrections, Accession Number 019468. 12) Stanley L. Brodsky, Ph.D., Keith R. Curry, Ph.D., Karen Froming, Ph.D., Carl Fulwiler, M.D., Ph.D., Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D., Pablo Stewart, M.D. and Hans Toch, Ph.D. (2005) Brief of Professors and Practitioners of Psychology and Psychiatry as AMICUS CURIAE in Support of Respondent: Charles E. Austin, et al. (Respondents) v. Reginald S. Wilkinson, et al. (Petitioners), In The Supreme Court of the United States, No. 04-495. 13) Stewart, P., Inaba, D.S., and Cohen, W.E. (2007). Mental Health & Drugs. Chapter in the book, Uppers, Downers, All Arounders, Sixth Edition, CNS Publications, Inc., Ashland, Oregon. 14) Stewart, P., Inaba, D.S. and Cohen, W.E. (2011). Mental Health & Drugs. Chapter 10 in the book, Uppers, Downers, All Arounders, Seventh Edition, CNS Publications, Inc., Ashland, Oregon.
23

 
 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7

Estate of JOSHUA CLAYPOLE, deceased, 8 by and through SILVIA GUERSENZVAIG, Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

as Administrator; and SILVIA 9 GUERSENZVAIG, individually,

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART CITY OF MONTEREY DEFENDANTS’

10

Plaintiffs,

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND; (2) GRANTING IN PART

11

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (3) DENYING COUNTY OF

13

Defendants.

MONTEREY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO STRIKE

14 [Re: ECF 28, 33]

15

United States District Court Northern District of California

16

17

Plaintiff Silvia Guersenzvaig (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit following the suicide of her

18 twenty-year old son in a Monterey County Jail cell. The deceased, Joshua Claypole (“Claypole”),

19 had been at the jail for three days following his arrest for fatally stabbing a taxi driver. Plaintiff

20 asserts federal and state law claims on behalf of herself and Claypole’s estate, seeking to impose

21 liability upon the County of Monterey and other public entities and individuals who interacted

22 with Claypole in the days before his death.

23

Two motions currently are before the Court: (1) a motion by the City of Monterey

24 (“City”), Monterey Police Chief Philip Penko (“Penko”), and Monterey Police Officer Brent Hall

25 (“Hall”) (collectively, “City Defendants”), seeking dismissal of the entire Complaint with

26 prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (2) a motion by the County of

27 Monterey (“County”), Sheriff Scott Miller (“Miller”), and Sergeant E. Kaye (“Kaye”)

28 (collectively, “County Defendants”), seeking dismissal of certain claims under Federal Rule of

1 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and seeking to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages request under Federal

2 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The Court has considered the briefing and the oral argument

3 presented at the hearing on October 2, 2014. For the reasons discussed below, both motions to

4 dismiss are GRANTED IN PART with leave to amend and the motion to strike is DENIED. 5 I. BACKGROUND1

6

Claypole was raised in Big Sur, California by his mother. He started having mental health

7 issues in high school, when he began exhibiting symptoms of anxiety, panic disorders, and bipolar

8 disorder. He saw a number of therapists and doctors, including doctors at Defendant Community

9 Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (“CHOMP”). Claypole did well when he took his prescribed

10 medications, but when he was not medicated he struggled to maintain normal behavior. In late

11 April 2013, he stopped sleeping, believed he had telepathy, and began acting in an aggressive and

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 paranoid manner. On April 29, 2013, he collected his belongings and left his mother’s home

13 without answering her questions about where he was going.

14

April 30, 2013

15

At 1:00 a.m. on the morning of April 30, 2013, Claypole was arrested by California

16 Highway Patrol officers in Redwood City, California on suspicion of driving under the influence.

17 He was booked and detained at the Maguire Correctional Facility operated by Defendant County

18 of San Mateo, and his car was impounded. Facility staff took Claypole’s medical history from

19 him and then prescribed him three psychotropic medications that typically are used to treat bipolar

20 disorder, schizophrenia, psychosis, and mania: Hydroxyzine, Quetiapine, and Lithium Carbonate.

21 Claypole was released at 11:24 a.m. on the morning of April 30, 2013.

22

May 1, 2013

23

At 8:30 a.m. on May 1, 2013, Claypole went to the outpatient behavioral health clinic at

24 CHOMP, located in Monterey, California, where he had been treated in 2012. CHOMP staff did

25 not provide treatment to Claypole; instead, they told him to leave and called the Monterey Police

26 Department (“MPD”). By the time MPD officers arrived, Claypole had left. However, he

27

28

1 The background facts are drawn from the allegations of the Complaint, which are accepted as true for pleading purposes.

2

1 returned later that morning. CHOMP personnel directed building security officers to escort 2 Claypole out of the building and again called the MPD.2

3

After being ejected from CHOMP, Claypole went to a local Wells Fargo branch and

4 withdrew money, then asked bank staff to call him a taxi. Wells Fargo staff later told MPD

5 officers that Claypole appeared “out of it,” displayed mood changes, made strange movements

6 with his head, and exhibited other unusual behavior. Claypole got into the taxi and, at

7 approximately 1:10 p.m., he fatally stabbed the taxi driver. Shortly thereafter, he was detained by

8 Seaside Police Department officers until MPD officers arrived and took custody. Thereafter,

9 while Claypole was seated in the back of Defendant Hall’s squad car, Claypole asked Hall, “Can

10 you ask for the [lethal] injection?” Compl. ¶ 59. He also told Hall that he “had to do it.” Id.

11 Later, during booking, Claypole asked Hall, “Should I go? I should just take the injection.” Id. ¶

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 60. While waiting to be interviewed by a detective, Claypole asked Hall, “Is my mom going to get

13 my remains?” Id. ¶ 61.

14

MPD thereafter transferred custody of Claypole to the Monterey County Sheriff’s

15 Department. Neither Hall nor any other MPD officer informed County personnel that Claypole

16 was acting strangely or that he might be a suicide risk. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on May 1,

17 2013, Claypole met with his criminal defense attorney. After the meeting, Claypole’s attorney

18 asked Officer Candi McGregor at the jail to place Claypole on suicide watch. Officer McGregor

19 contacted the on-duty Sergeant, Kaye. An Intake Health Screening form completed shortly

20 thereafter shows the “no” box checked for “Does behavior suggest danger to self or others?” A

21 Classification Inmate Intake Screening Questionnaire completed that same night indicates that

22 Claypole had not shown any bizarre behavior and that he had not been under psychiatric care. It is

23 not clear whether medical personnel administered these screenings. It does not appear that

24 Claypole was given any other mental health evaluation or treatment. Nor was he placed on suicide

25 watch at that time despite his attorney’s request.

26

27

28

2 There are no allegations that CHOMP recognized Claypole as a former patient or that the MPD made contact with him when responding to CHOMP’s calls.

3

1

May 2, 2013

2

On May 2, 2013, Claypole’s attorney visited him again. Claypole asked if his mother

3 could bring his medications to the jail.

4

May 3, 2013

5

On May 3, 2013, Claypole made his first court appearance. He was mentally unstable, and

6 he believed that others were speaking to him telepathically. His attorney assumed (incorrectly)

7 that Claypole had been placed on suicide watch. Claypole finally was placed on suicide watch at

8 2:35 p.m. on May 3, at which time he was transferred to a safety cell.

9

May 4, 2013

10

Approximately sixteen hours later, at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, May 4, 2013, Claypole was

11 taken off suicide watch and moved from the safety cell to a cell in A Pod, an administrative

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 segregation housing unit. No mental health personnel work at the jail on weekends; it is unclear

13 who ordered Claypole taken off suicide watch. At 1:00 p.m. that afternoon, Plaintiff arrived to

14 visit Claypole and deliver his medications. Jail staff refused to allow her to see Claypole, stating

15 that he had been moved to a new unit and that visitation hours for that unit had not begun.

16 Plaintiff gave the medications to a jail nurse. The medications were not provided to Claypole.

17

Although jail policy required staff to check Claypole hourly, the Hourly Safety Check log

18 indicates that staff did not check on him for more than six hours. At approximately 2:30 p.m.,

19 non-party Deputy Sheriff Raymond Gordano (“Gordano”) found Claypole in his cell, hanging

20 from a noose made of torn bed sheets that had been attached to a metal brace on the wall.

21 Gordano did not immediately open the cell or cut Claypole down; instead, he requested and waited

22 for backup. After other staff arrived, Claypole was cut down and the noose was cut with a knife.

23 Claypole was transferred to the custody of emergency room personnel at Natividad Medical

24 Center, and then he was transported via helicopter to San Jose Regional Medical Center. He was

25 pronounced dead on May 9, 2013. A postmortem examination determined that he died from

26 asphyxia due to hanging.

27

A handwritten note was found in Claypole’s cell, reading: “I love you mama. I’m sorry

28 for all the pain I have brought you mama. I love you very much. Maybe I will see you again. 4

1 Love, Joshua.” Compl. ¶ 80.

2

Plaintiff sues the County of San Mateo; San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks; the

3 County of Monterey; Miller; Kaye; the City of Monterey; Penko; Hall; California Forensic 4 Medical Group (“CFMG”)3; Dr. Taylor Fithian4; and CHOMP. Plaintiff asserts the following

5 claims: (1) a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; 6 (2) a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment5; (3) a §

7 1983 claim for deprivation of substantive due process in violation of the First and Fourteenth

8 Amendments (causing loss of parent/child relationship); (4) professional negligence/medical

9 malpractice claim under California law; (5) failure to furnish medical care under California law;

10 (6) negligent supervision, training, hiring, and retention under California law; and (7) wrongful

11 death under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 II. LEGAL STANDARD

13

“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

14 claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation

15 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

16 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts

17 as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the

18 plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the

19 Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial

20 notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

21 unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)

22 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed

23

24

3 CFMG is a private health care provider that services approximately sixty-five correctional facilities in California, including the Monterey County Jail.

25 4 Taylor Fithian is the co-founder, President, and Medial Director of CFMG.

26 5 Although Claim 1 is labeled “Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical and Mental Health

27

Needs” and Claim 2 is labeled “Failure to Protect from Harm,” both clearly are deliberate indifference claims. The claims contain the identical allegation that Defendants’ conduct

28

“constituted deliberate indifference to Joshua Claypole’s serious medical needs, health, and safety.” Compl. ¶¶ 87 (Claim 1) and 95 (Claim 2).

5

1 factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

2 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

3 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows the

4 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

5 III. CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

6

The City, Penko, and Hall are named as defendants in only two of the seven claims

7 asserted in this lawsuit: Claim 2 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth

8 Amendment; and Claim 3 for deprivation of substantive due process in violation of the First and

9 Fourteenth Amendments. They seek dismissal of both claims with prejudice.

10

A. Claim 2 – Deliberate Indifference

11

Claim 2 asserts a § 1983 claim against the City Defendants and others based upon their

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 alleged deliberate indifference to Claypole’s serious medical needs, health, and safety in violation

13 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read liberally, the claim alleges that Hall knew that Claypole was

14 suicidal and failed to respond appropriately; and that Penko and the City failed to maintain

15 policies and procedures, or provide adequate training and supervision, to ensure that MPD officers

16 informed other agencies of known suicide risks when transferring custody of an arrestee. See

17 Compl. ¶ 93. The City Defendants argue that they did not owe any duty to Claypole at the time of

18 his death; the actions of the County Defendants were a superseding cause that precludes any

19 liability against the City Defendants; and Penko did not have any contact with Claypole or take

20 any action that could render him individually liable to Plaintiff.

21

“To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct complained of

22 was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the

23 plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Patel v. Kent School Dist., 648 F.3d 965,

24 971 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the City, Penko, and Hall do not challenge their status as state actors

25 for § 1983 purposes. They contend that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that they deprived

26 Claypole of Fourteenth Amendment rights.

27

“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause generally does not confer any

28 affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, 6

1 or property interests.” Id. “There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) when a ‘special relationship’

2 exists between the plaintiff and the state (the special-relationship exception); and (2) when the

3 state affirmatively places the plaintiff in danger by acting with ‘deliberate indifference’ to a

4 ‘known or obvious danger’ (the state-created danger exception).” Id. at 971-72 (internal citations

5 omitted). “If either exception applies, a state’s omission or failure to protect may give rise to a §

6 1983 claim.” Id. at 972.

7

In the context of arrest or pretrial detention, the Fourteenth Amendment confers a right to

8 be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which encompasses a right to have serious medical

9 needs addressed. Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); Gibson v. Cnty

10 of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). “[A] heightened suicide risk can present a

11 serious medical need.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1018. An officer effects a deprivation of Fourteenth

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Amendment rights if he or she is deliberately indifferent to a detainee’s serious medical needs. Id.

13 at 1017; see also Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We

14 have long analyzed claims that correction facility officials violated pretrial detainees’

15 constitutional rights by failing to address their medical needs (including suicide prevention) under

16 a ‘deliberate indifference’ standard.”).

17

“A prison official cannot be liable for deliberate indifference unless he or she ‘knows of

18 and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts

19 from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must

20 also draw the inference.’” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

21 837 (1994)). “In other words, a plaintiff must show that the official was (a) subjectively aware of

22 the serious medical need and (b) failed adequately to respond.” Id. at 1017-18 (internal quotation

23 marks and citation omitted).

24

1. Duty

25

The City Defendants argue that they did not owe Claypole any duty at the time of his death

26 because the special relationship created by the MPD’s custody of Claypole ended when custody

27 was transferred to the County, and the MPD did not place Claypole in danger prior to the transfer.

28

A special relationship clearly existed during the period in which the MPD had custody of

7

1 Claypole. See DeShaney v.Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989)

2 (“when the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the

3 Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety

4 and general well-being”). The City Defendants do not suggest otherwise. While that special

5 relationship existed, and before it terminated as a result of transfer of custody to the County, the

6 City Defendants are charged with failing to take required actions consistent with their duty of care.

7 It is alleged that while in City custody, Claypole made a number of statements to Hall that could

8 be viewed as suicidal. Moreover, while Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts regarding

9 Claypole’s general behavior when he was with Hall, her allegations regarding his bizarre conduct

10 both before and after Hall had custody of him give rise to an inference that he behaved bizarrely 11 with Hall as well.6

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is plausibly alleged that

13 Hall was subjectively aware that Claypole was suicidal and nonetheless failed to request a mental

14 health assessment or even inform Claypole’s next custodian, the County, of that critical fact.

15 Those allegations are sufficient to make out a deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiff plausibly

16 alleges that the harm to Claypole – his suicide three days later – was caused, at least in part, by the

17 City Defendants’ failure to provide medical care and failure to advise the Monterey County Jail

18 staff of Claypole’s suicidal statements and bizarre behavior while in City custody. Cf. Lum v.

19 Cnty. of San Joaquin, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1254-58 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (finding viable a wrongful

20 death claim based in part upon jail staff’s failure to assess the decedent’s medical status or provide

21 medical care while he was in custody, where decedent was found floating in a nearby river three

22 days after his release from jail).

23

Plaintiff does not assert any pleading deficiencies with respect to the official capacity

24 claims against Penko or the Monell7 claims against the City; they rely solely upon their contention

25

26 6 Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, it is highly unlikely that Claypole behaved strangely at

27

CHOMP, at Wells Fargo, and at the jail with his attorney, but had a moment of clarity while with Hall.

28 7 Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 8

1 that Plaintiff has failed to allege an underlying violation of Claypole’s rights. Consequently, the

2 City Defendants have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims.

3

2. Superseding Cause

4

The City Defendants contend that their conduct could not have been the proximate cause of

5 Claypole’s death. See Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1245 n.3 (“to prevail on a § 1983 claim under a

6 deliberate indifference theory, plaintiff must prove that the official’s actions were both the actual

7 and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries”) (citing White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir.

8 1990)). Specifically, the City Defendants contend that the actions of the County in first imposing,

9 and then removing, a suicide watch constituted a superseding cause that precludes any liability

10 against them.

11

In § 1983 actions, “[t]raditional tort law defines intervening causes that break the chain of

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 proximate causation.” Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation

13 omitted). A defendant’s conduct is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury “if another

14 cause intervenes and supersedes his liability for the subsequent events.” White, 901 F.2d at 1506.

15 However, “[t]he courts are quite generally agreed that [foreseeable] intervening causes . . . will not

16 supersede the defendant’s responsibility.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

17 (alteration in original). If reasonable persons could differ on the question of foreseeability, the

18 question should be left to a jury. Id.

19

The gist of the City Defendants’ argument is that they were entitled to expect the County

20 to undertake any necessary precautions or treatment with respect to Claypole’s mental health; the

21 County did take such precautions; and the City could not have foreseen – and cannot be held

22 responsible for – the County’s decisions to place Claypole on and then remove him from suicide

23 watch. However, Plaintiff alleges that when Claypole arrived at the jail he was given only a

24 cursory mental health screening, which resulted in check-box determinations that he was not a

25 danger to himself and had no history of psychiatric treatment. The County did not place Claypole

26 on suicide watch until he had been at the jail for two days. Had Hall informed the County that

27 Claypole was suicidal, the County may well have performed a more thorough mental health

28 evaluation upon intake, medicated Claypole, and/or maintained the suicide watch for a longer 9

1 period of time. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the County’s

2 conduct constituted a superseding cause that cuts off any potential liability on the part of the City

3 Defendants.

4

3. Penko

5

“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his

6 or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection

7 between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Starr v. Baca, 652

8 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The requisite

9 causal connection can be established . . . by setting in motion a series of acts by others, . . . or by

10 knowingly refus[ing] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the supervisor] knew or

11 reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury.” Id. (internal

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 quotation marks and citation omitted) (alterations in original). “A supervisor can be liable in his

13 individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control

14 of his subordinates; for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that

15 showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

16 citation omitted).

17

The Complaint alleges generally that “Penko is and was responsible for the hiring,

18 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all Monterey

19 Police Department employees and/or agents,” and that “Penko also is and was responsible for the

20 promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to

21 which the acts of the Monterey Police Department alleged herein were committed.” Compl. ¶ 17.

22 Bare allegations of this nature are insufficient; some specific facts regarding Penko’s knowledge

23 or conduct must be pled to make out a plausible claim against him in his individual capacity. See,

24 e.g., Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208-12 (reciting the plaintiff’s detailed allegations regarding the

25 defendant sheriff’s knowledge of misconduct by his subordinate jail officials).

26

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim 2 is GRANTED with leave to amend as to the

27 claim against Penko in his individual capacity and otherwise is DENIED.

28 10

1

B. Claim 3 – Substantive Due Process

2

Claim 3 asserts a substantive due process claim against the City Defendants and others.

3 “The substantive due process right to family integrity or to familial association is well

4 established.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). “A parent has a

5 ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in companionship with his or her child.” Id. (citing Kelson v. City of

6 Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1985)). In order to make out a violation of substantive

7 due process, the harmful conduct must shock the conscience or offend notions of fair play and

8 decency. Id.

9

The City Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot make out a claim against them because she

10 has failed to allege facts showing that they violated Claypole’s constitutional rights or caused his

11 death. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 deliberate indifference as to all City Defendants except for Penko in his individual capacity.

13 Because the conduct alleged, if true, would shock the conscience, the Court concludes that

14 Plaintiff has stated a substantive due process claim as well.

15

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim 3 is GRANTED with leave to amend as to the

16 claim against Penko in his individual capacity and otherwise is DENIED.

17 IV. COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

18

The County Defendants are named as defendants in all seven claims asserted in the

19 Complaint. However, they move to dismiss only four: Claim 4 for professional negligence;

20 Claim 5 for failure to furnish medical care; Claim 6 for negligent supervision, training, hiring, and

21 retention; and Claim 7 for wrongful death. They also move to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages

22 request.

23

A. Claim 4 - Professional Negligence

24

Claim 4 asserts that the County Defendants and others committed professional negligence

25 by failing to provide appropriate evaluation and treatment of Claypole. Based upon a careful

26 review of the allegations of the Complaint and the colloquy between the Court and Plaintiff’s

27 counsel at the hearing, it appears clear that Claim 4 is a claim for medical malpractice. Because

28 none of the County Defendants is a medical professional, a claim of medical malpractice does not 11

1 lie against them. See Silverbrand v. Woodford, No. CV 06-3253-R (CW), 2010 WL 3635780, at

2 *8 (Aug. 18, 2010) (dismissing medical malpractice claims against corrections officers who were

3 not medical professionals).

4

Plaintiff’s reliance on Lum, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1243, is misplaced. In Lum, parents asserted

5 claims against public entities and officials arising out of the detention and subsequent death of

6 their son. The decedent had been arrested for public intoxication at approximately 1:00 a.m. and

7 booked on a “kickout” charge, meaning he would be released from jail six hours later. At the time

8 of his arrest, the decedent had a cut on his foot, vomit on his shirt, and was behaving strangely. A

9 blood test showed no alcohol in his system; he stated that he was bipolar and took medication; and

10 he had hallucinations and a seizure in his holding cell. However, the jail staff did not order a

11 medical or psychiatric evaluation. Instead, they released the decedent at 7:30 a.m. “without

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 successful family notification, transportation, money, phone, or shoes.” Id. at 1247. His body was

13 found in the nearby San Joaquin River a few days later. The Court of Appeals concluded that

14 under those circumstances the parents could make out negligence claims against the arresting

15 officers and jail personnel that would not be barred by governmental immunities. Id. at 1256. The

16 court did not, however, find that the parents could make out professional negligence claims.

17

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim 4 is GRANTED without leave to amend the

18 claim of professional negligence against the County Defendants but with leave to amend to add a

19 garden-variety negligence claim against the County Defendants, if appropriate.

20

B. Claim 5 - Failure to Furnish Medical Care

21

Claim 5 seeks to impose liability upon the County Defendants and others for failure to

22 furnish or summon medical care while Claypole was held at the jail. The claim alleges that

23 although “Defendants owed Joshua Claypole a duty of care to provide him immediate medical and

24 mental health care,” “Defendants failed to take reasonable action to summon or provide that care,

25 resulting in Joshua Claypole’s death.” Compl. ¶¶ 109-10. The Monterey County Defendants

26 contend that the County is immune from suit under California Government Code § 844.6 and that

27 Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to come within the exception to immunity set forth in

28 California Government Code § 845.6. 12

1

Section 844.6 provides that, with certain enumerated exceptions, “a public entity is not

2 liable for . . . an injury to any prisoner.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 844.6(a). One of the enumerated

3 exceptions is California Government Code § 845.6, which provides in relevant part that “a public

4 employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment,

5 is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate

6 medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.” Cal. Gov’t

7 Code § 845.6 (emphasis added).

8

The County Defendants argue that Claim 5 does not fall within this exception because the

9 Complaint reveals that medical care in fact was furnished. To the extent that the County

10 Defendants rely on allegations regarding medical screening administered to Claypole after Kaye

11 was informed of Claypole’s suicidal ideation, it is unclear from the record whether that screening

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 was given by medical personnel or whether initiating the screening constituted “reasonable action

13 to summon” medical care. See Compl. ¶¶ 63-65. To the extent that the County Defendants rely

14 on allegations regarding the care given after Claypole was discovered hanging in his cell, it is

15 unclear from the record whether Gordano’s decision to wait for backup before cutting Claypole

16 down constituted “reasonable” action. See Compl. ¶ 74. While the County Defendants ultimately

17 may be able to prove that they are not subject to liability under Section 845.6, it would be

18 inappropriate to make that factual determination at the pleading stage.

19

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim 5 is DENIED.

20

C. Claim 6 – Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention and

21

Claim 7 – Wrongful Death

22

Claim 6 asserts that the County Defendants are liable for negligent supervision, training,

23 hiring, and retention, while Claim 7 asserts that they are liable for negligent or wrongful acts that

24 caused Claypole’s death. The County argues that it is immune from these claims, relying on

25 California Government Code § 815, which provides that a public entity is not liable for any injury

26 except as otherwise provided by statute. Cal. Gov’t Code § 815(a). As discussed above, Section

27 845.6 permits claims against a public entity based upon its employees’ failure to furnish medical

28 care. Thus the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are viable to the extent they are based upon 13

1 the County’s negligence in supervising and training its employees regarding the furnishing of

2 mental health care. See Bock v. Cnty. of Sutter, No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-GGH, 2012 WL

3 3778953, at *18-19 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss claims for negligent

4 supervision and wrongful death that were based upon jail personnel’s failure to furnish medical

5 care).

6

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Claim 6 and Claim 7 is DENIED.

7

D. Punitive Damages

8

The County Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under Rule

9 12(f). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 12(f) is not the appropriate vehicle for a challenge to

10 punitive damages at the pleading stage, and has directed that such a challenge should be brought

11 under Rule 12(b)(6). Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010).

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Even if the motion had been brought under Rule 12(b)(6), however, the Court would not be

13 inclined to entertain it at this stage in the proceedings. If and when appropriate after summary

14 judgment or trial, the Court will take up the issue of whether punitive damages are available in this

15 action.

16

Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

17 V. ORDER

18

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

(1) The City of Monterey Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s

20

claims against Penko in his individual capacity, with leave to amend, and otherwise

21

is DENIED. If Plaintiff is unable to allege additional facts against Penko in his

22

individual capacity by the deadline for amendment but discovers such facts at a

23

later date, she may seek leave to amend her pleading to reallege claims against

24

Penko in his individual capacity.

25

(2) The County of Monterey Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Claim

26

4 without leave to amend the claim of professional negligence but with leave to

27

amend to add a garden-variety negligence claim, if appropriate. The County of

28

Monterey Defendants’ motion to dismiss otherwise is DENIED, and their motion to

14

1

strike is DENIED.

2

(3) Leave to amend is limited to the pleading deficiencies identified herein. Plaintiff

3

may not add any other claims or other parties without express leave of court.

4

(4) Any amended complaint shall be filed on or before October 28, 2014.

5

6 Dated: October 9, 2014

7

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

8

United States District Judge

9

10

11

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

 
 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4

Estate of JOSHUA CLAYPOLE, deceased, 5 by and through SILVIA GUERSENZVAIG, Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

as Administrator; and SILVIA 6 GUERSENZVAIG, individually,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

7

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT; DENYING CITY OF

MONTEREY’S MOTION FOR

8

v.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE DETECTIVE KRUSE AS A DOE DEFENDANT

10

Defendants.

[Re: ECF 97, 108]

11

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

This action arises from the suicide of twenty-year old Joshua Claypole (“Claypole”) while

14 he was detained in a Monterey County Jail cell. Plaintiffs are the Estate of Joshua Claypole, by

15 and through Silvia Guersenzvaig (Claypole’s mother) as Administrator, and Silvia Guersenzvaig

16 individually (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs have sued a number of public employees and agencies that

17 had contact with Claypole in the days leading up to his death. Before the Court are two motions:

18 (1) a motion for summary judgment, brought by Defendants City of Monterey (“City”) and City of 19 Monterey Police Officer Brent Hall (“Hall”),1 and (2) a motion for leave to substitute City of

20 Monterey Detective Bryan Kruse (“Kruse”) as a Doe defendant, brought by Plaintiffs. The Court

21 has considered the parties’ briefing, the relevant legal authorities, and the oral argument that was

22 presented at the hearing on November 12, 2015. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant

23 Hall’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, Defendant City’s motion for summary

24 judgment is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to substitute Kruse as a Doe defendant is

25 DENIED.

26

27

1 City of Monterey Police Chief Philip Penko (“Penko”), also named as a defendant in this action in his official capacity, has not moved for summary judgment. However, the parties have

28

stipulated that the Court’s ruling with respect to the City shall bind and have the same force and effect as to Defendant Penko. See Stipulation and Order, ECF 145.

1 I. BACKGROUND2

2

Prior to the events giving rise to this action, Claypole had been under the care of various

3 psychiatrists and psychologists. Guersenzvaig Dep. 46:23-47:6, ECF 105-4. On the afternoon of

4 April 28, 2013, Claypole left his home in Big Sur, where he lived with his mother. Id. 36:8-24.

5 On April 30, 2013, he was arrested in Redwood City, California, on suspicion of driving under the

6 influence. Drug Influence Evaluation, Exh. 85 to Tajsar Decl, ECF 105-3. Claypole’s vehicle was

7 towed and he was taken to the San Mateo County Jail. Police Report (Bowers), Exh. 45 to Tajsar

8 Decl., ECF 105-3. The arresting officer characterized Claypole as confused, with a “blank spacey

9 stare,” stated that Claypole did not appear to understand what was happening, and indicated that

10 Claypole responded incoherently to questions. Id.

11

It is not clear when Claypole was released from the San Mateo County Jail, but on May 1,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 2013, he appeared at the Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (“CHOMP”), where he

13 previously had received treatment. Martin Dep. 70:7-20, ECF 105-4; Guersenzvaig Dep. 49:17-

14 50:3, ECF 105-4. He told the receptionist that he was being chased by someone with a knife.

15 Martin Dep. 70:12-20, ECF 105-4. CHOMP employees asked Claypole to leave, which he did.

16 Moises Dep. 71:2-72:23, ECF 105-4. Claypole then went to a nearby Wells Fargo Bank,

17 withdrew money, and asked a bank employee to call him a taxi. Police Report (Zook), Exh. 12 to

18 Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2. The bank employee later described Claypole as “out of it” and “in and

19 out of consciousness.” Id. Claypole took the taxi to a local rental car company and there he

20 fatally stabbed the taxi driver. Police Report (Kruse), Exh. 11 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2.

21

Shortly thereafter, Seaside Police Department officers stopped Claypole, who was driving

22 a stolen pickup truck, and detained him pending arrival of City police officers. Police Report

23 (Hall), Exh. 9 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2. City of Monterey Police Officer Hall arrived at the

24 scene and placed Claypole in the rear of his patrol vehicle. Id. Hall transported Claypole to the

25 City of Monterey Jail for booking. Id. The booking process included a screening and assessment

26 of Claypole conducted by a Police Service Technician (“PST”) named Philip Bitter (“Bitter”). Id.;

27

28 2 The background facts contained in this section are undisputed. 2

1 Booking Information, Exh. 15 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2. Bitter documented the screening on

2 the City’s booking form, which contains a “medical screening” section listing a series of 34

3 checkboxes describing various medical issues. Booking Information, Exh. 15 to Tajsar Decl.,

4 ECF 105-2.

5

While in Hall’s patrol car, during booking, and after booking while waiting to be

6 interviewed by a detective, Claypole made a number of spontaneous utterances, including the

7 following: “Can you ask for the injection?”; “I had to do it.”; “He told me to do it. He just

8 wouldn’t die.”; “Should I go?”; and “I should just take the injection.” Hall Dep. 62:16-24, 73:21-

9 25, ECF 105-4. Claypole also asked Hall whether his mother would get his remains, said that he

10 wanted to die by lethal injection, and said that he wanted to have his body cremated. Id. 74:8-13.

11

Claypole was interviewed by City of Monterey Detective Kruse and Sergeant William

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Clark. Police Report (Kruse), Exh. 11 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2; Video Footage of Interview,

13 Exh. 81 to Tajsar Decl. (manually filed). Claypole’s Miranda rights were read to him several

14 times because he kept indicating that he did not understand them. Police Report (Kruse), Exh. 11

15 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2. Once the interview began, Claypole said that he was trying to decide

16 if he was going to take lethal injection. Kruse Dep. 181:14-25, ECF 105-4. Claypole also said he

17 had been hallucinating. Id. 183:1-9. Claypole stated that he took medication, including

18 prescriptions for anxiety, and that he had been up for forty-eight hours. Id. 185:7-11, 191:4-7.

19 Kruse observed that some of Claypole’s responses to questions were completely off topic. Id.

20 194:2-12. For example, when Kruse asked Claypole whether he had used controlled substances

21 recently, he responded, “You’re telling me that they found the dead bodies?” Id. Kruse elected

22 not to complete the interview because of the difficulty getting straight answers out of Claypole,

23 which Kruse thought might be due to the influence of a controlled substance. Id. 132:3-14.

24

Kruse and City of Monterey Officer Jeremiah Ruttschow (“Ruttschow”) transported

25 Claypole to CHOMP for a blood draw. Kruse Dep. 133:16-134:6, ECF 105-4. While at CHOMP,

26 Claypole became upset and wanted to see a manager. Id. 137:5-24. He refused to have blood

27 drawn, stating that the officers were trying to kill him. Id. 138:1-23. He also resisted efforts to get

28 him back to the squad car. Id. 138:24-139:8. Kruse and Ruttschow physically removed Claypole 3

1 from CHOMP, placed him in the squad car, and transported him back to the City jail. Id. 139:5- 8;

2 Ruttschow Dep. 168:9-18, ECF 105-4.

3

At approximately 9:00 p.m. that evening, Ruttschow transported Claypole to Monterey

4 County Jail. Ruttschow Dep. 169:10-23, ECF 105-4. When an arresting agency transfers a

5 suspect to the Monterey County Jail, the arresting agency completes and provides a “Pre-Booking 6 Sheet”3 to the County. Jackson Dep. 70:24-72:21, ECF 105-4. The Pre-Booking Sheet for

7 Claypole was completed by PST Bitter, who signed the sheet “Bitter for Kruse.” Pre-Booking

8 Sheet, Exh. 6 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-3. Out of the listed descriptors for demeanor, Bitter

9 circled “calm,” and out of the listed descriptors for speech, Bitter circled “slow.” Id. The Pre-

10 Booking Sheet did not describe any of Claypole’s aberrant behavior and did not indicate that he

11 might be suffering from a mental health issue. Id.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Claypole was screened when he arrived at the Monterey County Jail. Intake Health

13 Screening, Exh. 32 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-3. The intake health screening form completed that

14 night has the “no” box checked for the questions: “Does behavior suggest a danger to self or

15 others?” and “Does inmate appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol?” Id. The box on

16 the intake health screening form for “psychiatric problems” is not checked. Id.

17

After Claypole was booked into the Monterey County Jail, he met with his defense

18 attorney, John Klopfenstein (“Klopfenstein”). Bass Dep. 188:2-9, Defs.’ Exh. N, ECF 98-10;

19 McGregor Memo., Defs.’ Exh. Q, ECF 98-11. Following that meeting, Klopfenstein told jail

20 personnel that Claypole had stated that he wanted to kill himself. McGregor Memo., Defs.’ Exh.

21 Q, ECF 98-11. Claypole was placed in a safety cell on suicide watch that night. Kaye Dep. 83:7-

22 10, 126:10-127:25, Defs.’ Exh. O, ECF 98-10. He was taken off suicide watch the following

23 morning, on May 2, 2013. Id. 98:18-21, 137:12-138:21. Claypole was placed on suicide watch a

24 second time on May 3, 2013. Safety Cell Log, Defs.’ Exh. S, ECF 98-11. He again was removed

25 from suicide watch on May 4, 2013. Interrog. Responses, Defs.’ Exh. T, ECF 98-11. Later on

26 May 4, Claypole was discovered to have hanged himself in his cell. Inmate Injury Report, Defs.’

27 28 3 Also referred to in the papers as a “Pre-Booking Form.”
4

1 Exh. U, ECF 98-11.

2

Plaintiffs’ operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) asserts the following claims: (1) a §

3 19834 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical and mental health needs in violation of

4 the Fourteenth Amendment ; (2) a § 1983 claim for failure to protect from harm in violation of the

5 Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a § 1983 claim for deprivation of substantive due process in violation

6 of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (causing loss of parent/child relationship); (4) a

7 professional negligence/medical malpractice claim under California law; (5) failure to furnish

8 medical care under California law; (6) negligent supervision, training, hiring, and retention under

9 California law; and (7) wrongful death under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60.

10

The City and Officer Hall are defendants to the second claim for failure to protect from

11 harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the third claim for deprivation of substantive

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. They seek summary judgment as to both claims.

13 In their opposition to the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs indicate that

14 they intend to dismiss Hall based upon information gained in discovery. Plaintiffs instead wish to

15 seek individual liability against City of Monterey Detective Kruse, and they have filed a motion

16 seeking leave to substitute Kruse as a Doe defendant. That motion is opposed by the City

17 Defendants.

18 II. CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

19

A. Legal Standard

20

“A party is entitled to summary judgment if the ‘movant shows that there is no genuine

21 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” City of

22 Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

23 P. 56(a)). “The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue

24 of material fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex

25 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of

26 proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the

27

28 4 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5

1 non-moving party’s case.” Id. “Where the moving party meets that burden, the burden then shifts

2 to the non-moving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues

3 for trial.” Id. “[T]he non-moving party must come forth with evidence from which a jury could

4 reasonably render a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor.” Id. “The court must view the

5 evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in the

6 nonmovant’s favor.” City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1049. “‘Where the record taken as a whole

7 could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for

8 trial.’” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587

9 (1986)).

10

B. Officer Brent Hall

11

As noted above, Plaintiffs have indicated their intention to dismiss Hall from this case.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Plaintiffs have not offered any substantive opposition to Hall’s motion for summary judgment.

13 Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Hall.

14

C. City of Monterey

15

“A government entity may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless a policy,

16 practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind a violation of

17 constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing

18 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). “Municipal liability

19 may be established on account of the city’s deliberate acts or omissions.” Conn v. City of Reno,

20 591 F.3d 1081, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011), reinstated in part and

21 vacated in part, 658 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d

22 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A policy can be one of action or inaction.”). “Municipal liability for a

23 failure to act requires a showing ‘(1) that a [municipal] employee violated the plaintiff’s

24 constitutional rights; (2) that the [municipality] has customs or policies that amount to deliberate

25 indifference; and (3) that these customs or policies were the moving force behind the employee’s

26 violation of constitutional rights.’” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1102 (quoting Long, 442 F.3d at 1186)

27 (alterations in original).

28

Claim 2 asserts that the City and its officers failed to protect Claypole from harm in

6

1 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, see FAC ¶ 93, and Claim 3 asserts that Claypole’s

2 resulting death deprived Guersenzvaig of her liberty interest in the parent-child relationship in

3 violation of her substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, see FAC ¶ 99.

4 The City seeks summary judgment on both claims, contending that no reasonable trier of fact

5 could find for Plaintiffs on Claim 2, and that Claim 3 is wholly dependent on Claim 2.

6

1. Claim 2 – Failure to Protect in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment

7

The Court thus begins its analysis with Claim 2, which alleges that the City and its officers

8 “failed to take necessary precautions to ensure that Claypole would not harm himself or others

9 after he communicated clearly suicidal thoughts to Monterey Police Department officers”; “failed

10 to create minimally necessary policies and procedures for ensuring that other entities and

11 municipalities were informed of suicide risks among Monterey Police Department arrestees who

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 are transferred from their custody”; and “failed to adequately train and supervise officers to protect

13 arrestees from harm.” FAC ¶ 93. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that Plaintiffs’

14 Fourteenth Amendment claim against the City is based upon their contention that the City lacks

15 minimally necessary policies and procedures for identifying a detainee’s mental health issues and

16 responding to those issues appropriately by either transferring the detainee to a mental health

17 facility or transmitting information regarding the detainee’s mental health to the next custodian.

18

Applying the legal standard set forth above, the City may be liable on Claim 2 if (1) a City

19 employee violated Claypole’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the City has customs or

20 policies that amount to deliberate indifference, and (3) those customs or policies were the moving

21 force behind the City employee’s violation of Claypole’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.

22

a. City Employees’ Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights

23

“The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, which

24 includes the denial of medical care.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1094. “Pretrial detainees, by contrast, are

25 protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. Courts have

26 borrowed from the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to determine the minimum standard of care

27 that must be given to a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; Simmons v.

28 Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due 7

1 Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual

2 punishment, applies to pretrial detainees, we apply the same standards in both cases.”) (internal

3 citation omitted); Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (“With regard

4 to medical needs, the due process clause imposes, at minimum, the same duty as the Eighth

5 Amendment imposes.”).

6

“The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments both guarantee that inmates and detainees

7 receive constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1094. “An

8 official’s deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate – including the

9 deprivation of a serious medical need – violates the Eighth Amendment, and a fortiori, the

10 Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.; see also Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187 (“persons in custody have the

11 established right to not have officials remain deliberately indifferent to their serious medical

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 needs”) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

13

To set forth a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment – or, here, under the

14 Fourteenth Amendment – a plaintiff must show (1) a serious medical need and (2) that an

15 official’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent. Conn, 591 F.3d at 1095; see also

16 Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017 (“We have long analyzed claims that correction facility officials

17 violated pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights by failing to address their medical needs

18 (including suicide prevention) under a deliberate indifference standard.”) (internal quotation marks

19 and citation omitted). “The second prong requires both (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to

20 a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Conn, 591

21 F.3d at 1095. Thus to make out a claim of deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must establish

22 “serious medical need, indifference to that need, and harm caused by that indifference.” Id.

23

Before turning the parties’ evidence on these three elements, the Court briefly addresses

24 the City’s argument that it cannot be liable under a “special relationship” theory because the

25 special relationship created by the City’s custody of Claypole terminated when the City transferred

26 custody of Claypole to Monterey County. See Defs.’ Br. at 6-7, ECF 97. The City acknowledges

27 that a special relationship existed during the period in which the City had custody of Claypole.

28 See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 198 (1989) (recognizing 8

1 that although the Due Process clause generally does not confer an affirmative right to

2 governmental aid, “the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,

3 made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, requires

4 the State to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated prisoners”) (internal citation omitted).

5 The City argues, however, that City officers’ alleged knowledge that Claypole was a suicide risk

6 did not create a continuing relationship after the City transferred custody to Monterey County.

7 Plaintiffs do not assert the existence of a continuing relationship following transfer of Claypole’s

8 custody. See Pls.’ Opp. at 17-18, ECF 105. Plaintiffs’ theory of liability is that the City and its

9 officers violated Claypole’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by their deliberate indifference to his

10 serious medical need while he was in the City’s custody. That theory properly is evaluated under

11 the standards set forth in Conn, Simmons, and Gibson, and discussed in detail below.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

i. Serious Medical Need

13

A detainee has “a serious medical need if the failure to treat the condition could result in

14 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Conn, 591 F.3d at

15 1095 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A heightened suicide risk or an attempted

16 suicide is a serious medical need.” Id.; see also Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1018 (“[W]e have

17 previously recognized that a heightened suicide risk can present a serious medical need.”).

18

The City argues that Claypole did not have a serious medical need while he was in the

19 City’s custody. See Defs.’ Reply at 4-6, ECF 107. However, the Court has no difficulty

20 concluding that a reasonable jury could find to the contrary. The evidence demonstrates that a

21 reasonable inference could be drawn by the jury that Claypole was in the midst of a mental health

22 crisis when he entered the City’s custody. Claypole had a history of mental illness. See

23 Guersenzvaig Dep. 46:23-47:6, ECF 105-4 (stating that Claypole had been under the care of

24 various psychiatrists and psychologists). On April 28, 2013, he left his home in Big Sur for what

25 would become a period of several days. See id. 36:8-24. When he was arrested two days later on

26 suspicion of driving under the influence, he acted confused with a “blank spacey stare,” did not

27 appear to understand what was happening, and responded incoherently to questions. Police Report

28 (Bowers), Exh. 45 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-3. On May 1, 2013, the date Claypole entered the 9

1 City’s custody, he exhibited bizarre behavior at CHOMP, see Martin Dep. 70:7-20, and at Wells

2 Fargo, see Police Report (Zook), Exh. 12 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2. Shortly thereafter, Claypole

3 killed a man for reasons that remain unexplained. Police Report (Kruse), Exh. 11 to Tajsar Decl.,

4 ECF 105-2.

5

While in the City’s custody, Claypole made numerous statements to Officer Hall about

6 dying by lethal injection, asking for lethal injection, and his mother getting his remains. Hall Dep.

7 62:16-24, 73:21-25, 74:8-13, ECF 105-4. Dr. W. Taylor Fithian, who provided mental health

8 treatment to detainees at the Monterey County jail, testified that a patient’s repeated statements of

9 a desire to die and concern about what would happen to his remains are indicators of potential

10 suicide risk. Fithian Dep. 128:21-129:9, ECF 105-4.

11

Claypole exhibited other strange behavior as well. After initially agreeing to a blood draw

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 and being transported to a hospital for that purpose, Claypole became convinced that the blood

13 draw actually was a lethal injection and he became so agitated that the blood draw could not be

14 accomplished. Kruse Dep. 133:16-134:6, 137:5-139:8, ECF 105-4; Ruttschow Dep. 168:9-18,

15 ECF 105-4. The video of Claypole’s interview by Detective Kruse and Sergeant Clark is

16 disturbing. See Video Footage, Exh. 81 to Tajsar Decl. (manually filed). At times during the

17 interview Claypole did not seem to understand what was happening. Id. His responses to some

18 questions were totally unrelated to what had been asked. Id. At various points during the

19 interview Claypole stated that he had been awake for forty-eight hours, that he was hallucinating,

20 and that he took prescription medications. Id.

21

On the night of May 1, 2013, shortly after he had been transferred to the custody of

22 Monterey County, Claypole told his lawyer that he wanted to kill himself. McGregor Memo.,

23 Defs.’ Exh. Q, ECF 98-11. Claypole in fact hanged himself a few days later, on May 4, 2013.

24 Inmate Injury Report, Defs.’ Exh. U, ECF 98-11.

25

Based upon this record, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Claypole was in the

26 midst of a mental health crisis, and was a suicide risk, while he was in the City’s custody on May

27 1, 2013. The City attempts to distinguish this case factually from others in which a serious

28 medical need was found, arguing for example that Claypole did not attempt to kill himself while in 10

1 custody as did the decedent in Conn and did not tell officers he was suicidal as did the decedent in

2 Clouthier. See Conn, 591 F.3d at 1096 (decedent wrapped seatbelt around her neck in apparent

3 attempt to choke herself); Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1237 (9th Cir. 2010)

4 (decedent informed county mental health specialist that he was suicidal and had made prior suicide

5 attempts).

6

In Clouthier, it was undisputed that the decedent was at “substantial risk of serious harm.”

7 Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1244. The question was whether the record contained sufficient evidence

8 from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers knew of and were deliberately

9 indifferent to that risk of harm. Id. Accordingly, Clouthier does not advance the City’s argument

10 that Claypole did not have a serious medical need. In Conn, the question of whether the decedent

11 had a serious medical need was disputed, and the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 such a need “in light of all the circumstances.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1096. There is no indication in

13 the Conn decision that an actual suicidal attempt is required to establish a serious medical need.

14 Accordingly, because a reasonable jury evaluating all of the circumstances in this case could find

15 for Plaintiffs on this point, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Claypole had a

16 serious medical need while he was in the City’s custody.

17

ii. Indifference to Serious Medical Need

18

To demonstrate that the City’s officers were indifferent to Claypole’s serious medical

19 need, Plaintiffs “must show that the officers were (a) subjectively aware of the serious medical

20 need and (b) failed to adequately respond.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1096 (citing Farmer v. Brennan,

21 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994)).

22

a. Subjectively Aware

23

In order to be subjectively aware of a serious medical need, an official “must both be

24 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

25 exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (emphasis added). The

26 Court notes that the moving papers argue only the first part of this test, that Claypole’s conduct

27 did not give rise to an inference that he was a suicide risk. The moving papers do not argue that

28 the officers failed to draw the requisite inference. Only in the reply brief does the City argue that 11

1 Hall, Kruse, and Ruttschow – the officers who had the most contact with Claypole – did not

2 believe Claypole to be a suicide risk. The reply brief cites the officers’ deposition testimony as to

3 their subjective beliefs. See Hall Dep. 72:19-75:3, 86:4-8, Defs.’ Exh. W, ECF 107-4 (Hall did

4 not consider Claypole’s conduct indicative of suicidal intent or desire but rather indicative of

5 knowledge that he had been caught and would be punished); Kruse Dep. 131:10-132:2, 139:25-

6 140:4, 182:2-7, Defs.’ Exh. V, ECF 107-4 (Kruse did not consider Claypole to be a danger to

7 himself); Ruttschow Dep. 234:24-235:5, Defs.’ Exh. X, ECF 107-4 (Ruttschow did not believe

8 Claypole was at risk for suicide). Ordinarily, “where new evidence is presented in a reply to a

9 motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without

10 giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond.” Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th

11 Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). However, Plaintiffs have not

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 objected to or otherwise challenged the City’s introduction of the subject deposition testimony.

13 Their failure to do so waives any challenge to the admissibility of that evidence. See Getz v.

14 Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 868 (9th Cir. 2011).

15

With respect to the City’s argument that Claypole’s behavior did not give rise to an

16 inference that he was at risk for suicide, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find to

17 the contrary. As discussed above, during the City’s custody of him, Claypole was fixated on the

18 idea of dying by lethal injection and what would happen to his remains. See Hall Dep. 62:16-24,

19 73:21-25, 74:8-13, ECF 105-4. Claypole acted strangely during his custodial interview and when

20 he was driven to the hospital for a blood draw. See Video Footage, Exh. 81 to Tajsar Decl.

21 (manually filed); Kruse Dep. 133:16-134:6, 137:5-139:8, ECF 105-4; Ruttschow Dep. 168:9-18,

22 ECF 105-4. That conduct certainly could be construed as indicative of a mental health crisis

23 involving suicidal ideation.

24

The City argues that Claypole’s conduct did not indicate suicidal ideation but rather

25 suggested that “Claypole was resigned to the notion that the police and the court controlled his

26 fate, not himself.” Defs.’ Br. at 9, ECF 97. The City also argues that some of Claypole’s conduct

27 – for example, refusing a blood draw because he feared it would kill him – showed that he did not

28 want to die. Id. The Court agrees that those inferences could have been drawn from the facts 12

1 available to the officers. However, an inference that Claypole was in the midst of a mental health

2 crisis was equally plausible given Claypole’s fixation on his own death and other behavior.

3

With respect to the City’s argument that none of the officers actually drew the inference

4 that Claypole was at risk of harming himself, the Ninth Circuit has held in a similar case that

5 summary judgment on a deliberate indifference claim cannot be supported “simply on the basis of

6 the defendants’ assertions as to their own state of mind.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1097. In Conn, two

7 police officers picked up a woman, Brenda Clustka, who was passed out drunk on the sidewalk.

8 Id. at 1092. While transporting Clustka to the county jail on a civil protective custody hold, the

9 officers witnessed her wrap a seatbelt around her neck in an apparent attempt to choke herself. Id.

10 When the officers pulled over, unwrapped the seatbelt, and handcuffed her, Clustka screamed that

11 the officers should kill her and that she would kill herself. Id. The officers did not report the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 incident to jail personnel when they handed off custody. Clustka was held for several hours and

13 then released. Id. at 1093. Clustka was arrested by other officers the following day. Because she

14 had been placed on suicide watch during a detention the previous month, Clustka was placed in

15 the mental health unit in a red jumper to alert staff that she was a high risk detainee. Id. She was

16 not placed on suicide watch. Id. She hanged herself with her bedsheet the following day. Id.

17 Clustka’s children sued the police officers who witnessed the seatbelt incident for deliberate

18 indifference to Clustka’s serious medical need – her suicide risk – which they alleged caused her

19 death. Id. at 1094.

20

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the officers,

21 holding that the officers’ testimony that they did not subjectively believe Clustka to be a suicide

22 risk was insufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment. The court explained that “[p]roof

23 of ‘subjective awareness’ is not limited to the purported recollections of the individuals involved.”

24 Conn, 591 F.3d at 1097. Instead, the court stated, “[w]hether [an] official had the requisite

25 knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways,

26 including inference from circumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). The

27 court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude from the record evidence “that Clustka’s

28 medical need was so obvious that [the officers] must have been subjectively aware of it, despite 13

1 their later denial of that awareness.” Id. The court noted that “questions involving a person’s state

2 of mind are generally factual issues inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment.” Id. at

3 1098 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

In the present case, a reasonable jury likewise could conclude that Claypole’s medical need

5 was so obvious that Hall, Kruse, and Ruttschow must have been subjectively aware of it despite

6 their later testimony to the contrary. Particularly significant on this point is the evidence of

7 Claypole’s utterances to Hall regarding lethal injection and the fate of his remains, and the

8 evidence of Claypole’s behavior during his custodial interview with Kruse. In the Court’s view,

9 the videotape of the custodial interview is so chilling that it alone could support a jury’s

10 determination that Kruse at least must have known that Claypole was in the midst of a mental 11 health crisis.5 Accordingly, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the City’s officers

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 were subjectively aware of Claypole’s serious medical need.

13

b. Failure to Respond

14

In Conn, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the officers’ failure to take Clustka to a medical

15 facility or to report her behavior to the next custodian – the county jail personnel – constituted a

16 failure to respond. Conn, 591 F.3d at 1098. The court noted that the defendant officers had not

17 argued that, if they were subjectively aware of Clustka’s serious medical need, they nonetheless

18

19 5 In addition to the evidence discussed above, Plaintiffs submit video footage taken from the on-

20

board dashboard camera in Officer Hall’s squad car. See Video Footage, Exh. 115 to Tajsar Decl. (submitted manually). The footage shows Claypole being placed in the back of the squad car and

21

sitting there with his hands cuffed behind him while a conversation takes place off-camera. In the off-camera conversation, one man is instructing another man to bag all of Claypole’s clothing and

22

to take photographs of Claypole’s hands “before he washes off all that blood.” Id. 18:19-18:32. The man giving the instructions then tells the other man to “hang with him, make sure he doesn’t

23

kill himself,” and to “just hang with him, make sure he doesn’t 5150 himself.” Id. 18:32-18:52. Plaintiffs assert that the conversation was between another police officer and Hall and that it

24

shows Hall was put on notice that Claypole might be suicidal. The City’s objections the video footage are OVERRULED. The City’s argument that the video footage is unauthenticated is

25

without merit, as the City itself produced the footage to Plaintiffs during discovery, representing that it was true footage from Hall’s squad car dashboard camera. The City’s argument that

26

Plaintiffs have not established the identities of the men in the conversation goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. The City’s hearsay objection is without merit as the

27

evidence is not submitted for the truth of the matter – that Claypole actually was suicidal – but to show that Hall had notice of that possibility. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 (precluding statements offered

28 to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement).

14

1 responded appropriately. The City likewise has not argued in the present case that its officers’

2 response was appropriate if they were subjectively aware of Claypole’s serious medical need.

3 Like the officers in Conn, Hall, Kruse, and Ruttschow failed to take Claypole to a mental health

4 facility or to report his behavior to his next custodian, the County.

5

iii. Resulting Harm

6

The City argues that even if Plaintiffs could establish the other elements of a deliberate

7 indifference claim, the officers’ conduct could not have been the proximate cause of Claypole’s

8 death. See Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1245 n.3 (“to prevail on a § 1983 claim under a deliberate

9 indifference theory, plaintiff must prove that the official’s actions were both the actual and

10 proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries”) (citing White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir.

11 1990)). Specifically, the City contends that the actions of Monterey County in twice placing

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Claypole on, and then removing him from, suicide watch constituted a superseding cause that

13 precludes any liability against the City.

14

In § 1983 actions, “[t]raditional tort law defines intervening causes that break the chain of

15 proximate causation.” Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation

16 omitted). A defendant’s conduct is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury “if another

17 cause intervenes and supersedes his liability for the subsequent events.” White, 901 F.2d at 1506.

18 “However, ‘foreseeable intervening causes . . . will not supersede the defendant’s responsibility.”

19 Conn, 591 F.3d at 1101 (quoting White, 901 F.2d at 1506). “If ‘reasonable persons could differ’

20 over the question of foreseeability, ‘summary judgment is inappropriate and the question should

21 be left to the jury.’” Id. (quoting White, 901 F.2d at 1506).

22

A reasonable jury applying these standards to the facts of this case easily could find for the

23 City on causation given the lapse of time between the City’s custody and Claypole’s death and

24 Monterey County’s actions in twice placing Claypole on and twice removing him from suicide

25 watch. However, Conn strongly suggests that it must be left to the jury to make that finding. As

26 in the present case, the officers in Conn interacted with Clustka several days before her suicide.

27 Clustka was medically evaluated three times after the choking incident and each time determined

28 not to be at risk of suicide. Conn, 591 F.3d at 1101. The Conn court was not persuaded that those 15

1 medical evaluations constituted a superseding cause, noting that “[w]hen medical examiners have

2 insufficient information about the patient they are diagnosing, they are likely to give an inaccurate

3 diagnosis.” Id. The court held that by failing to pass on relevant information, the officers

4 foreseeably undermined Clustka’s access to effective medical evaluations and adequate mental

5 health care. Id. The court concluded that notwithstanding the later medical evaluations, a jury

6 could conclude that the officers’ failure to take action following the seatbelt incident “was a

7 moving force and proximate cause of Clustka’s suicide.” Id.

8

A jury similarly could conclude in the present case that the officers’ failure to pass on

9 information regarding Claypole’s behavior could have impaired the medical evaluations that

10 foreseeably were performed by Monterey County. Dr. Fithian, the doctor who was responsible for

11 taking Claypole off suicide watch both times, testified that he was not aware that Claypole had

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 asked City officers about lethal injection, asked City officers what would happen to his remains, or

13 told City officers that he had been hallucinating. Fithian Dep. 127:14-128:12, ECF 105-4. When

14 asked whether that information would have made a difference to his assessment of Claypole’s risk

15 of suicide, Dr. Fithian stated that “[e]very little bit of information is certainly – can be important.”

16 Id. 128:13-17. Dr. Fithian also testified that a patient’s repeated statements of a desire to die and

17 concern about what would happen to his remains are indicators of risk for suicide. Id. 12:1-9.

18

Thus while a jury ultimately may be persuaded at trial that Monterey County’s conduct

19 was a superseding cause that precludes liability on the part of the City, the Court concludes that it

20 must be left to the jury to make that determination. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that

21 the City officers’ observations regarding Claypole’s behavior would have made a difference to the

22 County’s evaluation of Claypole’s suicide risk, there is a triable issue of material fact which

23 precludes summary judgment on the issue of causation.

24

b. Policy Amounting to Deliberate Indifference

25

The Ninth Circuit has held that a lack of affirmative policies or procedures to guide

26 employees can amount to deliberate indifference even when other general policies are in place.

27 See, e.g., Long, 442 F.3d at 1189; Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1195-96. “[W]hen the need to remedy the

28 omission ‘is so obvious, and the inadequacy is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional 16

1 rights, . . . the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent

2 to the need.’” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1195 (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390

3 (1989)). “The need to act may be obvious because any reasonable person would recognize the

4 need.” Id. “Unlike the deliberate indifference standard used to determine if a violation of a

5 detainee’s rights to receive medical care took place, this standard does not contain a subjective

6 component.” Id. “[T]he Canton standard assigns liability even when a municipality has

7 constructive notice that it needs to remedy its omissions in order to avoid violations of

8 constitutional rights.” Id. at 1187 n.8; see also Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 1360 (2011)

9 (holding that in the context of failure to train, a city may be deemed deliberately indifferent if its

10 policymakers choose to retain a program despite “actual or constructive notice that a particular

11 omission in their training program causes city employees to violate citizens’ constitutional 12 rights”).6

United States District Court Northern District of California

13

The City argues that its policies and procedures for addressing detainees’ mental health

14 needs are constitutionally adequate. The City first points to its “Booking and Approval and

15 Prisoner Release Policy,” which at the time in question provided in relevant part that:

16

Upon arrest, the investigating officer shall visually inspect and question the

prisoner to determine if there are any obvious signs of injury, illness or preexisting

17

illness requiring immediate medical attention. This includes extreme intoxication or

narcotic influence. 18

If any are found, the arresting officer shall immediately call emergency medical

19

personnel to either treat the person in the field or transport to the hospital,

depending upon the circumstances. The Watch Commander shall be notified

20

immediately. . . .

21

The Field Supervisor should make every attempt to meet an officer at the jail

22

following each arrest to approve the booking and verify the arrestee does not

require medical treatment prior to entry into the jail. This can be done as part of the 23

24 6 At the hearing, the Court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the standard

25

applicable to the deliberate indifference claim against the City in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654 (2015). The Court read Castro to require

26

that a municipality have actual knowledge that its policy caused a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates and to preclude liability based upon constructive knowledge. Following the submission

27

of the requested supplemental briefing, en banc review of the panel decision was granted. See Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. 12-56829, 2015 WL 9596184 (Dec. 28, 2015). The panel

28

decision may not be cited pending en banc review. See id. The Court thus applies the actual or constructive notice standard articulated above.

17

1

normal booking process.

2

Once at the jail, the Police Service Technician (PST) shall promptly review any

prior booking history in Net RMS involving the individual to determine if there

3

were prior preexisting medical conditions (i.e. delirium tremens, etc.) for which the

arrestee was treated. If such conditions are found, the PST shall notify the

4

Watch Commander who shall determine if a medical clearance is required prior to

booking. 5

6 Defs.’ Exh. H.

7

The City also cites to its Prisoner Transport Policy, which sets forth guidelines regarding

8 the logistics of transporting prisoners, including use of handcuffs, seating, and the maximum

9 number of prisoners that may be transported in one vehicle, see Defs.’ Exh. I; the Pre-Booking

10 Sheet that accompanies detainees when they are transferred to Monterey County, see Defs.’ Exh.

11 E; and its Operations Manual, containing a Medical Evaluation and Treatment Policy, see Defs.’

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Exh. J.

13

Plaintiffs point out that none of these policies requires any evaluation of detainees for

14 mental health issues by a medical professional, and in fact no medical professional does evaluate

15 detainees held by the City. See Jackson Dep. 68:3-70:6, 89:7-10, 98:12-19, ECF 105-4.

16 Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that the mental health assessment performed by PSTs is cursory and

17 wholly inadequate to identify detainees at risk for suicide. Out of 34 check-boxes, only two relate

18 to mental health, one of which asks “Ever tried to hurt self?” while the other is simply labeled

19 “Mental” with a small space for notes. Booking Information, Exh. 15 to Tajsar Decl., ECF 105-2.

20 Officer Hall’s camera captured the audio of Claypole’s screening by PST Bitter, which was fairly

21 cursory. See Video Footage, Exh. 115 to Tajsar Decl. (submitted manually).

22

The “duty to provide medical care encompasses detainees’ psychiatric needs.” Gibson,

23 290 F.3d at 1187. “Whether a local government has displayed a policy of deliberate indifference

24 to the constitutional rights of its citizens is generally a jury question.” Id. at 1194-95. For

25 example, in Gibson, the wife of a mentally ill detainee who died in a county jail brought a

26 deliberate indifference claim asserting in part that the county lacked a policy directing the nurse

27 who took control of prescription medications found on incoming detainees to consider those

28 medications in evaluating the detainees’ mental health needs. The Ninth Circuit held that county 18

1 policymakers actually knew that some detainees who arrived at the jail would have urgent medical

2 and mental health needs, as evidenced by the policies that the county had in place. Id. at 1195.

3 The court held that given that knowledge, the county’s omission in policy could well result in a

4 constitutional violation, particularly given another county policy forbidding medical evaluations

5 on incoming detainees who are combative. Id. The court concluded that whether the county’s

6 policy amounted to deliberate indifference must go to a jury, noting that “[w]hen policymakers

7 know that their medical staff members will encounter those with urgent mental health needs yet

8 fail to provide for the identification of those needs, it is obvious that a constitutional violation

9 could well result.” Id. at 1196.

10

Applying that rationale to the present case, the Court concludes that there are triable issues

11 which must be resolved by a jury as to whether the City’s failure to implement more rigorous

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 mental health screening, or to require transmission of detainees’ mental health information to the

13 next custodian, amounted to deliberate indifference.

14

c. Policy as Moving Force

15

“For a policy to be the moving force behind the deprivation of a constitutional right, the

16 identified deficiency in the policy must be ‘closely related to the ultimate injury.’” Long, 442 F.3d

17 at 1190 (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1196). “The plaintiff’s burden is to establish that the injury

18 would have been avoided had proper policies been implemented.” Id. (internal quotation marks

19 and citation omitted). The City does not argue this element of Plaintiffs’ claim.

20

2. Claim 3 – Loss of Parent/Child Relationship in Violation of Fourteenth

21

Amendment

22

Parents may assert a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim if they are

23 deprived of their liberty interest in the companionship of their child through official conduct.

24 Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2013). “Only official

25 conduct that shocks the conscience is cognizable as a due process violation.” Id. (internal

26 quotation marks and citation omitted). “Just as the deliberate indifference of prison officials may

27 support Eighth Amendment liability, such indifference may also rise to the conscience-shocking

28 level required for substantive due process violation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 19

1 omitted). “A prison official’s deliberately indifferent conduct will generally shock the conscience

2 so as long as the prison official had time to deliberate before acting or failing to act in a

3 deliberately indifferent manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

The City seeks summary judgment on Claim 3 based upon its assertion that it is entitled to

5 summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim set forth in Claim 2. As discussed

6 above, triable issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Claim 2. As a result, the City

7 has failed to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment on Claim 3.

8 III. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE DETECTIVE KRUSE AS DOE

9

Although Plaintiffs have elected not to pursue their § 1983 claims against Officer Hall,

10 they wish to substitute Detective Kruse as a Doe defendant so that they may pursue § 1983 claims

11 against him individually. As discussed below, substitution of a new defendant in place of a Doe

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 defendant is a state law concept that permits the claims against the new defendant to “relate back”

13 to the filing of the original complaint.

14

A. Relation Back Under State Law

15

Where, as here, state law provides the applicable statute of limitations,7 an amended

16 complaint may relate back to the filing of the original complaint if it satisfies either state or federal

17 law on relation back. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir.

18 2014). Under California law, “[t]he general rule is that an amended complaint that adds a new

19 defendant does not relate back to the date of filing the original complaint and the statute of

20 limitations is applied as of the date the amended complaint is filed, not the date the original

21 complaint is filed.” Woo v. Sup. Ct., 75 Cal. App. 4th 169, 176 (1999); see also Butler, 766 F.3d

22 at 1201. An exception to that general rule permits a plaintiff to substitute a new defendant for a

23 fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint. Woo, 75 Cal. App. 4th at 176.

24 However, in order to come under that exception the plaintiff must have been “genuinely ignorant”

25 of the new defendant’s identity at the time the plaintiff filed the original complaint. Id. at 177.

26

27 7 Because § 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations, claims brought under that statute

28

are governed by California’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which is two years. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014).

20

1

At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Plaintiffs tried to act responsibly by naming

2 only Hall in their initial complaint and refraining from a scattershot approach of naming all

3 officers mentioned in the police reports. Counsel asserted that they were not convinced that Kruse

4 was a proper defendant until they deposed him in August 2015. While it appreciates the motive

5 articulated by counsel, the Court is at a loss to understand why counsel did not feel that Plaintiffs

6 had enough information to assert a claim against Kruse based upon his police report, which

7 Plaintiffs admittedly had before filing their original complaint in June 2014. Kruse’s report,

8 which is seventeen pages long, provides extensive detail regarding his interaction with Claypole

9 on May 1, including the highlights of his interview with Claypole and an account of his trip to the

10 hospital with Claypole for the ultimately unsuccessful blood draw. That report contained all the

11 information necessary to identify Kruse and his role in the case.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged at the hearing that Plaintiffs

13 received the video footage of Kruse’s custodial interview of Claypole in March 2015. As

14 discussed above, that footage is among the most compelling evidence in the record that Claypole

15 was having a mental health crisis. Yet Plaintiffs waited more than six more months after receiving

16 the video footage to file the present motion. The fact that Plaintiffs waited so long even after

17 receiving the video footage undermines their representation that their delay in seeking to add

18 Kruse was caused by their ignorance of facts sufficient to put them on notice of their claim against

19 him.

20

Because Plaintiffs had Kruse’s police report when they filed the original complaint, they

21 do not satisfy the requirements for relation back under state law. See Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202

22 (plaintiff’s addition of new defendants did not relate back under California law because plaintiff

23 “was not ignorant” of their names or identities at the time the original complaint was filed).

24

B. Relation Back Under Federal Law

25

Nor do Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for relation back under federal law, which is set

26 forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). Under that rule, an amended pleading relates back

27 to the filing of the original complaint if the following requirements are met: “(1) the basic claim

28 must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in 21

1 must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that

2 party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would

3 have been brought against it.” Butler, 766 F.3d at 1191. Relation back under the federal rule thus

4 “depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party’s

5 knowledge or its timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.” Krupski v. Costa Crociere, 560

6 U.S. 538, 541 (2010).

7

This action was filed in June 2014, a year and a half before Plaintiffs filed the present

8 motion. Kruse states in a declaration that he became aware of the lawsuit, and the fact that Officer

9 Hall had been named as an individual defendant, in June 2014. Kruse Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 114-1.

10 Kruse “took a keen interest” in the lawsuit because he was the detective assigned to investigate the

11 murder. Id. Kruse knew that he had prepared a lengthy police report setting forth his interactions

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 with Claypole and his involvement in the investigation. Id. ¶ 9. Kruse thought that Plaintiffs

13 could have and would have named him in the initial complaint had they wished to pursue claims

14 against him. Id. Plaintiffs have not presented evidence suggesting that Kruse had any reason to

15 believe that he would have been named as a defendant in the original complaint “but for a mistake

16 concerning identity.”

17

C. Amendment Under Rule 15(a)

18

In the event that the Court denies their request to substitute Kruse as a Doe defendant,

19 Plaintiffs request leave to amend to add Kruse as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil

20 Procedure 15(a). While a court should freely grant leave to amend when justice requires, Fed. R.

21 Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave need not be granted where amendment: “(1) prejudices the opposing party;

22 (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.”

23 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation

24 omitted). The City argues that amendment to add Kruse would be futile because, absent relation

25 back, Plaintiffs’ proposed claims against Kruse are time-barred.

26

Plaintiffs’ proposed § 1983 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See

27 Butler, 766 F.3d at 1198. Claypole hanged himself on May 4, 2013. If Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims

28 against Kruse accrued on that date, the statute of limitations expired on May 4, 2015. Plaintiffs 22

1 assert that their claims against Kruse did not accrue until “the breadth of his involvement in

2 Claypole’s arrest and custody were revealed during discovery.” Pls.’ Reply at 4, ECF 115.

3 Plaintiffs rely on Lukovsky, Wallace, Kubrick, and Davis, ignoring that in each of those cases the

4 court found that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.

5

Plaintiffs state accurately that federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues.

6 See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). However, Plaintiffs fail to identify the actual

7 standards set forth by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, Plaintiffs ignore the

8 requirement of diligence in pursuing discovery of fault and instead rely on “stray remarks” from

9 the cited cases which do not address the issue at hand. See Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San

10 Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008).

11

Plaintiffs rely on United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979), a medical malpractice

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 case arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act in which the Supreme Court determined that:

13

We thus cannot hold that Congress intended that “accrual” of a claim must await

awareness by the plaintiff that his injury was negligently inflicted. A plaintiff such

14

as Kubrick, armed with the facts about the harm done to him, can protect himself

by seeking advice in the medical and legal community. To excuse him from

15

promptly doing so by postponing the accrual of his claim would undermine the

purpose of the limitations statute, which is to require the reasonably diligent

16

presentation of tort claims against the Government.

17 Id. at 123 (footnote omitted).

18

In Davis v. United States, 642 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1981), the Ninth Circuit applied Kubrick

19 to bar the action as untimely, holding that “[i]n the absence of fraudulent concealment it is

20 plaintiff’s burden, within the statutory period, to determine whether and whom to sue. Kubrick

21 makes this plain.” Id. at 331.

22

In Lukovsky, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of an employment discrimination action,

23 holding that “a claim accrues under federal law when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of

24 the actual injury.” Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048. Nothing in the Lukovsky decision supports

25 Plaintiffs’ contention that there would be a separate accrual date for each potential individual

26 defendant where it was known on the date of the injury – termination in the Lukovsky case – that

27 the employer was the cause of the injury. Moreover, to allow such a floating accrual date would

28 fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s admonition: “Were it otherwise, the statute would begin to 23

1 run only after a plaintiff became satisfied that he had been harmed enough, placing the supposed

2 statute of repose in the sole hands of the party seeking relief.” Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391.

3

Entirely absent from the proposed amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ argument is any

4 showing of diligence on their part in discovering Kruse’s role in the case or any concealment by

5 the City. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the timing of discovery responses is insufficient. No explanation

6 is offered why Plaintiffs delayed until late 2014 to seek written discovery and until August 2015 to

7 depose Kruse. The evidence shows that within a few days of her son’s death, Ms. Guersenzvaig

8 spoke to Kruse and learned that he was investigating the murder Claypole was alleged to have

9 committed. Police Report (Kruse) at 13-15, Defs.’ Exh. A, ECF 114-3. As noted above, Plaintiffs

10 also had obtained a copy of Kruse’s police report, documenting Kruse’s substantial contact with

11 Claypole, prior to filing the original complaint. Under these circumstances there is no evidence of

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 diligence sufficient to delay the accrual of Plaintiffs’ claims against Kruse.

13

Because Plaintiffs’ proposed claims against Kruse are time-barred and thus futile,

14 amendment is not warranted under Rule 15(a).

15

D. Conclusion

16

Plaintiffs’ proposed § 1983 claims against Kruse are time-barred and Plaintiffs do not

17 satisfy the requirements for relation back under either state or federal law. Accordingly, their

18 motion to substitute Kruse as a Doe defendant or, alternatively, for leave to amend the complaint

19 is DENIED.

20 V. ORDER

21

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

(1) Defendant Hall’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

23

(2) Defendant City of Monterey’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and

24

(3) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to substitute Detective Bryan Kruse as a Doe defendant

25

is DENIED.

26

27 Dated: January 12, 2016 28

______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
24

 
 1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5 ESTATE OF JOSHUA CLAYPOLE, et al.,
6 Plaintiffs,
7 v.
8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al.,
9 Defendants.
10
11
12
13

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION; AND GRANTING IN PART MEDICAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION
[Re: ECF 124, 141, 142, 146]

United States District Court Northern District of California

14

15

This action follows the tragic deaths of two people, one of whom was Plaintiff Silvia

16 Guersenzvaig’s son, Joshua Claypole. Claypole, a young man with a history of mental health

17 issues, inexplicably killed a taxi driver named Daniel Garcia Huerta and then days later hanged

18 himself in a Monterey County jail cell while detained for Huerta’s murder. Guersenzvaig filed

19 this action individually and on behalf of Claypole’s estate, asserting that jail personnel and others

20 were deliberately indifferent to Claypole’s serious medical needs in violation of his federal

21 constitutional rights and breached duties owed to him under state law.

22

Two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment are before the Court. Defendants

23 Monterey County, Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller, and Sergeant Erika Kaye – all involved

24 in the operation of the jail – seek summary judgment against Plaintiffs, who in turn seek partial

25 summary judgment against them. Additionally, Defendants Taylor Fithian and California

26 Forensic Medical Group (“Medical Defendants”) – the doctor and medical group who provide

27 medical care at the jail – seek partial summary judgment against Plaintiffs, who in turn seek partial

28 summary judgment against them.

1

For the reasons discussed below, the County Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART,

2 Plaintiffs’ cross-motion against the County Defendants is DENIED, the Medical Defendants’

3 motion is GRANTED IN PART, and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion against the Medical Defendants is

4 DENIED.

5 I. BACKGROUND

6

The chronology of events leading up to Claypole’s death is largely undisputed.1 On the

7 afternoon of Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Claypole murdered Huerta for unknown reasons. City of

8 Monterey police officers took him into custody shortly afterward, held him for several hours, and

9 then transported him to the Monterey County jail. Claypole was taken into custody at the jail at

10 approximately 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday night. He was placed in a single cell, pending review.

11

First Placement on Suicide Watch (Wednesday, May 1)

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

At approximately 10:15 p.m. that night, Claypole met with his attorney, who thereafter told

13 a jail employee named Candice McGregor that Claypole had said he wanted to kill himself.

14 McGregor called Defendant Kaye, the shift supervisor, and relayed what the attorney had said.

15 Kaye Dep. 79:13-23, Exh. F to Grant Decl., ECF 141-2. Kaye immediately ordered that Claypole

16 be moved to a safety cell and placed on suicide watch. Id. 82:21-83:3. Safety cells at the County

17 jail are small cells with padded rubber walls. They do not contain furniture, mattress, or blanket,

18 and a grate in the floor is used in lieu of a toilet. Detainees and inmates placed on suicide watch

19 are clothed in safety smocks. Kaye personally supervised Claypole’s placement in a safety cell

20 and she explained to him that he was being placed in the cell because of his attorney’s concerns.

21 Id. 90:13-21. Kaye or another deputy then advised the jail’s medical staff via radio that someone

22 had been placed in a safety cell for suicide watch. Id. 97:20-98:6.

23

Monterey County contracts with Defendant California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”)

24 to provide health care at the jail, including mental health treatment. In the very early hours of

25 Thursday, May 2, 2013, Nurse Lavina Shene screened Claypole using CFMG’s Nursing

26

27 1 As discussed below, there are significant factual disputes with respect to material issues

28

unrelated to chronology that preclude summary judgment on most of the claims addressed in these motions.

2

1 Assessment of Psychiatric & Suicidal Inmate form. Shene noted that Claypole reported a

2 psychiatric history; had been diagnosed with anxiety, attention deficit disorder, and insomnia; was

3 under the care of a psychiatrist; and had prescriptions for Klonopin, Seroquel, and Adderal, which

4 he last had taken two days prior. Shene noted that Claypole had poor eye contact, was calm, and

5 had a flat affect. She identified him as a danger to self on the suicide log and indicated that he was

6 to remain on suicide watch.

7

At approximately 5:50 a.m., shortly before the end of her shift, Shene called Defendant

8 Taylor Fithian, M.D., to inform him that Claypole had been placed on suicide watch. Defendant

9 Fithian is the president and co-founder of CFMG. During the relevant time frame, he was

10 CFMG’s medical director as well as the psychiatrist and supervisor in charge of all other mental

11 health staff at the jail. Fithian was responsible for development of CFMG’s policies and

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 procedures and the overall day-to-day practice of medicine at the jail.

13

First Removal from Suicide Watch (Thursday, May 2)

14

Fithian met with Claypole at approximately 8:35 a.m. on Thursday, May 2, 2013, and

15 discontinued suicide watch at approximately 9:00 a.m. Claypole remained in the safety cell for

16 some period of time – exactly how long is disputed by the parties – before he was transferred to

17 cell A204 in “A-pod.” A-pod and B-pod are units consisting of single cells that predominantly are

18 used to house individuals with mental health needs. Bass Dep. 75:7-79:24, Exh. Vol. 3 to Rifkin

19 Decl., ECF 147-5. Other units, including C-pod, are used as overflow housing for individuals

20 with mental health needs. Id. A-pod, B-pod, and C-pod are “lockdown” units, meaning that

21 individuals housed there generally are locked in their cells for approximately twenty-three hours a

22 day and permitted to use the dayroom, take a shower, or do other activities outside the cell for

23 approximately one hour a day. Id. Individuals housed in lockdown units also are permitted to

24 come out for visits, court or medical appointments, and certain jail events. Id. Individuals with

25 mental health needs are housed in A-pod and B-pod because they are single cells, and thus the

26 risks of assaults between inmates is lessened. Id. 75:17-76:3.

27

The lockdown cells contain beds with sheets. Bass Dep. 104:21-105:7, Exh. Vol. 3 to

28 Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5. In 2013, when Claypole was housed in A-pod, the lockdown cells had 3

1 air vents in the walls or ceilings that could be used as attachment points for suicide by hanging.

2 Id. 105:14-106:15, 110:7-19. A single deputy is stationed in the corridor to monitor A-pod, B-

3 pod, and C-pod. Id. From that station, the deputy can see into all of B-pod but only part of A-

4 pod. Id. 85:17-87:8. The deputy cannot see into cell A204, where Claypole was housed, from the

5 corridor. Id. 86:25-87:8. The deputy does hourly welfare and safety checks of the pod cells. Id.

6 104:8-20. Those hourly checks consist of walking through both tiers of each pod and can

7 completed within one or two minutes. Id. 90:2-19. No additional safety checks are performed

8 when an individual is placed in a lockdown cell upon release from suicide watch. Id. 104:8-12.

9

Second Placement on Suicide Watch (Friday, May 3)

10

Claypole was not seen by mental health personnel again until Friday, May 3, 2013. On

11 Friday afternoon, he was visited by Kim Spano, a marriage and family therapist employed by

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 CFMG. Spano’s notes reflect that Claypole was “odd,” “in a bizarre state,” “unsettled,” and

13 “[a]gitated, upset.” Spano Dep. 95:7-14, Exh. I to Grant Decl., ECF 149-1. Spano felt that

14 Claypole was “clearly deluded” and “clearly psychotic.” Id. 101:1-7. Spano recalls calling

15 Defendant Fithian and either speaking to him or leaving him a voicemail message regarding

16 Claypole’s condition. Id. 101:13-102:4. Fithian recalls that he and Spano spoke. Fithian Decl. ¶

17 6, ECF 152-4. Fithian and Spano agreed that Claypole should be placed in a safety cell. Id.

18 Claypole was removed from cell A204 and placed in a safety cell.

19

When Nurse Shene came on duty the night of May 3, 2013, she reviewed the safety log but

20 not Spano’s progress notes, and she checked on Claypole twice during the early morning hours.

21 Shene Dep. 76:5-78:5, Exh. J to Grant Decl., ECF 149-1. At the 5:15 a.m. check, Shene spoke to

22 Claypole and noted that he denied suicidal ideation, he verbally contracted for safety, and he

23 agreed to let staff know if he felt like he was going to harm himself or others. Id. 78:4-25.

24 Claypole also asked to be removed from the safety cell and requested sleeping medication. Id.

25 79:6-7.

26

Second Removal from Suicide Watch (Saturday, May 4)

27

Shortly after 6:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 4, 2013, Shene called Defendant Fithian and

28 reported that Claypole had denied suicidal ideation, verbally contracted for safety, said he was 4

1 really tired, and requested sleep medications. Shene Dep. 83:21-84:11, Exh. J to Grant Decl., ECF

2 149-1. Defendant Fithian, who had not seen Claypole since Thursday, May 2, gave Shene a

3 verbal order to discontinue suicide watch. Id. 84:12-14. Claypole remained in the safety cell for

4 some period of time – jail records are unclear as to how long – and then he was returned to cell

5 A204 in A-pod. While conducting a safety and welfare check of A-pod at approximately 2:30

6 p.m. that afternoon, Deputy Raymond Gordano saw Claypole hanging from a bedsheet affixed to a

7 metal vent above the toilet/sink area. Gordano used his radio to call another deputy for help and

8 then called for medical help. The deputies cut Claypole down and performed mouth-to-mouth

9 breathing and chest compressions until medical staff arrived to relieve them. Claypole died 10 several days later when he was taken off life support.2

11 II. LEGAL STANDARD

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

“A party is entitled to summary judgment if the ‘movant shows that there is no genuine

13 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” City of

14 Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

15 P. 56(a)). “The moving party initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue

16 of material fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex

17 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of

18 proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the

19 non-moving party’s case.” Id. “Where the moving party meets that burden, the burden then shifts

20 to the non-moving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues

21 for trial.” Id. “[T]he non-moving party must come forth with evidence from which a jury could

22 reasonably render a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor.” Id. “The court must view the

23 evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in the

24

25 2 To the extent that any party has argued additional facts in its separate statement that were not

26

presented in the briefs, those arguments are disregarded as violating this Court’s Standing Order Re Civil Cases and Civil Local Rules. See Standing Order Re Civil Cases ¶ F.3.a (“The Court will

27

not consider evidence or argument presented in the Separate Statement that is not also contained in the briefs.”); Civ. L.R. 7-2, 7-3 (limiting moving and opposing briefs to 25 pages). The purpose of

28

the separate statement is limited to providing the Court with a chart of relevant evidence set forth in the briefs. It is not an augmentation of the briefs.

5

1 nonmovant’s favor.” City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1049. “‘Where the record taken as a whole

2 could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for

3 trial.’” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587

4 (1986)).

5 III. CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE COUNTY DEFENDANTS

6

Plaintiffs assert claims against Monterey County, Monterey County Sheriff Miller in his

7 official and individual capacities, and Sergeant Kaye under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate

8 indifference to Claypole’s serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

9 (Claims 1 and 2) and deprivation of the parent/child relationship in violation of the First and

10 Fourteenth Amendments (Claim 3). Plaintiffs also assert state law claims for failure to summon

11 medical care in violation of California Government Code § 845.6 (Claim 5); negligent

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 supervision, training, hiring, and retention under California law (Claim 6); wrongful death under

13 California Civil Procedure Code § 377.60 (Claim 7); and negligence under California law (Claim

14 8). The County Defendants seek summary judgment on all of these claims, while Plaintiffs seek

15 summary judgment on Claims 1-3 and 8.

16

A. Claims 1 and 2 – Deliberate Indifference

17

“The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, which

18 includes the denial of medical care.” Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1094 (9th Cir. 2009),

19 vacated, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011), reinstated in part and vacated in part, 658 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.

20 2011). “Pretrial detainees, by contrast, are protected under the Due Process Clause of the

21 Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. Courts have borrowed from the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence

22 to determine the minimum standard of care that must be given to a pretrial detainee under the

23 Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010)

24 (“Although the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth

25 Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, applies to pretrial detainees, we

26 apply the same standards in both cases.”) (internal citation omitted); Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe,

27 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (“With regard to medical needs, the due process clause

28 imposes, at minimum, the same duty as the Eighth Amendment imposes.”). “The Eighth and 6

1 Fourteenth Amendments both guarantee that inmates and detainees receive constitutionally

2 adequate medical and mental health care.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1094.

3

1. County of Monterey and Miller in his Official Capacity

4

Plaintiffs’ claims against the County and against Sheriff Miller in his official capacity are

5 essentially the same claims. See Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690

6 n.55 (1978) (“official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action

7 against an entity of which an officer is an agent”). Accordingly, this order’s discussion of

8 Plaintiffs’ claims against the “County” encompasses Plaintiffs’ claims against Sheriff Miller in his

9 official capacity. Plaintiffs and the County have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on

10 Claims 1 and 2 for deliberate indifference.

11

Plaintiffs may recover against the County on their deliberate indifference claims under one

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 of three theories of liability. See Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th

13 Cir. 2010). “First, a local government may be held liable ‘when implementation of its official

14 policies or established customs inflicts the constitutional injury.’” Id. (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at

15 708 (Powell, J. concurring)). Courts have “referred to these sorts of local government conduct as

16 acts of ‘commission.’” Id. “Second, under certain circumstances, a local government may be held

17 liable under § 1983 for acts of ‘omission,’ when such omissions amount to the local government’s

18 own official policy.” Id. “To impose liability on a local government for failure to adequately train

19 its employees, the government’s omission must amount to ‘deliberate indifference’ to a

20 constitutional right.” Id. “This standard is met when the need for more or different training is so

21 obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the

22 policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.”

23 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Third, a local government may be held liable

24 under § 1983 when the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with final

25 policy-making authority or such an official ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or

26 action and the basis for it.” Id. at 1250 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

27

Plaintiffs appear to be proceeding under both the first and second theories of liability set

28 forth in Clouthier. Under the first theory, Plaintiffs challenge the County’s jail policies and 7

1 procedures as constitutionally deficient. Plaintiffs do not clearly identify the specific policies and

2 procedures at issue. In the operative first amended complaint, Plaintiffs identify the relevant

3 policies and procedures extremely broadly, alleging that “Defendants have inadequate policies,

4 procedures, and practices for identifying inmates in need of medical and mental health treatment

5 and providing appropriate medical and mental health treatment.” FAC ¶ 83. In some portions of

6 their briefing, Plaintiffs narrow the challenged policy somewhat to: “housing inmates with mental

7 illness in segregation units such as the A and B pod lockdown units.” See, e.g.,Pls.’ Mot. at 6,

8 ECF 146; Pls.’ Opp. at 9, ECF 148. In other portions of their briefing, Plaintiffs narrow the

9 challenged policy further to: housing inmates with mental illness in lockdown cells with known

10 suicide hazards, i.e., hanging points, upon releasing those inmates from suicide watch. See, e.g.,

11 Pls.’ Mot. at 1, ECF 146; Pls.’ Reply at 1, ECF 156. Based upon the entirety of Plaintiffs’ briefing

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 on the pending motions, and the evidence upon which Plaintiffs rely, it appears that the latter

13 characterization most effectively captures Plaintiffs’ theory based upon an asserted

14 unconstitutional jail policy.

15

Under the second theory set forth in Clouthier, Plaintiffs contend that the County failed to

16 engage in adequate oversight of CFMG, the private entity with whom the County contracts to

17 provide medical and mental health services at the jail.

18

The parties’ cross-motions regarding Plaintiffs’ claims based upon these two theories of

19 liability are addressed as follows.

20

a. Policy of Housing Inmates with Mental Illness in Lockdown

21

Cells with Known Suicide Hazards Upon Releasing those

22

Inmates from Suicide Watch

23

In order to establish their entitlement to summary judgment based upon the County’s

24 allegedly unconstitutional policy of housing inmates with mental illness in lockdown cells with

25 known suicide hazards upon those inmates’ release from suicide watch, Plaintiffs must

26 demonstrate that the policy posed a substantial risk of harm to Claypole, the County was aware of

27 the risk, and the policy in fact caused harm. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188-89. Whether the

28 County’s policy violated Claypole’s rights “does not hinge on whether County policymakers knew 8

1 that the County’s polic[y] would pose a substantial risk of serious harm to [Claypole], in

2 particular.” Id. at 1191. Plaintiffs must show only that the policy would pose a risk to someone in 3 Claypole’s situation.3 Id.

4

Plaintiffs submit the following evidence in support of their motion and in opposition to the

5 County’s motion. Commander Bass, the County’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)

6 witness on the jail’s policies and procedures, testified extensively regarding the types of housing

7 available at the jail and in particular the details of A-pod, where Claypole was housed after being

8 removed from suicide watch on May 2, 2013 and again on May 4, 2013. A-pod consists of single

9 cells that predominantly are used to house individuals with mental health needs. Bass Dep. 75:7-

10 79:24, Exh. Vol. 3 to Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5. A-pod is a “lockdown” unit, meaning that

11 individuals housed there generally are locked in their cells for approximately twenty-three hours a

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 day, although exceptions are permitted for visits, court or medical appointments, and certain jail

13 events. Id.

14

A single deputy is stationed in the corridor to monitor A-pod as well as two other

15 lockdown units, B-pod, and C-pod. Bass Dep. 85:10-16, Exh. Vol. 3 to Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5.

16 From that station, the deputy can see into all of B-pod but only part of A-pod. Id. 85:17-87:8.

17 The deputy cannot see into cell A204, where Claypole was housed, from the station in the

18 corridor. Id. 86:25-87:8. The deputy does hourly welfare and safety checks of the pod cells. Id.

19 104:8-20. Those hourly checks consist of walking through both tiers of each pod and can be done

20 as quickly as one or two minutes. Id. 90:2-19. No additional precautions or procedures are used

21 for individuals who are moved to A-pod after being discharged from suicide watch. Id. 105:8-13.

22

The lockdown cells contain beds with sheets. Bass Dep. 104:21-105:7, Exh. Vol. 3 to

23 Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5. In 2013, the lockdown cells also had air vents in the walls or ceilings

24 that could be used as attachment points for suicide by hanging. Id. 105:14-106:15, 110:7-19.

25 Prior to 2013, there were at least two suicides by hanging in lockdown cells, one in 2010 and one

26

27

3 The Court notes that the County relies heavily on cases addressing the standards for determining whether an individual officer acted with deliberate indifference. While those cases are relevant to

28

the motions regarding the individual liability of Miller and Kaye, they do not set forth the proper standards for evaluating Plaintiffs’ claim that the County’s policy was constitutionally deficient.

9

1 in 2011. Id. 110:1-19. County records show that between 2011 and 2012 at least five other

2 individuals attempted to hang themselves with bedsheets, at least three of which were attached to 3 vent or grates in their cells. Records, Exh. D to Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-8. Dr. Richard Hayward4,

4 one of the Medical Defendants’ retained experts, testified that the lockdown units at the jail

5 contained suicide hazards. Hayward Dep. 144:25-145:6, Exh. T to Grant Decl., ECF 149-1.

6

Absent conflicting evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of disputed issues of

7 material fact, Plaintiffs’ evidence is sufficient to establish that the County’s challenged policy

8 posed a substantial risk of harm to inmates, the County was aware of that risk, and the County’s

9 transfer of Claypole to A-pod after his release from suicide watch on May 4, 2013 (pursuant to the

10 challenged policy) resulted in Claypole’s suicide.

11

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and in support of its own motion, the County submits

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 the declaration of Commander Johnathan Thornburg, who states that between 2010 and 2015, the

13 County jail processed an average of 11,900 new detainees/inmates a year. Thornburg Decl. ¶¶ 3-

14 5, ECF 149-2. During that six-year period, the County jail had a total of six suicides by hanging.

15 Id. The County argues that those statistics actually are very good, and certainly are not so extreme

16 as to render obvious the risk of suicide posed by the lockdown units.

17

The County also submits the report and supplemental report of its expert, Richard S.

18 Bryce. See Bryce Report, Exh. L to Grant Decl., ECF 141-2; Bryce Suppl. Report, Exh. M To

19 Grant Decl., ECF 141-2. Mr. Bryce opines in his report that Sheriff Miller and all jail personnel

20 “utilized all practices and facilities available to them to protect the welfare and safety of Mr.

21 Claypole while he was in their custody.” Bryce Report at 1, Exh. L to Grant Decl., ECF 141-2.

22 Mr. Bryce opines in his supplemental report that Claypole was the subject of more than 100

23

24

4 Dr. Hayward previously authored a report on the mental health conditions of the Monterey County jail in connection with another case currently pending in this district, Hernandez v. Cnty.

25

of Monterey, Case No. 5:13-CV-2354-PSG. Plaintiffs quote the draft report in their operative first amended complaint and in their briefing on the present motions. Fithian and CFMG object to

26

Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Hayward draft report, asserting that Plaintiffs rely upon portions of the draft report that were negated by the final report. The Court concludes that the prior Hayward

27

report is of limited value with respect to the pending motions. The Court has reviewed the orders issued in Hernandez and the prior Hayward report only for the purpose of providing background

28 context for the present case.

10

1 welfare checks while confined at the jail.5 Bryce Suppl. Report at 1, Exh. M To Grant Decl., ECF

2 141-2.

3

Finally, the County points to its policy requiring medical clearance before an individual

4 can be moved from a safety cell into other housing. See Inmate Services Policy § M-2, Exh. N to

5 Grant Decl., ECF 149-1. It is undisputed that Dr. Fithian released Claypole from suicide watch

6 before he was moved back to A-pod. The County argues that in moving Claypole back and forth

7 between safety cells and lockdown cells, the County reasonably relied on the decisions of medical

8 personnel.

9

On the latter point, the County cites Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d

10 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) for the proposition that reliance on medical staff bars a finding of deliberate

11 indifference. In the cited portion of Lemire, the Ninth Circuit discussed the plaintiffs’ deliberate

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 indifference claim against five correctional officers who failed to give CPR to an inmate found

13 unconscious on the floor of his cell with a sheet around his neck. All five officers arrived at the

14 cell after the first medical staff responded, and while medical staff assisted the inmate the five

15 officers performed other functions such as securing the scene or documenting the incident. Under

16 those circumstances, the Ninth Circuit concluded, the five correctional officers could not be found

17 to have acted deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s medical needs “because they were reasonably

18 relying on the actions of the medical responders who were already treating” the inmate. Id. at

19 1084. The Ninth Circuit’s holding clearly was based upon the particular facts of the case before it.

20 There is no indication that the holding was intended as a general statement that reliance upon

21 advice of medical staff raises an absolute bar to a deliberate indifference claim. Thus the County’s

22 reliance upon Lemire is misplaced.

23

However, the existence of the policy requiring medical clearance before moving inmates,

24 in combination with Dr. Fithian’s order to release Claypole from suicide watch without any 25 accompanying orders regarding step down housing6 or other additional precautions, could give

26

27

5 Plaintiffs dispute that all of the claimed welfare checks actually occurred, pointing to evidence that the logs regarding Claypole’s checks were incorrect in some respects and that the jail’s logs

28

generally may be incorrect. See Kaye Dep. 126:17-130:9, Miller Dep. 18:2-8, 52:2-20, 54:6-16. 6 Dr. Fithian states in his declaration that he could have ordered that Claypole be placed in a step

11

1 rise to an inference that that the County’s policies did not cause Claypole’s injury but rather Dr.

2 Fithian’s medical decision did. That inference is sufficient to create a disputed issue of fact as to

3 causation. Moreover, the County’s statistical evidence is sufficient to create a disputed issue of

4 fact as to the County’s knowledge of the risk to inmates created by its policy of placing

5 individuals with mental health issues in A-pod upon release from suicide watch. Finally, the

6 expert opinion of Mr. Bryce is sufficient to create a disputed issue of fact as to the constitutional

7 adequacy of the County’s policies as a whole.

8

A reasonable jury could resolve the disputed issues of material fact identified above in

9 favor of either Plaintiffs or the County, and thus could find for either Plaintiffs or the County on

10 Claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2

11 are DENIED as to the County and Sheriff Miller in his official capacity.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

b. Failure to Adequately Supervise CFMG

13

In order to establish their entitlement to summary judgment based upon the County’s

14 alleged failure to adequately supervise CFMG, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the County’s

15 failure to supervise violated its own obligation to provide adequate medical care and that the

16 failure resulted in harm to Claypole. See Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1074 (9th

17 Cir. 2010) (“[A] State cannot avoid its obligations under federal law by contracting with a third

18 party to perform its functions. The rights of individuals are not so ethereal nor so easily

19 avoided.”).

20

In support of their motion and in opposition to the County’s motion, Plaintiffs present

21 evidence that Sheriff Miller – the individual responsible for implementing the jail’s policies and

22 procedures – did not review the mental health care provided to jail inmates by CFMG. Miller

23 Dep. 30:9-12, 58:7-17, 59:11-60:10, ECF 147-6. Neither Miller nor anyone else in the Sheriff’s

24 Office was aware of how CFMG staffed the jail. Id. 66:22-67:10. Miller did not know that

25 CFMG did not staff the jail with mental health clinicians on weekends. Id. 66:13-21. Miller did

26

27

down unit. Fithian Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 152-4. Commander Bass, the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, testified that the jail does not have any kind of step down cells or transition cells between a safety

28 cell and a regular housing cell. Bass Dep. 103:17-21, Exh. Vol. 3 to Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5.

12

1 not inquire of CFMG whether they had conducted an internal review following the 2010 and 2011

2 suicides at the jail. Id. 116:9-119:16.

3

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and in support of its own motion, the County submits

4 Miller’s deposition testimony that he reviewed jail conditions with shift supervisors and jail

5 command staff, reviewed written reports, attended quality assurance meetings, and instituted

6 investigations into all in-custody deaths. Miller Dep. 25:20-30:5, 45:18-46:24, 55:20-58:25, 61:3-

7 62:1, 93:22-95:24, Exh. S to Grant Decl., ECF 149-1.

8

The competing excerpts of Sheriff Miller’s deposition testimony cited by the parties create

9 a disputed issue of fact as to the extent of Miller’s oversight of CFMG as part of his oversight of

10 the jail generally. Moreover, with respect to the issue of causation, disputed issues of fact exist as

11 to the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims against CFMG for the reasons discussed in section IV, below.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Those disputed issues preclude summary judgment for either party, because if CFMG provided

13 adequate medical care to Claypole, then no harm resulted from the County’s alleged lack of

14 oversight over CFMG.

15

Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 for

16 deliberate indifference based upon the County’s alleged failure to adequately supervise CFMG are

17 DENIED.

18

2. Sheriff Miller

19

Plaintiffs sue Sheriff Miller in his individual capacity as well as his official capacity.

20 Plaintiffs and Miller have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2.

21

In order to establish their entitlement to summary judgment against Miller in his individual

22 capacity, Plaintiffs must show that Miller set in motion acts which caused others to inflict

23 constitutional injury. Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 645 (9th Cir. 1991). Such

24 conduct may include culpable action or inaction in the training of subordinates, acquiescence in a

25 constitutional deprivation, or conduct showing indifference to the rights of others. Id. at 646.

26

In support of their motion and in opposition to Miller’s motion, Plaintiffs submit evidence

27 that Sheriff Miller was the individual responsible for implementing the jail’s policies and

28 procedures. Miller Dep. 30:9-12, ECF 147-6. He could make changes to those policies and 13

1 procedures. Id. 30:16-31:23. Sheriff Miller admitted that he “was responsible for everything that

2 happened or didn’t happen at the Sheriff’s Office” while he was Sheriff. Id. 31:21-23. The

3 responsibilities of the Sheriff’s Office included responsibility for the jail. Id. 55:16-19.

4

Miller was aware that the jail’s policy was to house inmates with mental health issues in

5 segregated, lockdown cells. Miller Dep. 73:7-13, ECF 147-6. He reviewed a Jail Needs

6 Assessment prepared in 2011 which indicated, among other things, that “Suicide hazard

7 elimination is not as stringent as it should be to prevent self-harm and the attendant liability.” Id.

8 78:3-23. When Miller took office in December 2010, he was aware that an inmate had committed

9 suicide in August 2010. Id. 91:14-17. Miller also was informed when an inmate committed

10 suicide in 2011. Id. 92:16-19. As discussed above, some of Miller’s testimony indicates that he

11 did not review the mental health care provided to jail inmates by CFMG. Miller Dep. 58:7-17,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 59:11-60:10, 66:22-67:10,116:9-119:16 ECF 147-6.

13

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and in support of his own motion, Miller submits

14 Commander Thornburg’s declaration regarding the number of jail suicides compared to the total

15 number of inmates housed at the jail, and argues that the relatively few number of suicides at the

16 jail were insufficient to put him on notice that the policy posed a substantial risk of harm. See

17 Thornburg Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, ECF 149-2. Miller also submits declaration excerpts suggesting that he

18 did engage in at least some oversight of the medical care provided at the jail. Miller Dep. 25:20-

19 30:5, 45:18-46:24, 55:20-58:25, 61:3-62:1, 93:22-95:24, Exh. S to Grant Decl., ECF 149-1.

20

Based upon the parties’ evidence, there are disputed issues of fact as to Miller’s knowledge

21 of the risk posed by the County’s policy of housing inmates with mental illness – and in particular

22 those just released from suicide watch – in lockdown units with known suicide risks. In addition,

23 there is a disputed issue of fact as to the extent of Miller’s oversight over CFMG. Finally, there is

24 a disputed issue as to whether any failure to supervise CFMG caused injury in light of the disputed

25 facts that preclude summary judgment on most of Plaintiffs’ claims against CFMG, as discussed in

26 section IV, below.

27

Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 against

28 Miller in his individual capacity are DENIED. 14

1

3. Sergeant Kaye

2

Both Plaintiffs and Sergeant Kaye seek summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2.

3

“An official’s deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate –

4 including the deprivation of a serious medical need – violates the Eighth Amendment, and a

5 fortiori, the Fourteenth Amendment.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1094; see also Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187

6 (“persons in custody have the established right to not have officials remain deliberately indifferent

7 to their serious medical needs”) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

8

To demonstrate that Kaye was deliberately indifferent in this case, Plaintiffs must show

9 that (1) Claypole had a serious medical need and (2) Kaye’s official’s response to the need was

10 deliberately indifferent. See Conn, 591 F.3d at 1095; see also Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017 (“We

11 have long analyzed claims that correction facility officials violated pretrial detainees’

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 constitutional rights by failing to address their medical needs (including suicide prevention) under

13 a deliberate indifference standard.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The second

14 prong requires both (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible

15 medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1095. Thus to make

16 out a claim of deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs must establish “serious medical need, indifference

17 to that need, and harm caused by that indifference.” Id.

18

a. Indifference to Serious Medical Need

19

To demonstrate the requisite indifference, Plaintiffs must show that Kaye was “(a)

20 subjectively aware of the serious medical need and (b) failed to adequately respond.” Conn, 591

21 F.3d at 1096 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994)). Plaintiffs contend that

22 although Kaye clearly was aware of Claypole’s serious medical need and responded to that need,

23 her response was inadequate.

24

In support of their own motion and in opposition to Kaye’s motion, Plaintiffs present

25 evidence that although Kaye informed medical staff that Claypole had been placed on suicide

26 watch, she did not also document and inform medical staff that Claypole had made a suicidal

27 statement to his attorney. In particular, Plaintiffs rely on Dr. Fithian’s testimony that he believed

28 Claypole was placed on suicide watch because of the charges against him rather than any suicidal 15

1 ideation, as well as Fithian’s denial that medical staff was told of Claypole’s statements to his

2 attorney. Fithian Dep. 124:21-126:9, ECF 143-10. Plaintiffs contend that under Conn, Kaye’s

3 failure to inform medical staff of Claypole’s suicidal statement to his attorney rendered inadequate

4 her response to Claypole’s serious medical need.

5

Plaintiffs’ reliance on Conn is misplaced. In Conn, two police officers were transporting a

6 woman named Brenda Clustka when she wrapped a seatbelt around her neck while screaming that

7 the officers should kill her or she would kill herself. Conn, 591 F.3d at 1092. The officers handed

8 Clustka off to jail personnel without reporting the incident, and days later Clustka hanged herself

9 in a jail cell. Id. Finding a triable issue of material fact as to the officers’ subjective awareness of

10 Clustka’s serious medical need, the Ninth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could conclude from

11 the record evidence “that Clustka’s medical need was so obvious that [the officers] must have

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 been subjectively aware of it, despite their later denial of that awareness.” Id. at 1097. The court

13 noted specifically that the officers had not argued that, if they were subjectively aware of

14 Clustka’s serious medical need, they nonetheless responded appropriately. Conn thus offers no

15 support for Plaintiffs’ challenge to the adequacy of Kaye’s response to Claypole’s medical need.

16

In support of her motion and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Kaye submits evidence

17 that she was the shift supervisor responsible for the intake and release area of the Monterey

18 County jail when Claypole arrived on the night of May 1, 2013. Kaye Dep. 35:23-36:25. Kaye

19 was not involved in Claypole’s intake. Id. 81:4-15. At some point after Claypole’s intake, jail

20 employee McGregor called Kaye to report that an attorney had informed her that his client had

21 said he felt like hurting himself. Id. 79:13-23. Kaye’s conversation with McGregor was very

22 short. Id. 81:16-19. Kaye does not recall whether McGregor mentioned Claypole’s name at that

23 point. Id. 81:20-23. Immediately after hanging up with McGregor, Kaye walked out to the

24 receiving area and stated that the jail needed to put the person McGregor had called about on

25 suicide watch. Id. 82:21-83:3. Kaye ordered that Claypole be placed on suicide watch and stood

26 by while that occurred. Id. 83:4-13. When Claypole was placed in a safety cell, Kaye spoke to

27 him, explaining that he was being placed on suicide watch based upon his attorney’s concerns. Id.

28 90:13-21. Kaye or another deputy then advised the jail’s medical staff via radio that someone had 16

1 been placed in a suicide cell for suicide watch. Id. 97:20-98:6. Kaye had no other involvement in

2 Claypole’s detention.

3

Based upon this evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that Kaye’s response to

4 Claypole’s serious medical need was inadequate.

5

b. Resulting Harm

6

“[T]o prevail on a § 1983 claim under a deliberate indifference theory, plaintiff must prove

7 that the official’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.”

8 Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1245 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing White v.

9 Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir. 1990)).

10

Plaintiffs’ theory is that had Kaye informed medical staff that she had placed Claypole on

11 suicide watch because he expressed suicidal ideation, Defendant Fithian would not have removed

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Claypole from suicide watch on May 2 and May 4. Plaintiffs again rely on Conn, in which the

13 Ninth Circuit held that by failing to pass on information regarding the seatbelt incident, the

14 defendant officers foreseeably undermined Clustka’s access to effective medical evaluations and

15 adequate mental health care. Conn, 591 F.3d at 1101. The Ninth Circuit concluded that

16 notwithstanding medical evaluations that occurred between the seatbelt incident and Clustka’s

17 suicide, a jury could conclude that the officers’ conduct “was a moving force and proximate cause

18 of Clustka’s suicide.” Id.

19

Conn is factually distinct from the present case, in which Kaye placed Claypole on suicide

20 watch and notified jail medical staff of that fact so that he would be evaluated.7 Plaintiff’s expert,

21 Dr. Raymond Patterson, testified that he could not conclude based upon his knowledge of the case

22

23 7 The Court notes that it did rely on Conn in denying the City of Monterey’s motion for summary

24

judgment, concluding that a jury could conclude that the failure of City police officers to pass on information regarding Claypole’s behavior while in their custody could have impaired the medical

25

evaluations that foreseeably were performed at the Monterey County jail. However, the information withheld by City officers went well beyond the single third-hand comment upon

26

which Plaintiffs premise their claims against Kaye. The City officers personally observed Claypole’s bizarre behavior, which included numerous comments that arguably could be

27

characterized as suicidal ideation, over a period of several hours. Unlike Kaye, the City officers did not place Claypole on suicide watch or take any action to ensure that he received a mental

28

health evaluation. Plaintiffs’ claims against the City officers thus are much closer factually to the claims against the defendants in Conn.

17

1 that Kaye’s actions or inactions contributed causally to Claypole’s suicide. Patterson Dep.

2 195:12-15, Exh. J to Grant Decl., ECF 141-2.

3

Based upon this record, and even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs,

4 the Court concludes that Kaye has demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment and that

5 Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts from which a reasonable jury

6 could find that Kaye’s response to Claypole’s serious medical need was constitutionally

7 inadequate. Accordingly, Kaye’s motion for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 is

8 GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 is DENIED as to Kaye.

9

B. Claim 3 – Loss of Parent/Child Relationship

10

The County Defendants and Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Claim 3, which alleges

11 Guersenzvaig’s loss of parent/child relationship in violation of the substantive due process clause

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

13

A parent may assert a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim if she is

14 deprived of her liberty interest in the companionship of her child through official conduct.

15 Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1075. “Only official conduct that shocks the conscience is cognizable as a due

16 process violation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Just as the deliberate

17 indifference of prison officials may support Eighth Amendment liability, such indifference may

18 also rise to the conscience-shocking level required for substantive due process violation.” Id.

19 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A prison official’s deliberately indifferent

20 conduct will generally shock the conscience so as long as the prison official had time to deliberate

21 before acting or failing to act in a deliberately indifferent manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks

22 and citation omitted).

23

Claim 3 is based on the County Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Claypole’s

24 serious medical need and thus, for purposes of the present motions, rises or falls with Claims 1 and

25 2. Based upon the foregoing discussion, the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

26 on Claim 3 is DENIED as to the County and Miller and GRANTED as to Kaye. Plaintiffs’ motion

27 for summary judgment on Claim 3 is DENIED.

28 18

1

C. Claim 5 – Failure to Summon Medical Care

2

The County Defendants seek summary judgment on Claim 5, which alleges failure to

3 summon medical care in violation of California Government Code § 845.6. Plaintiffs do not seek

4 summary judgment on this claim.

5

Section 845.6, titled “Medical care for prisoners; failure to obtain,” provides that “a public

6 employee, and the public entity where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment,

7 is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate

8 medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.” Cal. Gov’t

9 Code § 845.6. “Liability under section 845.6 is limited to serious and obvious medical conditions

10 requiring immediate care.” Watson v. State of Cal., 21 Cal. App. 4th 836, 841 (1993) (emphasis

11 added). The statutory duty does not encompass a duty to provide reasonable medical care. Id.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

In support of their motion, the County Defendants assert that the record is devoid of

13 evidence that they failed to respond to a situation in which Claypole needed immediate medical

14 care. Plaintiffs argue that “Claypole was in need of immediate medical care over the 65 hours he

15 was in custody.” Pls.’ Opp. at 23, ECF 148. However, it is undisputed that Claypole received

16 medical care on numerous occasions during that sixty-five hour period. Plaintiffs have failed to

17 identify any particular moment in time when Claypole required immediate medical care that was

18 not provided.

19

When questioned on this point at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that Claypole

20 required immediate medical care the moment that Dr. Fithian removed him from suicide watch on

21 May 4, 2013. However, counsel did not cite any evidence that Claypole was in immediate distress

22 at that moment, or any expert opinion or case law suggesting that all inmates released from suicide

23 watch must be given immediate medical care. Although it might be inferred that Claypole should

24 not have been released from suicide watch, such a contention does not support this claim and

25 rather would go to the reasonableness of Dr. Fithian’s medical determination.

26

Based upon an absence of evidence in the record showing that the County Defendants

27 failed to summon medical care in response to Claypole’s immediate need for such care, and

28 Plaintiffs’ failure to identify evidence creating a triable issue of material fact, the County 19

1 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Claim 5 is GRANTED.

2

D. Claim 6 – Negligent Supervision, Hiring, Training, and Retention;

3

Claim 7 – Wrongful Death; and Claim 8 – Negligence

4

The County Defendants seek summary judgment on Claim 6, alleging negligent

5 supervision, hiring, training, and retention; Claim 7, alleging wrongful death; and Claim 8,

6 alleging negligence. Plaintiffs do not seek summary judgment on Claims 6 or 7, but they do seek

7 summary judgment on Claim 8.

8

With respect to Claim 6, “California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can

9 be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” Doe

10 v. Capital Cities, 50 Cal. App. 1038, 1054 (1996). “Liability is based upon the facts that the

11 employer knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 and that particular harm materializes.” Id. With respect to Claim 7, the elements of a wrongful

13 death claim are: (1) a wrongful act or neglect that (2) causes (3) the death of another person. See

14 Cal. Civ. P. Code § 377.60; Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 390 (1999). Plaintiffs’ brief

15 indicates that their wrongful death claim is based upon negligence. Pls.’ Br. at 24, ECF 148.

16 Finally, with respect to Claim 8, the elements of a negligence claim are a duty owed by the

17 defendant, breach of that duty, and resulting harm to the plaintiff. Raven H. v. Gamette, 157 Cal.

18 App. 4th 1017, 1024-25 (2007).

19

In support of her motion, Kaye points to an absence of evidence in the record that she

20 breached any of the above duties to Claypole or otherwise acted wrongfully. Plaintiffs’ claims

21 against Kaye are based solely on her failure to relay to medical staff the suicidal comment reported

22 by Claypole’s attorney on the night of his intake into the jail. It is undisputed that upon being

23 informed of that comment Kaye immediately directed that Claypole be placed on suicide watch

24 and informed medical staff of that fact. When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at

25 trial, the moving party may meet its burden on summary judgment by demonstrating an absence of

26 evidence in the record to support the nonmoving party’s case. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627

27 F.3d at 387. Accordingly, Kaye has met her initial burden.

28

Although they oppose Kaye’s motion and move for summary judgment against Kaye on

20

1 Claim 8, Plaintiffs do not explain how Kaye’s failure to tell medical staff about the comment

2 reported by Claypole’s attorney caused any harm to Claypole. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr.

3 Patterson, testified that he could not conclude based upon his knowledge of the case that Kaye’s

4 actions or inactions contributed to Claypole’s suicide. Patterson Dep. 195:12-15, Exh. J to Grant

5 Decl., ECF 141-2. Plaintiffs thus have failed to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts that

6 would preclude summary judgment for Kaye on these claims.

7

With respect to the County and Miller, Defendants’ motion does not address the elements

8 of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Defendants argue Claim 6 as though it were a claim for deliberate

9 indifference rather than a state common law claim. See Cnty. Defs.’ Mot. at 19-24, ECF 141. For

10 example, they cite Farmer, Gibson, and other cases addressing theories of negligent supervision,

11 hiring, training, and retention in the deliberate indifference context. The County and Miller

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 address Claims 7 and 8 only in general terms, asserting that they did not know or suspect that

13 Claypole might commit suicide and that they acted appropriately throughout his detention.

14 Defendants do not address Plaintiffs’ theory that they acted negligently in placing Claypole – an

15 individual with mental health issues who had just been discharged from suicide watch – in a

16 lockdown cell containing suicide hazards. Thus the County and Miller have not carried their

17 initial burden as to these claims.

18

Plaintiffs do address the elements of their negligence claim, as to which Plaintiffs seek

19 summary judgment, arguing that the County and Miller had a duty of care with respect to housing

20 and providing mental health treatment to Claypole. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants breached that

21 duty by placing Claypole in an environment with known suicide risks. However, as discussed

22 above, there are disputed factual issues as to whether the County and Miller were aware that the

23 policy of housing inmates with mental health issues in A-pod and B-pod upon release from suicide

24 watch posed a substantial risk of harm. See Thornburg Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, ECF 149-2. In addition,

25 there are disputed issues as to whether the County’s policies met the standard of care. See Bryce

26 Report at 1, Exh. L to Grant Decl., ECF 141-2. Those disputed issues preclude summary

27 judgment for Plaintiffs on their negligence claim.

28

The County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Claims 6-8 is GRANTED as to

21

1 Kaye and DENIED as to the County and Miller. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on

2 Claim 8 is DENIED.

3 IV. CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE DR. FITHIAN AND CFMG

4

Plaintiffs assert claims against Dr. Fithian and CFMG for deliberate indifference to serious

5 medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Claims 1 and 2); deprivation of

6 parent/child relationship in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Claim 3); medical

7 malpractice under California law (Claim 4); failure to summon medical care in violation of

8 California Government Code § 845.6 (Claim 5); negligent supervision, training, hiring, and

9 retention under California law (Claim 6); and wrongful death under California Civil Procedure

10 Code § 377.60 (Claim 7). Fithian and CFMG seek summary judgment on Claims 1-3 and 5, while

11 Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Claims 1-4 and 7. Plaintiffs also purport to seek summary

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 judgment on Claim 8, alleging negligence. See Pls.’ Opp. & Mot. at 34-35, ECF 142. However,

13 Plaintiffs’ operative first amended complaint does not name Fithian and CFMG as defendants to

14 Claim 8. FAC ¶¶ 125-30.

15

A. Claims 1 and 2 – Deliberate Indifference

16

Plaintiffs and the Medical Defendants seek summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2, which

17 assert deliberate indifference to Claypole’s serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth

18 Amendment.

19

1. Dr. Fithian

20

Private physicians employed to provide medical care to inmates are state actors for

21 purposes of § 1983. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-55 (1988). In order to make out a

22 deliberate indifference claim against Fithian, Plaintiffs must show that Claypole had a serious

23 medical need, Fithian’s deliberate indifference, and resulting harm. See Conn, 591 F.3d at 1095.

24 To demonstrate that Fithian was deliberately indifferent to Claypole’s serious medical need,

25 Plaintiffs must show that he was “(a) subjectively aware of the serious medical need and (b) failed

26 to adequately respond.” Id. at 1096 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838 (1994)). In order to be

27 subjectively aware of a serious medical need, an official “must both be aware of facts from which

28 the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw 22

1 the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (emphasis added).

2

In support of their own motion and in opposition to Fithian’s motion, Plaintiffs point to the

3 undisputed facts that Fithian knew Claypole had been placed on suicide watch the night of May 1,

4 2013; removed from suicide watch (by Fithian) on May 2, 2013; and placed back on suicide watch

5 on May 3, 2013. See Fithian Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 152-4. The second suicide watch was based on

6 Spano’s telephone call to Fithian on the afternoon of May 3. Spano reported that Claypole was

7 acting strange and had stated that he wanted to kill himself. Id. ¶ 6. Based on Spano’s report,

8 Fithian agreed that Claypole should return to a safety cell. Id. Yet early the following morning

9 Fithian ordered Claypole released from suicide watch. Fithian had some additional information on

10 Saturday morning that he did not have on Friday afternoon when he spoke to Spano. Specifically,

11 Fithian knew that Claypole had received two additional doses of Klonopin since seeing Spano,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 was calm, was requesting release from the safety cell, and was denying any suicidal ideation. Id.

13 at ¶ 8.

14

Plaintiffs also cite the testimony of the Medical Defendants’ expert, Dr. Hayward, that

15 when attempting to determine a patient’s suicide risk, experienced doctors know not to ask about

16 suicidal ideation directly, because if the patient is contemplating suicide he or she will not want to

17 disclose that information. Hayward Dep. 102:1-104:16, ECF 143-10. Fithian himself testified

18 that someone in a mental health crisis can have periods of suicidal thoughts and nonsuicidal

19 thoughts during the same day. Fithian Dep. 95:15-18, ECF 143-10.

20

Plaintiffs additionally present Fithian’s testimony that he has authored training materials

21 indicating that a white, twenty year old male held in pretrial detention is in a very high risk

22 category for suicide. Fithian Dep. 218:2-14, ECF 143-10. Fithian testified that it is generally

23 understood by forensic mental health experts that segregated or isolated conditions such those in a

24 lockdown cell can increase suicide risk, and that he held that opinion in 2013. Id. 83:20-86:11.

25 He also testified that it is generally understood in forensic mental health that the first seventy-two

26 hours of incarceration are a time of increased suicide risk. Id. 86:17-20. According to Fithian,

27 ninety percent of suicides in county jails throughout the country are accomplished by hanging. Id.

28 48:22-24. Fithian was aware of prior hangings at in the lockdown units at the County jail. Id. 23

1 50:2021, 62:6-20, 72:0-74:17.

2

In support of his motion and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Fithian argues that the

3 record is devoid of evidence that he actually drew an inference that releasing Claypole from 4 suicide watch on May 4, 2013 gave rise to a substantial risk of harm.8 Fithian submits his own

5 declaration statement that, in his opinion, Claypole was not acutely suicidal when released from

6 suicide watch on May 4, 2013. Fithian Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 152-4.

7

The Ninth Circuit has held that summary judgment on a deliberate indifference claim

8 cannot be supported “simply on the basis of the defendants’ assertions as to their own state of

9 mind.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1097. In Conn, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of

10 summary judgment for the defendant officers, holding that the officers’ testimony that they did not

11 subjectively believe Clustka to be a suicide risk was insufficient to establish their entitlement to

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 judgment. The court explained that “[p]roof of ‘subjective awareness’ is not limited to the

13 purported recollections of the individuals involved.” Conn, 591 F.3d at 1097. Instead, the court

14 stated, “[w]hether [an] official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of

15 fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.”

16 Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). The court determined that a reasonable jury could

17 conclude from the record evidence “that Clustka’s medical need was so obvious that [the officers]

18 must have been subjectively aware of it, despite their later denial of that awareness.” Id.

19

As in Conn, a jury confronted with the present record could accept Dr. Fithian’s statements

20 that he did not subjectively believe that Claypole was at substantial risk of harm if released from

21 suicide watch and sent back to A-pod. However, a jury alternatively could find that Claypole’s

22 risk of suicide was so obvious that Fithian must have been subjectively aware of it despite his

23 protestations to the contrary. “[Q]uestions involving a person’s state of mind are generally factual

24 issues inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment.” Conn at 1098 (internal quotation

25

26 8 The Court notes that Plaintiffs argue that the treatment provided by Fithian and CFMG fell

27

below the standard of care and that Fithian and CFMG knew or should have known that Claypole was at risk when he was discharged from suicide watch on the morning of May 4, 2013.

28

However, Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claims require a showing that Fithian actually drew the inference that Claypole was at substantial risk of serious harm.

24

1 marks and citation omitted). Because a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Fithian

2 was subjectively aware that Claypole was at substantial risk of harm if released from suicide

3 watch on May 4, 2013, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 are 4 DENIED as to Fithian.9

5

2. CFMG

6

Courts have treated medical groups employed to provide prison medical services as local

7 government entities for purposes of deliberate indifference claims. See Carrea v. California, No.

8 EDCV 07-1148-CAS (MAN), 2009 WL 1770130, at *8 & n.5 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)

9 (collecting cases). CFMG concedes that it may be sued under § 1983 and that Monell principles

10 apply to such claims.

11

As discussed above with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims against the County, a plaintiff may

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 recover against a local government for deliberate indifference under one of three theories of

13 liability. See Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1249. “First, a local government may be held liable ‘when

14 implementation of its official policies or established customs inflicts the constitutional injury.’”

15 Id. (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 708 (Powell, J. concurring)). “Second, under certain

16 circumstances, a local government may be held liable under § 1983 for acts of ‘omission,’ when

17 such omissions amount to the local government’s own official policy.” Id. “Third, a local

18 government may be held liable under § 1983 when the individual who committed the

19 constitutional tort was an official with final policy-making authority or such an official ratified a

20 subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.” Id. at 1250 (internal

21 quotation marks and citation omitted).

22

Plaintiffs appear to be asserting liability against CFMG based upon its asserted de facto

23 policy of sending inmates with mental illness to A-pod or B-pod upon release from suicide watch.

24 Plaintiffs also appear to be asserting that CFMG is liable for the acts of its policy maker, Fithian.

25

26 9 Fithian does not argue that, if Claypole was at substantial risk of harm on the morning of May 4,

27

2013, Fithian responded adequately by discharging Claypole from suicide watch knowing that he would go back to A-pod.

28

25

1

a. Policy

2

Plaintiffs present the following evidence in support of their own motion and in opposition

3 to CFMG’s motion. They present the opinions of their expert, Dr. Patterson, that Claypole’s

4 medical treatment fell below the professional standard of care and that his suicide likely was

5 foreseeable under the circumstances. Patterson Report at 191-94, Exh. 117 to Rifkin Decl., ECF

6 143-9. While Dr. Patterson does not opine as to the constitutionality of CFMG’s policies, he does

7 opine that Claypole’s placement in a lockdown unit was inappropriate and contributed to his

8 suicide. Id. Dr. Patterson’s opinions could give rise to a reasonable inference that a policy of

9 transitioning individuals from safety cells directly to lockdown cells without other attendant 10 precautions amounts to deliberate indifference.10

11

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and in support of its own motion, CFMG presents the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 opinion of its expert, Dr. Hayward, that CFMG’s policies meet minimal professional standards of

13 care and constitutional standards. See Hayward Report at 11, Exh. B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125;

14 Hayward Dep. 54:13-55:19. Another of CFMG’s experts, Dr. Jason Roof, also opines that

15 CFMG’s policies meet professional standards of care and constitutional standards, and that the

16 care rendered to Claypole was appropriate and within the standard of care. Roof Report at 17,

17 Exh. B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125. CFMG also relies upon CFMG’s written Policy and

18 Procedure Manual, which incorporates in its Suicide Prevention section Monterey County’s

19 written plan for the prevention of suicide. The plan specifies that an individual who shows

20 potential risk of suicide must be referred to medical staff for assessment. Fithian states in his

21 declaration that in May 2013, he could have directed that an individual released from suicide 22 watch be housed in “a variety of step down units.”11 Fithian Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 152-4.

23

24

10 The Medical Defendants assert that Dr. Patterson “has begrudgingly testified CFMG’s suicide prevention program met constitutional standards.” Defs.’ Mot. at 6, ECF 124-1. In support for

25

that assertion, Defendants cite to Dr. Patterson’s report in its entirety and to a page of Dr. Patterson’s deposition that does not support the assertion. While Dr. Patterson has not opined

26

specifically as to the ultimate question of whether CFMG’s policies are constitutionally deficient, he has provided expert opinion that may be relied upon by a jury in making that determination.

27 11 Commander Bass, the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, testified that the jail does not have any

28

kind of step down cells or transition cells between a safety cell and a regular housing cell. Bass Dep. 103:17-21, Exh. Vol. 3 to Rifkin Decl., ECF 147-5.

26

1

The parties’ evidence creates a triable issue of fact as to whether CFMG’s policies were

2 constitutionally inadequate.

3

b. Acts of Dr. Fithian

4

There is no dispute that Dr. Fithian has final policy-making authority with respect to

5 CFMG. As discussed above, Fithian’s deposition testimony and declaration statements create a

6 triable issue as to whether Fithian knew that transitioning individuals from safety cells to

7 lockdown cells creates a substantial risk of harm. To the extent that he may be liable for

8 deliberate indifference, CFMG may be liable as well.

9

Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 are

10 DENIED as to CFMG.

11

B. Claim 3 – Loss of Parent/Child Relationship

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Plaintiffs and the Medical Defendants seek summary judgment on Claim 3 for loss of

13 parent/child relationship. As noted above, parents may assert a Fourteenth Amendment

14 substantive due process claim if they are deprived of their liberty interest in the companionship of

15 their child through official conduct. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1075. “Only official conduct that shocks

16 the conscience is cognizable as a due process violation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

17 omitted). “A prison official’s deliberately indifferent conduct will generally shock the conscience

18 so as long as the prison official had time to deliberate before acting or failing to act in a

19 deliberately indifferent manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

20

Claim 3 is based on the Medical Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Claypole’s

21 serious medical needs and thus, for purposes of the present motions, rises or falls with Claims 1

22 and 2. Based upon the foregoing discussion, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on

23 Claim 3 are DENIED.

24

C. Claim 4 – Medical Malpractice

25

Only Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Claim 4, alleging medical malpractice. Fithian

26 and CFMG do not seek summary judgment on this claim.

27

28 27

1

“The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such

2 skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise;

3 (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the

4 injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Chakalis v. Elevator Solutions, Inc., 205 Cal. App. 4th

5 1557, 1571 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs present the opinion of their expert that the medical

7 treatment provided to Claypole fell below the standard of care. See Patterson Report at 7, Exh.

8 117 to Rifkin Decl., ECF 143-9. This evidence is sufficient to meet Plaintiffs’ initial burden.

9 However, in opposition to the motion, the Medical Defendants present expert opinion that the

10 medical treatment provided to Claypole met the standard of care. See Hayward Report at 16, Exh.

11 B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125; Roof Report at 17, Exh. B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125. Given these

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 competing expert opinions, a triable issue of material fact exists as to the question of breach of the

13 duty of care.

14

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Claim 4 is DENIED.

15

D. Claim 5 – Failure to Summon Medical Care

16

Fithian and CFMG seek summary judgment on Claim 5 for failure to summon medical

17 care. Plaintiffs do not seek summary judgment on this claim.

18

As discussed above, California Government Code § 845.6 provides that a public employee

19 may be liable for failure to respond to a prisoner’s need for immediate medical care. Cal. Gov’t

20 Code § 845.6; Watson, 21 Cal. App. 4th at 841. Plaintiffs have not identified a moment when

21 Fithian and CFMG failed to respond to Claypole’s need for immediate medical care. Moreover, it

22 simply makes no sense for Plaintiffs to assert liability against the Medical Defendants for failing

23 to summon themselves. Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence to support the need to summon an

24 ambulance or other emergency medical service.

25

The Medical Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Claim 5 is GRANTED.

26

E. Claim 7 – Wrongful Death

27

Only Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Claim 7, for wrongful death. Fithian and

28 CFMG do not seek judgment on this claim. 28

1

The elements of a wrongful death claim are: (1) a wrongful act or neglect that (2) causes

2 (3) the death of another person. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 377.60; Norgart, 21 Cal. 4th at 390. In

3 support of their motion, Plaintiffs submit their expert’s opinion that the medical treatment

4 provided to Claypole fell below the standard of care. See Pls.’ Br. at 34, ECF 142. This evidence

5 is sufficient to meet Plaintiffs’ initial burden. However, Fithian and CFMG have submitted

6 conflicting expert opinions stating that the medical treatment provided to Claypole met the

7 standard of care. See Hayward Report at 16, Exh. B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125; Roof Report at

8 17, Exh. B to Bertling Decl., ECF 125. Thus a triable issue of material fact exists as to an

9 essential element of Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim.

10

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Claim 7 is DENIED.

11 V. ORDER

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

(1) The County Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to all claims asserted

14

against Kaye and as to Claim 5 and otherwise is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ cross-

15

motion against the County Defendants is DENIED; and

16

(2) The Medical Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Claim 5 and

17

otherwise is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion against the Medical

18

Defendants is DENIED.

19

20 Dated: February 22, 2016

21

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

22

United States District Judge

23

24

25

26

27

28 29

 
 Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 1 of 30
ADRMOP,CLOSED,ENETERM,REFSET−NC,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14−cv−02730−BLF

Joshua Claypole et al. v. County of San Mateo et al

Date Filed: 06/12/2014

Assigned to: Judge Beth Labson Freeman

Date Terminated: 03/30/2016

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal

Jury Demand: Both

Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins (Settlement) Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Relate Case Case: 5:16−cv−02375−BLF

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff

Joshua Claypole deceased, by and through Silvia Guersenzvaig, as Administrator

represented by Dan Lewis Stormer Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Piovia−Scott Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 4300 Horton Street, #15 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−685−3591 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: jps@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori Rifkin Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 4300 Horton Street, #15 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−685−3591 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mohammad K Tajsar Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Email: mtajsar@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Silvia Guersenzvaig

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

Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori Rifkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 2 of 30

Mohammad K Tajsar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of San Mateo TERMINATED: 09/23/2015
Defendant Sheriff Greg Munks in his individual and official capacity TERMINATED: 09/22/2015
Defendant County Of Monterey

represented by David A. Levy County Counsel, County of San Mateo 400 County Center, 6th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 650−363−4756 Fax: 650−363−4034 Email: dlevy@smcgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Wells Ely San Mateo County Counsel's Office 400 County Center, 6th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063−1662 650−363−1824 Fax: 650−363−4034 Email: aely@smcgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Levy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Wells Ely (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Irven L. Grant Monterey County Office of County Counsel 168 W. Alisal Street, Third Floor Salinas, CA 93901−2680 831−755−5045 Fax: (831) 755−5283 Email: granti@co.monterey.ca.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan K. Blitch County Counsel Office of the County Counsel County of Monterey 168 West Alisal Street, 3rd Floor Salinas, CA 93901−2680 831−755−5045 Fax: 831−755−5283 Email: blitchsk@co.monterey.ca.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet L. Holmes

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 3 of 30

County Counsel's Office County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 335−1800 Fax: (925) 335−1866 Email: HolmesJL@co.monterey.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Rudolph Philippi County of Monterey County Counsel 168 West Alisal Street 3rd Floor Salinas, CA 93901 (831) 755−5045 Email: PhilippiMR@co.monterey.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Merrill Litt Office of the County Counsel County of Monterey 168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor Salinas, CA 93901−2439 (831) 755−5045 Fax: (831) 755−5283 Email: littwm@co.monterey.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sheriff Scott Miller in his individual and official capacity

represented by Irven L. Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K. Blitch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet L. Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Rudolph Philippi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Merrill Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sergeant E. Kaye in his individual and official capacity

represented by Irven L. Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K. Blitch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet L. Holmes

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 4 of 30

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Rudolph Philippi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Merrill Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant City of Monterey

represented by Amanda Michelle Cohen Law Offices of Vincent P. Hurley A Professional Corporation 28 Seascape Village Aptos, CA 95003 831−661−4800 Fax: 831−661−4804 Email: acohen@hurleylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan M. Thompson Law Office of Vincent P. Hurley 38 Seascape Village Aptos, CA 95003 831−661−4800 Fax: 831−661−4804 Email: rthompson@hurleylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mont. PD Chief Philip Penko in his individual and official capacity

represented by Amanda Michelle Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan M. Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Brent Hall in his individual and official capacity

represented by Amanda Michelle Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan M. Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant California Forensic Medical Group

represented by Peter G. Bertling Bertling Law Group, Inc. 15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 104 Santa Barbara, CA 93101−8215 8058797558 Fax: 8059620722 Email: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jemma A. Parker Saunders Bertling Law Group

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 5 of 30

15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 104 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 8058797558 Fax: 8059620722 Email: jemma@bertlinglawgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr. Taylor Fithian in his individual and official capacity

represented by Peter G. Bertling (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jemma A. Parker Saunders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula TERMINATED: 09/24/2015

represented by Cyrus A. Tabari Sheuerman Martini & Tabari 1033 Willow Street San Jose, CA 95125 (408) 288−9700 Fax: (408) 295−9900 Email: ctabari@smtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Estate of Sandra Vela

represented by Lori Rifkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/12/2014
06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/13/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Damages against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−8691979.). Filed bySilvia Guersenzvaig, Joshua Claypole. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 6/12/2014) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
2 Proposed Summons. (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 6/12/2014) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
3 Certificate of Interested Entities by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig re 1 Complaint, (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 6/12/2014) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal.
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. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2014) (Entered: 06/13/2014)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 6 of 30

06/13/2014 06/13/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014 06/27/2014 06/30/2014 07/08/2014 07/28/2014 07/28/2014
07/28/2014 07/28/2014 07/29/2014
07/30/2014

5 Summons Issued as to California Forensic Medical Group, City of Monterey, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, County Of Monterey, County of San Mateo, Taylor Fithian, Brent Hall, E. Kaye, Scott Miller, Greg Munks, Philip Penko. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2014) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 10/14/2014. Case Management Conference set for 10/21/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2014) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Mohammad K Tajsar (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 6/16/2014) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Piovia−Scott (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Filed on 6/16/2014) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
9 MOTION to Relate Case filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 6/27/2014) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
10 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge within 14 days of this notice, by 7/14/2014. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2014) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
11 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig.. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/8/2014) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
12 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by County of San Mateo, Greg Munks.. (Levy, David) (Filed on 7/28/2014) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
13 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE−NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
14 ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 9 Motion to Relate Case. 5:14−cv−02730−PSG Not Related to 5:13−cv−02354−PSG. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
15 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Hon. Beth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal remains as the referral judge assigned to the case. Reassignment Order signed by Executive Committee on 7/28/2014. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
16 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOLLOWING REASSIGNMENT Case Management Statement due by 12/04/2014. Case Management Conference set for 12/11/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, U.S. District Court 280 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113. ***THIS IS A TEXT−ONLY NOTICE. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DOCKET ENTRY*** (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
17 Proof of Service of Documents served to defendant Sheriff Munks re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 7 of 30

07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014

Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
18 Proof of Service List of Documents as to defendent Dr. Fithian in by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
19 Proof of Service List of Documents as to defendant County of San Mateo re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
20 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant County of Monterey re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
21 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
22 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant City of Monterey by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
23 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant Chief Philip Penko re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
24 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant California Forensic Medical Group by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
25 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant Sergeant Kaye re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 8 of 30

07/30/2014
07/30/2014
08/04/2014 08/05/2014 08/05/2014 08/05/2014 08/05/2014
08/05/2014 08/06/2014 08/08/2014 08/11/2014 08/18/2014

Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
26 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant Sheriff Miller re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Text modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
27 Proof of Service Summons in Civil Action as to defendant Brent Hall re 3 Certificate of Interested Entities, 11 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge, 7 Notice of Appearance, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 10 Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination, 8 Notice of Appearance, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued, 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/30/2014) Modified on 7/30/2014 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/30/2014)
28 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages filed by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 8/18/2014. Replies due by 8/25/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Blitch, Susan) (Filed on 8/4/2014) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Wells Ely (Ely, Adam) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
30 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCounty of San Mateo, Greg Munks. (Ely, Adam) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
31 Defendants ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Interested Parties, # 2 Notice of Appearance, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 8/19/2014. Replies due by 8/26/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Tabari, Cyrus) (Filed on 8/5/2014)**SEE DOCUMENT NUMBER 34 FOR AMENDMENT** Modified on 8/7/2014 (srmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/05/2014)
33 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Without Leave to Amend filed by City of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 8/19/2014. Replies due by 8/26/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Amanda) (Filed on 8/5/2014) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
34 AMENDED NOTICE OF Motion and Motion by Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Amended Notice of Motion (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Tabari, Cyrus) (Filed on 8/6/2014) Incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/7/2014 (srmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/06/2014)
35 Pursuant to ( 34 ) AMENDED NOTICE OF Motion and Motion by Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Amended Notice of Motion CLERKS NOTICE Re−Setting Motion Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Rudolph Philippi (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Philippi, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
37 RESPONSE (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 9 of 30

08/19/2014 08/20/2014 08/25/2014
08/26/2014 08/26/2014 09/04/2014
09/05/2014
09/09/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014
10/01/2014 10/02/2014

on 8/18/2014) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
38 RESPONSE (re 33 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Without Leave to Amend ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
39 RESPONSE (re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 8/20/2014) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
40 REPLY (re 28 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Blitch, Susan) (Filed on 8/25/2014) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
41 REPLY (re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ) filed byCommunity Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. (Attachments: # 1 Proof)(Tabari, Cyrus) (Filed on 8/26/2014) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
42 REPLY (re 33 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Without Leave to Amend ) filed byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko. (Cohen, Amanda) (Filed on 8/26/2014) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue the Hearing of Defts City of Mont., Chief Penko, Ofcr Hall's Mtn to Dismiss filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 9/4/2014) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
44 ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING OF 33 DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY, CHIEF PHILIP PENKO, AND OFFICER BRENT HALL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND UNTIL OCTOBER 2, 2014 (approving 43 ). Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freemon on 9/5/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2014) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
45 NOTICE of Change of Address by Dan Lewis Stormer (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
46 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Cohen, Amanda) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
47 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Blitch, Susan) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
48 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
49 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Levy, David) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
50 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Early Neutral Evaluation by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig , County of San Mateo, County of Monterey, City of Monterey, California Forensic Medical Group, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 9/30/2014) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
51 STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS (approving 50 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/1/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
52 Minute Entry: Motions to Dismiss Hearings held on 10/2/2014 before Judge Beth Labson Freeman (Date Filed: 10/2/2014) re 33 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Without Leave to Amend filed by Brent Hall, City of Monterey, Philip Penko, 28 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Claim for Punitive Damages filed by E. Kaye, Scott Miller, County Of Monterey. The Court takes matters under submission. (Court Reporter Lee−Anne Shortridge.) (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/2/2014) Modified on 10/9/2014 (blflc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2014)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 10 of 30

10/08/2014 10/09/2014
10/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/07/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/11/2014
11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/18/2014 11/19/2014
11/19/2014

53 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by City of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko for Court Reporter Lee−Anne Shortridge. (Cohen, Amanda) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
54 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART 33 CITY OF MONTEREY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; (2) GRANTING IN PART 28 COUNTY OF MONTEREY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (3) DENYING 28 COUNTY OF MONTEREY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/9/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
55 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Damages against All Defendants. Filed bySilvia Guersenzvaig, Joshua Claypole. (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
56 CLERK'S NOTICE AND ORDER RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING: Motion to Dismiss Hearing RESCHEDULED for 11/19/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3,5th Floor, San Jose before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
57 Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. and Taylor Fithian, M.D.'s ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/7/2014) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
58 ORDER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION RE STATUS OF 32 PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF MONTEREY PENINSULA. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/7/2014. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
59 ANSWER to Amended Complaint byCounty of San Mateo, Greg Munks. (Levy, David) (Filed on 11/10/2014) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
60 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10−2−14, before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lee−Anne Shortridge, Telephone number 408−287−4580 email: lee−anne_shortridge@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 53 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/9/2015. (Related documents(s) 53 ) (las, ) (Filed on 11/11/2014) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
61 STATUS REPORT (Joint) re: ( 34 ) Defendant Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Then−Operative Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 11/12/2014) Modified text to add linkage on 11/13/2014 (srmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
62 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko. (Cohen, Amanda) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
63 ANSWER to Amended Complaint byCounty Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Blitch, Susan) (Filed on 11/18/2014) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Labson Freeman: Motion Hearing held on 11/19/2014. (Date Filed: 11/19/2014) re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. Motion to Dismiss DENIED. Defendant shall file answer within 14 days. Court Reporter Name: Summer Fisher. Plaintiff Attorney: Lori Rifkin. Defendant Attorney: Curus Tabari. This is a text only Minute Entry (tsh, COURT STAFF) Modified on 11/19/2014 (tsh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/19/2014)
65 ORDER DENYING 32 CHOMP'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/19/2014. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 11 of 30

12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/05/2014 12/05/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/11/2014
12/16/2014 12/16/2014
12/16/2014 01/07/2015

66 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCommunity Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. (Tabari, Cyrus) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
67 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at the December 11, 2014 Case Management Conference filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott in Support of Plaintiffs' Request to Appear Telephonically, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Request to Appear Telephonically)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
68 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & Proposed Order filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
69 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at the 12/11/14 Case Management Conference filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jemma Parker Saunders, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Saunders, Jemma) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
70 ORDER GRANTING 67 PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/5/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
71 ORDER GRANTING 69 DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC. AND TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D.'S REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/5/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
72 REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan K. Blitch, # 2 (Proposed) Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Blitch, Susan) (Filed on 12/9/2014) Text modified on 12/10/2014 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2014)
73 ORDER GRANTING 72 DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYE'S REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/9/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman: Case Management Conference held on 12/11/2014. Jury Trial set for 4/11/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Pretrial Conference set for 3/31/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Fact Discovery cutoff 8/31/2015. FTR Time 1:32:13 to 1:46:18. Attachment Minute Order.(jgS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/11/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko re Initial Disclosures (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 12/16/2014) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
76 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER − Disclosure of Experts 09/28/2015. Fact Discovery Cut−Off 08/31/2015. Expert Discovery Cut−Off 10/23/2015. Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions 01/14/2016 at 9:00 am. Final Pretrial Conference 03/31/2016 at 2:30 pm. Jury Trial 04/11/2016 at 9:00 am. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/16/2014. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
Jury Selection set for 4/11/2016 09:00 AM. Jury Trial set for 04/11/2016, 4/12/2016, 4/13/2016, 4/15/2016, 4/18/2016, 4/19/2016, 4/20/2016, 4/22/2016, 4/25/2016, 4/26/2016, 4/27/2016, and 4/29/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
***ENTERED IN ERROR − PLEASE DISREGARD *** Set/Reset Hearing ENE Hearing set for 2/4/2015 at 09:30 AM at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 153 Townsend Street, Suite 520, San Francisco, CA 94107. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 12 of 30

01/07/2015 01/07/2015 02/10/2015 02/23/2015 02/26/2015 03/03/2015 06/10/2015 06/22/2015 06/25/2015
06/26/2015
07/09/2015
07/16/2015 07/29/2015

1/7/2015) Modified on 1/7/2015 (cmf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2015)
ADR Remark: ***ENTERED IN ERROR − PLEASE DISREGARD ***ENE Hearing set for 2/4/2015 at 09:30 AM at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 153 Townsend Street, Suite 520, San Francisco, CA 94107 (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
77 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Randolph W. Hall as ENE Evaluator. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
Set/Reset Hearing ENE Hearing set for 3/2/2015 at 09:30 AM at the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2015) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
78 ORDER RE: ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/23/2015. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2015) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
79 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE via Mail re: ENE Statement filed by City of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 2/26/2015) Modified on 2/26/2015 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2015)
80 CERTIFICATION OF ENE Session by Evaluator, Randolph W. Hall; ENE session held 3/2/2015; Case did not settle; ENE process is complete. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2015) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
81 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Saunders, Jemma) (Filed on 6/10/2015) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
82 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 81 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
83 MOTION to Compel Further RFP Responses from Defendant California Forensic Medical Group filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 7/9/2015. Replies due by 7/16/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar in Support of Pltfs' Mtn to Compel Further RFP Responses, # 2 Exhibits 1−8, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Pltfs' Mtn to Compel Further RFP Responses)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 6/25/2015) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
84 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING AUGUST 11, 2015 MOTION HEARING, resetting 83 MOTION to Compel Further RFP Responses from Defendant California Forensic Medical Group. 8/11/2015 Motion Hearing is reset to 8/18/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2015) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
85 RESPONSE (re 83 MOTION to Compel Further RFP Responses from Defendant California Forensic Medical Group ) Defendants CFMG and Taylor Fithian, M.D.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Taylor Fithian, M.D., III in Support of Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 2 Declaration of Jemma Parker Saunders in Support of Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jemma Parker Saunders In Support of Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Saunders, Jemma) (Filed on 7/9/2015) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
86 REPLY (re 83 MOTION to Compel Further RFP Responses from Defendant California Forensic Medical Group ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/16/2015) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
87 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION OF WITNESS KIM SPANO, L.F.M.T. filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 13 of 30

07/31/2015 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 08/17/2015 08/18/2015
08/25/2015 08/25/2015 08/31/2015 08/31/2015

88 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION OF WITNESS KIM SPANO, L.M.F.T. (approving 87 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/31/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2015) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
89 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Compel California Forensic Medical Group's Further Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents filed by Joshua Claypole. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of Request to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Compel, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Request to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Compel)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 8/11/2015) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
90 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 89 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2015) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
91 DECLARATION of Peter G. Bertling in Opposition to 85 Opposition/Response to Motion,, Supplemental Declaration of Peter G. Bertling in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents (and Testimony) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Related document(s) 85 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 8/17/2015) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
92 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal: Motion Hearing held on 8/18/2015 re 83 MOTION to Compel Further RFP Responses from Defendant California Forensic Medical Group. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted in part. Documents to be produced in response to Request for Document Production Nos. 33 and 34 only to the extent that they relate to facilities identified in the Exhibit Dr. Fithian was describing in his deposition at pages 162 − 165. The court orders 3 additional hours of deposition testimony from Dr. Fithian once production of documents complete, which can include questions about changes in policies and procedures at the Monterey facility and staff practices at the Monterey facility. Depositions to occur no later than 30 days from today's date and documents to be produced no later than 14 days from today's date. With respect to Request for Document Production Nos. 12 and 14, only contracts and licenses for the facilities identified in the Exhibit referenced above to be produced. An unredacted version of the Exhibit referenced above also to be produced. Court Reporter: Lee−Anne Shortridge. Time in Court: (11:57 to 12:26). Plaintiff Attorney(s) present: Lori Rifkin. Defendant Attorney(s) present: Peter Bertling. This is a text only Minute Entry. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/18/2015) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
93 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Plaintiffs' Deposition of Defendant Scott Miller filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Filed on 8/25/2015) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
94 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SCOT MILLER (granting 93 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/25/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
95 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING: Discovery Hearing set for 8/31/2015 at 1:00 PM (SPECIAL SET) in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2015) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal: Mid−Deposition Dispute hearing held on 8/31/2015. The court permits Ms. Rifkin to ask questions about Correctional Medical Group Company and Southwest Corrections Medical Group that are focused on the events at issue in this case at the time of the events at issue. Ms. Rifkin may ask questions regarding Dr. Fithian's compensation and net worth. The court will also permit questions regarding the date of formation of Southwest Corrections Medical Group and Correctional Medical Group Company and what relationship Dr. Fithian had with these companies at the time Mr. Claypole suffered his injuries. In order to explore what relationship Dr. Fithian may have formed following the events at issue, Plaintiff will first need to lay foundation that these entities were formed at

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 14 of 30

09/09/2015 09/09/2015
09/09/2015 09/21/2015 09/22/2015 09/22/2015 09/22/2015 09/23/2015 09/23/2015
09/24/2015 09/30/2015 10/02/2015

the time of the incidents. The court denies Mr. Bertling's request to extend deadline to depose Dr. Fithian. FTR Time (1:12 to 1:25) Plaintiff Attorney(s) present (telephonically): Lori Rifkin and Joshua Piovia−Scott. Defendant Attorney(s) present (telephonically): Peter Bertling, Irv Grant, Murlie Hanson and Kim Hara. Also present: Dr. Taylor Fithian. This is a text only Minute Entry. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/31/2015) Modified on 9/1/2015 (ofr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/01/2015)
97 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City of Monterey, Brent Hall. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 9/23/2015. Replies due by 9/30/2015. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 9/9/2015) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
98 Statement re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment Separate Statement by City of Monterey, Brent Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Philip Bitter, # 2 Declaration Brent Hall, # 3 Declaration Jeff Jackson, # 4 Declaration Bryan Kruse, # 5 Declaration Jeremiah Ruttschow, # 6 Declaration Ryan M. Thompson, # 7 Exhibit Exhs A−U, Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhs A−U, Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhs A−U, Part 3, # 10 Exhibit Exhs A−U, Part 4, # 11 Exhibit Exhs A−U, Part 5)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 9/9/2015) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
99 Proposed Order re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment by City of Monterey, Brent Hall. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 9/9/2015) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
100 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
101 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND SHERIFF GREG MUNKS WITH PREJUDICE, AND ORDER THEREON filed by County of San Mateo, Greg Munks. (Levy, David) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
102 ORDER APPROVING 101 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND SHERIFF GREG MUNKS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/22/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
103 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 100 REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSIVE SEPARATE STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/22/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
104 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Dismissal of Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula filed by Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. (Tabari, Cyrus) (Filed on 9/23/2015) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
105 RESPONSE (re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Responsive Statement, # 2 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support − Volume 1(Part 1 of 2), # 3 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support − Volume 1(Part 2 of 2), # 4 of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support − Volume 2, # 5 Proposed Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 9/23/2015) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
106 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA (approving 104 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/24/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2015) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
107 REPLY (re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Reply Separate Statement, # 2 Declaration of Ryan Thompson, # 3 Declaration of Philip Bitter, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits V through BB)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 9/30/2015) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
108 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint re Substitution of Doe Deft. filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 1/28/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 10/16/2015. Replies due by 10/23/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Tajsar

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 15 of 30

10/05/2015
10/06/2015 10/08/2015 10/14/2015
10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/16/2015
10/23/2015 10/28/2015 11/04/2015 11/06/2015
11/09/2015 11/09/2015

Decl. and Exhibits in Support of Pltfs' Mtn for Leave to Substitute Det. Kruse as Doe Deft − Volume 1 of 2 (Part 1), # 2 Tajsar Decl. and Exhibits in Support of Pltfs' Mtn for Leave to Substitute Det. Kruse as Doe Deft − Volume 1 of 2 (Part 2), # 3 Tajsar Decl. and Exhibits in Support of Pltfs' Mtn for Leave to Substitute Det. Kruse as Doe Deft − Volume 2 of 2, # 4 Proposed Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 10/2/2015) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
109 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING MOTION HEARING as to 108 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint re Substitution of Doe Deft.. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2015) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING TIME OF FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2015) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
111 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING MOTION HEARING re ( 108 ). Motion hearing reset for 11/12/2015 at 9:00 AM before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 3 Exhibit A to Bertling Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Bertling Declaration, # 5 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
113 Proposed Order re 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
114 RESPONSE (re 108 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint re Substitution of Doe Deft. ) filed byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Bryan Kruse, # 2 Declaration Ryan Thompson, # 3 Exhibit Exhs. A through F, # 4 Proposed Order Denying Motion)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 10/16/2015) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
115 REPLY (re 108 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint re Substitution of Doe Deft. ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar in Support of Reply to Defts' Opposition)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 10/23/2015) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
116 RESPONSE (re 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Defts' Mtn to Join Parties)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
117 REPLY (re 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties ) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Saunders, Jemma) (Filed on 11/4/2015) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
118 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at the November 12, 2015, 9:00 a.m., hearing on Defendants City of Monterey and Office Hall's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Peter G. Bertling, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/6/2015) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
119 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Irven L. Grant, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 11/9/2015) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
120 ORDER GRANTING 118 DEFENDANTS CFMG AND TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D.'S REQUEST TO MAKE A TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT THE

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 16 of 30

11/09/2015 11/10/2015 11/12/2015
11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/19/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015

NOVEMBER 12, 2015 HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND OFFICER BRENT HALL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/9/2015. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
121 ORDER GRANTING 119 DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYE'S REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE NOVEMBER 12, 2015 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND OFFICER BRENT HALL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/9/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 12/15/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 11/24/2015. Replies due by 12/1/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin and Exhibits in Support of Mtn for Sanctions & to Compel Discovery, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Mtn for Sanctions & to Compel Discovery)(Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 11/10/2015) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman: Motion Hearing held on 11/12/2015 re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Brent Hall, City of Monterey, 108 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint re Substitution of Doe Deft. filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. The Court takes the matters under submission. Court Reporter Name: Summer Fisher. Plaintiff Attorney: Dan Stormer, Mohammad Toysar. Defendant Attorney: Ryan Thompson, Peter Bertling, Irven Grant. This is a text only Minute Entry (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
124 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 11/30/2015. Replies due by 12/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, # 2 Separate Statement, # 3 Declaration Peter G. Bertling, # 4 Exhibit A to Declaration of Peter G. Bertling)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
125 EXHIBITS B, C, D and E to the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C to the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 2 Exhibit D to the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit E to Bertling Declaration)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
126 EXHIBITS re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Proposed Order filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G to the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 2 Exhibit H to the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Related document(s) 124 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/16/2015) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
127 MOTION for Leave to File Combined Affirmative Motion for Summary Judgment & Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 11/19/2015) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
128 RESPONSE (re 127 MOTION for Leave to File Combined Affirmative Motion for Summary Judgment & Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ) Declaration of Jemma Parker Saunders in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Saunders, Jemma) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
129 Supplemental Brief re 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Related document(s) 105 , 97 ) (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 17 of 30

11/20/2015 11/23/2015
11/24/2015 11/24/2015 11/25/2015 11/25/2015 11/25/2015
11/25/2015 12/01/2015 12/01/2015 12/02/2015 12/04/2015

130 Supplemental Brief re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment , re Castro v County of Los Angeles, filed byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 11/20/2015) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
131 ORDER GRANTING 127 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMBINED AFFIRMATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., AND TAYLOR FITHIAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff's Opposition/Cross−Motion due by 12/7/2015. Defendants' Reply/Opposition due by 12/28/2015. Plaintiffs' reply due by 1/4/2016. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/23/2015. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2015) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
132 ***FILED IN ERROR − DISREGARD***TRANSCRIPT ORDER − CJA for Court Reporter Lee−Anne Shortridge. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/24/2015) Modified on 11/25/2015 (sp, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/25/2015 (sp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/24/2015)
133 RESPONSE (re 122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery ) Declaration of Peter G. Bertling filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/24/2015) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
134 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 11/25/2015) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
135 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by California Forensic Medical Group for Court Reporter Lee−Anne Shortridge. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 11/25/2015) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
136 Transcript of Proceedings held on 8−18−15, before Judge Paul S. Grewal. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lee−Anne Shortridge, telephone number 408−287−4580 email: lee−anne_shortridge@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 135 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/23/2016. (Related documents(s) 135 ) (las, ) (Filed on 11/25/2015) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
137 ORDER DENYING 134 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYE'S MOTION TO EXCEED OTHERWISE APPLICABLE PAGE LIMITATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/25/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2015) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
138 Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions filed by California Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 12/1/2015) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
139 REPLY (re 122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit L)(Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 12/1/2015) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
140 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 138 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2015) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
141 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, filed by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 12/18/2015. Replies due by 12/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 2 Declaration Irven L. Grant, # 3 Declaration Cmdr. James Bass, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate/Proof of

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 18 of 30

12/07/2015 12/07/2015
12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/18/2015
12/23/2015 12/23/2015 12/28/2015

Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 12/4/2015) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
142 RESPONSE (re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) and Affirmative MSJ filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Moving Separate Statement, # 2 Responsive Sep Statement, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
143 EXHIBITS re 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, & Declaration of Lori Rifkin filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Volume 1 (Part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibits Volume 2 (Part 1 of 2), # 3 Exhibits Volume 2 (Part 2 of 2), # 4 Exhibits Volume 3 (Part 1 of 2), # 5 Exhibits Volume 3 (Part 2 of 2), # 6 Exhibits Volume 4 (Part 1 of 2), # 7 Exhibits Volume 4 (Part 2 of 2), # 8 Exhibits Volume 5 (Part 1 of 2), # 9 Exhibits Volume 5 (Part 2 of 2), # 10 Exhibits Volume 6, # 11 Exhibits Volume 7, # 12 Exhibits Volume 8)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
144 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 12/8/2015) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
145 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT CHIEF PHILIP PENKO'S STATUS PERTAINING TO CITY OF MONTEREY AND OFFICER BRENT HALL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (approving 144 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/8/2015. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 12/24/2015. Replies due by 12/31/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Separate Statement, # 2 Proposed Order)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 12/10/2015) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
147 Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of 146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Volume 1 (Part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibit Volume 1 (Part 2 of 2), # 3 Exhibit Volume 2 (Part 1 of 2), # 4 Exhibit Volume 2 (Part 2 of 2), # 5 Exhibit Volume 3 (Part 1 of 2), # 6 Exhibit Volume 3 (Part 2 of 2), # 7 Exhibit Volume 4 (Part 1 of 2), # 8 Exhibit Volume 4 (Part 2 of 2))(Related document(s) 146 ) (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 12/10/2015) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
148 RESPONSE (re 141 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Responsive Separate Statement, # 2 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs' Opp to Defts' MSJ − Volume 1 (Part 1 of 2), # 3 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs' Opp to Defts' MSJ − Volume 1 (Part 2 of 2), # 4 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs' Opp to Defts' MSJ − Volume 2 (Part 1 of 2), # 5 Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs' Opp to Defts' MSJ − Volume 2 (Part 2 of 2), # 6 Proposed Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 12/18/2015) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
149 RESPONSE (re 146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Irven L. Grant, # 2 Declaration of Cmdr. Johnathan Thornburg, # 3 Declaration Response to Plaintiffs' Separate Statement, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 12/23/2015) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
150 RESPONSE (re 146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 12/23/2015) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
151 REPLY (re 141 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 12/28/2015) (Entered: 12/28/2015)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 19 of 30

12/28/2015 12/30/2015
12/30/2015 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 01/04/2016 01/05/2016
01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/13/2016 01/13/2016

152 RESPONSE (re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement, # 2 Declaration Peter G. Bertling, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Declaration Taylor Fithian, M.D., # 5 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 12/28/2015) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
153 NOTICE OF DECISION REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND OFFICER BRENT HALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig re 129 Supplemental Brief (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 12/30/2015) Modified on 12/31/2015 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2015)
154 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING TIME AND COURTROOM LOCATION FOR JANUARY 5, 2016 MOTION HEARING, resetting 122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery: Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2016 at 4:45 PM (SPECIAL SET) in Courtroom 1, 5th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2015) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
155 Brief re 153 Notice (Other), Response to Pltfs' Notice re Castro case, filed 12−30−15 filed byCity of Monterey, Brent Hall, Philip Penko. (Related document(s) 153 ) (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 12/31/2015) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
156 REPLY (re 146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Reply Separate Statement)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 12/31/2015) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
157 CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING TIME ON JANUARY 5, 2016 MOTION HEARING, advancing time as to 122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery: 1/5/2016 4:45 PM Motion Hearing is advanced to 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2015) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
158 REPLY (re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants CFMG and Fithian filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Reply Separate Statement of Facts)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 1/4/2016) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
159 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal: Motion Hearing held on 1/5/2016 re 122 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery: Oral arguments presented. The court takes matter under submission; written order to be issued. Court Reporter Name: Lee−Anne Shortridge. Time in Court: 9:59 to 10:27. Plaintiff Attorney(s) present: Lori Rifkin and Dan Stormer. Defendant Attorney present: Peter Bertling. This is a text only Minute Entry. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/5/2016) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
160 ORDER GRANTING 97 DEFENDANT HALL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING 97 CITY OF MONTEREY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND DENYING 108 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE DETECTIVE KRUSE AS A DOE DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/12/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
161 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 122 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
162 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at January 14, 2016, Hearings on the Parties' Summary Judgment Motions filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Supp of Motion to Appear by Telephone, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
163 ORDER GRANTING 162 PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT THE JANUARY 14, 2016 HEARINGS ON THE PARTIES' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 20 of 30

01/13/2016 01/14/2016
01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/18/2016 01/19/2016 01/22/2016
01/25/2016 01/25/2016

Freeman on 1/13/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
164 NOTICE OF ERRATA RE 160 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HALL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING CITY OF MONTEREY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE DETECTIVE KRUSE AS A DOE DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/13/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman: Motion Hearing held on 1/14/2016 re 141 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, filed by E. Kaye, Scott Miller, County Of Monterey, 146 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against County of Monterey and Sheriff Miller filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig, 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian, 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by California Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. Additional briefing on motion for joinder due by 01/28/2016. The Court takes the matters under submission. Case referred to Judge Cousins for settlement purposes. Court Reporter Name: Summer Fisher, Time in Court: 9:53 − 11:15.Plaintiff Attorney: Joshua Piovia−Scott, Lori Rifkin, Mohammad K. Tajsar. Defendant Attorney: Irven L Grant, Peter George Bertling. This is a text only Minute Entry (tshS, COURT STAFF)(Date Filed: 1/14/2016) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
166 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by County Of Monterey, E. Kaye, Scott Miller for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 1/15/2016) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
167 Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of 161 Order on Motion for Sanctions filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dan Stormer in Support of Fee Petition)(Related document(s) 161 ) (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 1/15/2016) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
168 Declaration of Peter G. Bertling in Support of 161 Order on Motion for Sanctions in Compliance with the Honorable Paul Grewal's January 12, 2016 Order Granting Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Discovery filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group, Taylor Fithian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Related document(s) 161 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 1/18/2016) (Entered: 01/18/2016)
169 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by California Forensic Medical Group for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 1/19/2016) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
170 Transcript of Proceedings held on 01/14/2016, before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Summer Fisher, telephone number 408−288−6150 summer_fisher@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 166 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2016. (Related documents(s) 166 ) (Fisher, Summer) (Filed on 1/22/2016) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
171 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE: Status Conference set for 1/25/2016 at 3:15 PM (SPECIAL SET) in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Parties requesting to appear telephonically are instructed to contact CourtCall at 866−582−6878 to arrange for telephonic appearance. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
172 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal: Status Conference held on 1/25/2016. Mr. Bertling is allowed to pay full amount of attorneys fees within 21 days. FTR Time: 3:32 to 3:44. Plaintiff Attorney present (telephonically): Lori Rifkin. Defendant Attorney(s) present (telephonically): Peter Bertling and Irven Grant. This is a text only Minute Entry. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 21 of 30

01/26/2016 01/28/2016 02/04/2016 02/11/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016
02/23/2016
03/02/2016 03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/17/2016
03/17/2016

173 Supplemental Brief re 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Related document(s) 112 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 1/26/2016) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
174 Supplemental Brief re 112 MOTION for Joinder of Parties filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Related document(s) 112 ) (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 1/28/2016) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
175 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER − Settlement Conference set for 2/23/2016 12:00 PM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/4/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2016) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
176 ORDER DENYING 112 MOTION OF DEFENDANTS CFMG AND FITHIAN TO JOIN PATRICIO CLAYPOLE AS A PARTY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/11/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
177 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING Settlement Conference to 11:00 AM on 2/23/2016 before Magistrate Judge Cousins in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2016) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
178 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 141 COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 146 PLAINTIFFS' CROSS−MOTION; AND GRANTING IN PART 124 MEDICAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 142 PLAINTIFFS' CROSS−MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/22/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2016) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
179 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Settlement Conference held on 2/23/2016: discussions continue; response to settlement proposal due 2/26 4:00 PM. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Dan Stormer, Lori Rifkin. Attorney for County of Monterey Defendants: Susan Blitch. Attorney for CFMG Defendants: Peter Bertling. Attorneys for City of Monterey Defendants: Vincent Hurley, Ryan Thompson. (FTR Time Not recorded.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/23/2016) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
180 Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of 161 Order on Motion for Sanctions filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Related document(s) 161 ) (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/2/2016) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
181 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING Further Settlement Conference for 3/28/2016 10:00 AM. Courtroom location to be determined. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2016) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
Set Hearing: Further Settlement Conference set for 3/28/2016 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Cousins in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2016) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
182 Docketed in Error; Please see document number 189 for correction. MOTION in Limine No. 1 filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan Thompson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) Modified on 3/18/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2016)
183 MOTION in Limine No. 1 filed by California Forensic Medical Group. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 22 of 30

03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016

184 Docketed in Error; Please See document Number 190 for correction. MOTION in Limine No. 2 filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan Thompson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) Modified on 3/18/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2016)
185 Docketed in Error; Please see document number 191 for correction. MOTION in Limine No. 3 filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) Modified on 3/18/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2016)
186 MOTION in Limine No. 2 filed by California Forensic Medical Group. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
187 MOTION in Limine No. 3 filed by California Forensic Medical Group. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. Replies due by 3/31/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
188 EXHIBITS re 187 MOTION in Limine No. 3 filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Related document(s) 187 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
189 MOTION in Limine No. 1 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 182 , [182−1], [182−2]) filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan Thompson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
190 MOTION in Limine No. 2 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 184 , [184−1], [184−2]) filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan Thompson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
191 MOTION in Limine No. 3 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 185 , [185−1]) filed by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
192 MOTION in Limine #1 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Time Claypole Spent in Administrative Segregation filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Captain James Bass, # 2 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
193 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Lock Down" filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
194 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding County Supervision Over CFMG Employees and Medical/Mental Health Matters filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 23 of 30

03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016
03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016

195 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Reports and Expert Discovery from Hernandez v. County of Monterey filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
196 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Hernandez v. County of Monterey filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
197 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Hanging Points" filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
198 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding 2007 and 2011 Monterey County Jail Needs Assessments filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
199 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Any Reference to Subsequent Suicides or Attempted Suicides in the Jail filed by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
200 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller re 194 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding County Supervision Over CFMG Employees and Medical/Mental Health Matters, 192 MOTION in Limine #1 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Time Claypole Spent in Administrative Segregation, 199 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Any Reference to Subsequent Suicides or Attempted Suicides in the Jail, 198 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding 2007 and 2011 Monterey County Jail Needs Assessments, 195 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Reports and Expert Discovery from Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 193 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Lock Down", 197 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Hanging Points", 196 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Hernandez v. County of Monterey (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
201 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Specific Testimony by Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof and Defendant Fithian and Have Adverse Inferences Drawn filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
202 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof from Testifying that Defendants were not Deliberately Indifferent and Provided Constitutionally Sufficient Care filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
203 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Introduction or Reference to Document Bates−Stamped JC 3816; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 24 of 30

03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016

204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
205 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendant Taylor Fithian from Testifying as an Expert; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
206 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About the City of Monterey's Duty to Joshua Claypole filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
207 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Reference to Patricio Claypole's Involvement in this Suit filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
208 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Joshua Claypole's Sexual Orientation; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
209 Pretrial Conference Statement by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller Objections. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
210 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Limit Prejudicial Reference, Evidence, or Argument Relating to Joshua Claypole's Arrest filed by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/24/2016. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
211 Pretrial Conference Statement by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig and All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Witness Lists & Ex. A−1, # 2 Appendix B − Joint Trial Exhibit List, # 3 Appendix C − Discovery Responses & Exs. C−1 −− C−4)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/17/2016) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
212 Pretrial Conference Statement by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller Supplemental. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
213 Pretrial Conference Statement by California Forensic Medical Group Supplemental. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
214 Proposed Order re 210 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Limit Prejudicial Reference, Evidence, or Argument Relating to Joshua Claypole's Arrest by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
215 Proposed Order re 201 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Specific Testimony by Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof and Defendant Fithian and Have Adverse Inferences Drawn by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
216 Proposed Order re 205 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendant Taylor Fithian from Testifying as an Expert; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
217 Proposed Order re 202 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof from Testifying that Defendants were not Deliberately Indifferent

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 25 of 30

03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/22/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016
03/24/2016 03/24/2016

and Provided Constitutionally Sufficient Care by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
218 Proposed Order re 206 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About the City of Monterey's Duty to Joshua Claypole by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
219 Proposed Order re 207 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Reference to Patricio Claypole's Involvement in this Suit by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
220 Proposed Order re 208 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Joshua Claypole's Sexual Orientation; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
221 Proposed Order re 203 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Introduction or Reference to Document Bates−Stamped JC 3816; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibit in Support Thereof by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
222 Proposed Order re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/18/2016) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
223 MOTION Excuse Appearance at Trial filed by Scott Miller. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Scott Miller, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/22/2016) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
224 NOTICE of Appearance by Janet L. Holmes (Holmes, Janet) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
225 NOTICE of Appearance by William Merrill Litt (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Litt, William) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
226 RESPONSE (re 191 MOTION in Limine No. 3 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 185 , [185−1]) ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND CHIEF PHILIP PENKOS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: TO PRECLUDE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENTS filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
227 RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine No. 3 ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP AND TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D.S MOTION IN LIMINE THREE (3) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND PRACTICES filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
228 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR MARCH 28, 2016; AND SETTING JURY INSTRUCTION CONFERENCE FOR APRIL 1, 2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/28/2016, immediately following Settlement Conference, in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. Jury Instruction Conference set for 4/1/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/24/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
229 RESPONSE (re 210 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Limit Prejudicial Reference, Evidence, or Argument Relating to Joshua Claypole's Arrest ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Captain James Bass)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
230 RESPONSE (re 201 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Specific Testimony by Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof and Defendant Fithian and Have Adverse Inferences Drawn ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 26 of 30

03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016

3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
231 RESPONSE (re 205 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendant Taylor Fithian from Testifying as an Expert; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
232 RESPONSE (re 202 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof from Testifying that Defendants were not Deliberately Indifferent and Provided Constitutionally Sufficient Care ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
233 RESPONSE (re 206 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About the City of Monterey's Duty to Joshua Claypole ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
234 RESPONSE (re 207 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Reference to Patricio Claypole's Involvement in this Suit ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
235 RESPONSE (re 189 MOTION in Limine No. 1 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 182 , [182−1], [182−2]) ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND CHIEF PHILIP PENKOS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: TO PERMIT EVIDENCE OF CRIME SCENE; DECLARATION OF MOHAMMAD TAJSAR IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
236 RESPONSE (re 208 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Joshua Claypole's Sexual Orientation; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
237 RESPONSE (re 203 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Introduction or Reference to Document Bates−Stamped JC 3816; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibit in Support Thereof ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
238 RESPONSE (re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof ) filed byCounty Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
239 RESPONSE (re 205 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendant Taylor Fithian from Testifying as an Expert; Declaration of Mohammad Tajsar and Exhibit in Support Thereof ) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
240 RESPONSE (re 193 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Lock Down" ) filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
241 RESPONSE (re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof ) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bertling, # 2 Exhibit A)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
242 RESPONSE (re 197 MOTION in Limine No. 6 to Exclude use of or Testimony Regarding Phrase "Hanging Points" ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYES MOTION IN LIMINE #6 TO EXCLUDE USE OF OR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PHRASE HANGING POINTS; DECLARATION OF MOHAMMAD TAJSAR AND EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
243 Proposed Voir Dire by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig . (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 27 of 30

03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016

244 Proposed Form of Verdict by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig − Phase 1. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Proposed Verdict Form − Phase 2, # 2 Plaintiffs' Proposed Verdict Form − Damages Phase, # 3 Plaintiffs' Proposed Verdict Form − Punitive Damages Phase)(Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
245 RESPONSE (re 198 MOTION in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding 2007 and 2011 Monterey County Jail Needs Assessments ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYES MOTION IN LIMINE #7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING 2007 AND 2011 MONTEREY COUNTY JAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENTS filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
246 Statement (Preliminary) to the Jury by Plaintiffs by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
247 Proposed Jury Instructions by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller . (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
248 Proposed Form of Verdict by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller . (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
249 Proposed Voir Dire by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller . (Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
250 Statement Proposed Preliminary Statement to Jury by County Of Monterey, Scott Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Grant, Irven) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
251 EXHIBITS re 241 Opposition/Response to Motion, to plaintiff's motion in limine number nine filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Related document(s) 241 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
252 Statement of Non−Opposition re 190 MOTION in Limine No. 2 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 184 , [184−1], [184−2]) PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF NON−OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND CHIEF PHILIP PENKOS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT DR. RAYMOND PATTERSON FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL REGARDING THE CITYS ALLEGED LIABILITY OR CUSTODY OF CLAYPOLE filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Related document(s) 190 ) (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
253 EXHIBITS re 241 Opposition/Response to Motion, to plaintiff's motion in limine number nine filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 241 ) (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
254 Joinder re 199 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Any Reference to Subsequent Suicides or Attempted Suicides in the Jail by California Forensic Medical Group. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
255 TRIAL BRIEF by California Forensic Medical Group. (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
256 Proposed Jury Instructions by California Forensic Medical Group . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
257 RESPONSE (re 210 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Limit Prejudicial Reference, Evidence, or Argument Relating to Joshua Claypole's Arrest ) filed byCity of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan M. Thompson, # 2 Manual Filing Notification)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
258 RESPONSE (re 206 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Argument About the City of Monterey's Duty to Joshua Claypole ) filed byCity of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan M. Thompson, # 2 Declaration of Hall, # 3 Declaration of Kruse)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered:

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 28 of 30

03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016
03/24/2016
03/24/2016
03/24/2016

03/24/2016)
259 CORRECTED RESPONSE (re 191 MOTION in Limine No. 3 (CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 185 , [185−1]) ) PLAINTIFFS CORRECTED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF MONTEREY AND CHIEF PHILIP PENKOS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: TO PRECLUDE GOLDEN RULE ARGUMENTS filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) Modified on 3/25/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2016)
260 RESPONSE (re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof ) filed byCity of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ryan M. Thompson)(Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
261 Proposed Voir Dire by City of Monterey, Philip Penko . (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
262 Proposed Form of Verdict by City of Monterey, Philip Penko . (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
263 Proposed Jury Instructions by City of Monterey, Philip Penko . (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
264 Statement (Preliminary to Jury) by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
265 RESPONSE (re 199 MOTION in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Any Reference to Subsequent Suicides or Attempted Suicides in the Jail ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYES MOTION IN LIMINE #8 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING, AND ANY REFERENCE TO SUBSEQUENT SUICIDES OR ATTEMPTED SUICIDES IN THE JAIL filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
266 RESPONSE (re 194 MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding County Supervision Over CFMG Employees and Medical/Mental Health Matters ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYES MOTION IN LIMINE #3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING COUNTY SUPERVISION/ OVERSIGHT OVER CFMG EMPLOYEES AND MEDICAL/MENTAL MATTERS filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
267 CORRECTED RESPONSE (re 187 MOTION in Limine No. 3 ) PLAINTIFFS CORRECTED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP AND TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D.S MOTION IN LIMINE THREE (3) TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND PRACTICES filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/24/2016) Modified on 3/25/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2016)
268 RESPONSE (re 195 MOTION in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Reports and Expert Discovery from Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 196 MOTION in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 186 MOTION in Limine No. 2, 183 MOTION in Limine No. 1 ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP AND TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D.S MOTIONS IN LIMINE ONE (1) & TWO (2) and DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND SHERIFF MILLERS MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOUR (4) & FIVE (5) TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES AND EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH HERNANDEZ V. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, ET AL.; DECLARATION OF LORI RIFKIN AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
269 Proposed Jury Instructions by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig and All Defendants. (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 29 of 30

03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/28/2016
03/28/2016

270 Proposed Jury Instructions by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Disputed). (Stormer, Dan) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
271 RESPONSE (re 192 MOTION in Limine #1 to Exclude Evidence or Testimony Regarding Time Claypole Spent in Administrative Segregation ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF MONTEREY, SHERIFF SCOTT MILLER AND SERGEANT E. KAYES MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF TIME CLAYPOLE SPENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION OR THE ALLEGED LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION; DECLARATION OF MOHAMMAD TAJSAR & EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed byJoshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
272 Proposed Voir Dire by California Forensic Medical Group . (Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
273 Joinder re 250 Statement Preliminary Statement to the Jury by California Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
Electronic filing error. Document filed in wrong case. [err401]Please re−file in its entirety. Re: 241 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by California Forensic Medical Group (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
274 RESPONSE (re 204 MOTION in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Late−Disclosed Witnesses and Documents; Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin and Exhibits in Support Thereof ) Corrected Response filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
275 RESPONSE (re 201 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Specific Testimony by Defendants' Experts Hayward and Roof and Defendant Fithian and Have Adverse Inferences Drawn ) filed byCalifornia Forensic Medical Group. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bertling, # 2 Exhibit)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
276 Proposed Form of Verdict by California Forensic Medical Group . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Bertling, Peter) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
277 OBJECTIONS to re 211 Pretrial Conference Statement, Appendix B (Doc 211−2) by Joshua Claypole. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
278 ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ECF 247 , 256 , 263 , 269 , 270 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/25/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
279 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Further Settlement Conference held on 3/28/2016: Case fully settled; dismissal expected within 48 hours. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Joshua Piovia−Scott, Lori Rifkin. Attorneys for County of Monterey Defendants: Irven Grant, Charles McKee. Attorney for CFMG Defendants: Peter Bertling. Attorney for City of Monterey Defendants: Vincent Hurley. (FTR Time Not reported.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/28/2016) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
280 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/28/2016.The Court orders all dates and deadlines terminated. Parties are to file a Stipulation to Dismiss or a Status Report within 100 days (due 07/06/2016).FTR Time: 3:03 − 3:08. Plaintiff Attorney: Joshua Piovia−Scott, Lori Rifkin. Defendant Attorney: Irven Grant, Peter Bertling, Vincent Hurley. This is a text only Minute Entry (tshS, COURT STAFF)(Date Filed: 3/28/2016) (Entered: 03/29/2016)

Case: 5:14-cv-2730 As of: 03/25/2018 02:27 PM PDT 30 of 30

03/30/2016 03/30/2016
03/30/2016 05/03/2016
05/12/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/08/2016 07/21/2016 07/21/2016

281 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Entire Action by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: Dismissal of Entire Action)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Filed on 3/30/2016) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
282 ***FILED IN ERROR, PLEASE SEE ECF 283 FOR CORRECT ENTRY*** ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/30/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016) Modified on 3/30/2016 (blflc1S, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/30/2016 (blflc1S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2016)
283 ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION (approving 281 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/3/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
284 MOTION to Relate Case and Proposed Order filed by Estate of Sandra Vela. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related)(Rifkin, Lori) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
285 ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/12/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2016) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
286 STATUS REPORT re Settlement by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/6/2016) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
287 STATUS REPORT by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 7/6/2016) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
288 ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR FURTHER STATUS REPORTS. Status Reports due by 7/21/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2016) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
289 STATUS REPORT re Settlement by Joshua Claypole, Silvia Guersenzvaig. (Tajsar, Mohammad) (Filed on 7/21/2016) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
290 STATUS REPORT re Settlement by City of Monterey, Philip Penko. (Thompson, Ryan) (Filed on 7/21/2016) (Entered: 07/21/2016)