il

il

it

il

\

lt li

\

tl

i,

'::::-.[:D

tl

q'ti

Y

ii

ii

. f r 'l r' i! r I 1 l

"1

il

.',''|

ri

li
ri
tl

ir

IN TTTEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
il
t:
i i B A R , B A R AD O T Y , !t a I . ,

i,

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-89-10I9

LKK JFM P

vs.

C O U N T VO F L A S S E N , e t a I . ,

Defendants.

FTNDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter came on regularl-y for hearing on defendants' motion to vacate, dissolve or rnodify the prelirninary injunction on August L5, L99L. After considering the briefs in support and in opposition to the motion, after hearing the arguments of counsel a n d g o o d c a u s e a p p e a r i n g t h e r e f o r , f T I S H E R E B YR E C O M M E N D Et hDa t :
The October 18, 1989 preliminary injunction be modified as f oll-ows:
a. The Sheriff shall be required to release inmates from the Lassen County Detention Facility (rrNewJaiItr) when the inmate \\\\

\

1 popu.Lation exceeds the then-current population capacity as

o dete:rmined by the Board of Corrections;

b. ParagraPhs 5' 6' and 7 are vacated;

J
4 (

shal.I

c" The remaining Provisions remain in force as applied' to

of the PreliminarY injunction the Lassen CountY Jaj-I ("OId

6 Jail"rr) onIY '

7
o

Thesefindingsandrecommend.ationsaresubrnitte<lto'L.he

Honrcrable LAWRENCEK" KARLTON' United States District

Judge'

I pursuanttotheprovisionsofTitle28U.S.c.s636(h)(I).Wittr-in 1 0 ten days after being served with these findings and

11
1a IL

reoommendations,anYpartymayfi}ewrittenobjectionswitht}re

court and serve a copy on al-r parties.

such a document

should

kre

13 14
16

captioned''objectionstoMagistrateJudge'sFindingsand Recommendations'rr Any reply to the objections shall be filed within ten days after service of the objections'

served and The Part. -ies

1 6 are advised that failure

to f,i-Ie okrjections within the speci-f ied

1 7 time may waive the right to appeal t'he District

Courtrs order. , 8 6 3 I'. 2d 633

1B

1 O ( 9 t h c i r . L e E B )'

ZV D;\TED: sePtember /2' 1991'
r'l
o{ LI
L

TED STATES MAGISTRATF.I

23 J F M :c a : m I

24

25

26

FPF'*''

I'NITED E;;;;;;

ATETES DIS:TRICT -COURII oi=tti"t or calirornia

650 CaPitol MalI

Sacramento,
einrrrrcArn

CA 9581-4-
oF sERvrcE

)

Barbara DotYr et al'

)

)

\

)

CountY of: Lassen' "J-lt'

.)

elv-

s 89-1019 LKI( JFM P

T, the office

undersigned, trel-elY c- perGtitfryf c t of tfre'Cteitc, U.S.

that I am an emplovee in Couit' Eastern nist'r-ict

the of

Califo:rnia

SERVICE BYi-UAIL

Roberta Franklin
iis cuPitol MalI'

loth

Floor

st"r"^Lttt", cA 95814-4686

PauI ComiskeY ,lio t street,

Po Box 1ol9

i""t"*.,.to,

CA 95814-1019

Richar<l P. Herman 229 Ma.rine Ave ' PO Box 328 Balboa rsland, cA 92662

Paul Persons 1834 lrroYo CanYon
Chico I cA 95928

Harold L' Abbott Po Box 909 Susanville, CA 96130

Dan Stormer 3550 Whilshire Blvd' Los A.ngeles, cA 90010

vED BY INTER-oFFIeE
MBlLKK SS/JFM

 
 ,$fPI pl99t
Z

4
6
6

T

B

IN THA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COI]RT
v

10

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

,l ;l

D O T Y , !t a I . '

.lz

Plaintif,fs,.

N o . C I V S - 8 9 ' 1 O l - 9 T - , K KJ F M P

t5

OF LASSEN, et aI. o

Def end.ants.

ORDER

plaintifts havb not,iced a motion to reconsicler' moctrify and

: arrqment ttre findings
:

and reconrmendatiohs

issued in this case on

Arrgustlr'1'gg1rforhearingonSeptember]-9'1"991at9a"In"The

F.indings and Reeommendatiotls are presentl-y hefore the dis'b'rict

: court, together

with plaintiffs'

objecti -ons' which itrcorPorate

the

:noticed motion. Aocordingly, praintiffs'

moti.on is inelppropriafery

noticed f-or hearin$ before this court. Plaintiffs have also

noLiced a motion for the award of interim att'rneys|

fees for ttre

same,time 6hd date. Because finar judgmen'b is imminento after

Wnicf,rpx,aintif,.f s rna},move f o;r3ltofneVs'

f ees f or the entire

| I

';', rq

1 li.t:Lgation, thJ-s court, finds bhat a piecemeal determination of a pla:Lntiffsr cLaim to attorneys' fees' is unwarranted at Lhis time' ,3 Accprdingfy, IT IS HEREBYORDEREDthat, the hearing on plaintiffs' 4 "rnot:ions to reconsider, modify and augrnent the Findings and q Recrcmmendations and f or an interim award of atto::neys I f ees tlot"iced o f o r S !p t e m b e r 1 9 , L 9 9 1 " a ' b 9 a . m . i s v a c a t e d .

7 DAT.ED: September /.8, 8

l-sgL "

9 ITED STA S PIAGISTRATE JUDGE
10

11

12

13

14

IJ

16

J

17

18

19

zv
^z {l

zz
23 24 25 zo

Do.ty

, IggI * * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2: B9-cv-01019

Lassen

It the unders:Lgned, hereby certify that the clerk, u-ri. District court, Eistern

r am an employee in the office District of ciiirornia-

of

PauI lVayne Comislcey P O Box 101.9
2310 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-1019

a true and correct copy(ies; of )_in a_postage paid envetope listed, by deposi.Ling saih ng said co_Fy(ies) int,o an inter_office rk' s of fi_ce.
MBlLKK
SSruF'M

Richar:d P Herman 229 MevLne Ave P O Box 328
BatrboeLfstrand, CA 92662 i

Paul 1l Persons
lB34 Frrroyo Canyon Chico, CA 95928

Harolol L Abbott P O Box 909 Susanv'ille,, CA 96130

Dan Le,wis Stormer
Litt and Stormer 3550 Wil_shire Boulevard Suite l-200 T,osAngeles/ CA 90010

Roberta Lee Franklin Downey Brand Seymou:: and Rohwer 555 Capitol Malt Suite 1050
Sacramento, CA 95814

I

. . 1a c k L . V / a r l n e t ' . e I r . r r - ] t J:li:
i ' l t ' rr 1 - ' r -' ' l ' ' l l i
h

 
 ffiBH-ffi:'il")

ITNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT
EASTERN DrsrRrcT oF cAL:Fonrqra fitl
F-f[s fr{

' * J iq " 4{
tiitTi'iiilI*i.iu'iiI 1-!iF.liif4u'

Barbara Dot'Y v

JUDGMENTTN A CIVTL CASE

CountY of Lassen

Case Number CIV'S-Bq-1-01-9 LIffi

rrx

Ji:Drbd:rveueee-nrcifc"YdoitisvesriVeo'ir-oeen-nTdr'tfdhht "i;eci"btt-tsc'yo ; ;vCble-i.eos"Tresudhnuirictes'trseT-' a'n'ltc?drIteahi orviie=nseds'rulce!aa"sc-mtt iietoirenihededf ocraeomar netdhhteeotahreCdt roijuaaurlnrt 'Yd

fPI-a trial
has
or hear:ing a

IT IS ORDEREDAND ADJUDGEI)
TTIoIATTIIWEDcGoIl,tIERN1T's*IS6nHnuEnREFB'Yrr.E'ENDTE9R/rE6D/9ALC' CORDING

Datra: October g , 1"99l-

Jacl<
ir"ir',

L

.
o

Wagn
f the

er'
co

urt

b y : '3--:--LA@r"4: K. t'lerrrer t DePutY Clerk

Doty
V.
La5JClt

1'rri t <..i :j;1-a Les

Dis Lr-ict

Coul't

pas te,.n ot=fii.attS,

f ornia

October 9, 7991"_.t-,

K f CERTTF]C]A1]E OF' SERV]CE )\ .I

2: ti!)-cr,- 0,10.19

I , t h e u r n d e r s i g n e d , h e r e b y c e t ^ t j - fy i l r a t I a n r a r r e n r pol y e e t h e C l e r k , U "S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t - , F l a s t e r : nD i s t , r r c r - o f C a Li I

in I lre c ) r ' r ri.tt.

L r ff

i

ce

of

That on Lhe attacl addressed envelope deliveng

october 9, -red, by pla
to the per irr the u-SI ir'i.:eptacle

199r, r cing sa son ( s ;
Maj.l,
locatecl

sERv[]D a .Llrl,.:anc id copy(ies;; jn a hereinif ter' I j st"ec or by placirrc; saicl
.i-r'rttrb Ct erk' s of

l p ll
f

cior.r'ect copy(_L ostaqe paicl *,,,
ny OepLsii_inq coly1iLs j inl,o
icb.

c:s) oi r"iop., sai cl an in

t

e

r

-

o

f

fj.cc:

Paltl Wayne Coniskel' P O Flox 1019
2310 T Street Sact,rrnent-o,CA 95814-l 0l 9

iuB,/LKl( li 1i;.-l| )j

I?i clr,r r.l P Hernan l:,rI I'{arine Ave [, (:) j-Jox 328
Bal Lroa I sl and , CA

92662

, l r r d c ; r n e u tt i l e

Ptrrrl. T Persons l-BrJ4 Arroyo Canyon Clrj.ccr, CA 95928

l-larold L AbbotL P O llox 909 S u s a n v i l l e , C A r j6 - L3i l

Dan Lewis Storrnel Litt. and Stornre.:.r. 3550 Wilshile Boulevard Suit-e 1200
Los Angeles, CA 9001.0

Roberia Lee Franklin Downey Brand Seymour ancl lloh.,ur:r: 555 Capitol Nlall
Suite 1050
Sacramento, CA 95814

Jack L- waginer, Clerk

//

BY:
K.

i'') " /' t'
:\*i*1,)1:
Wel^trer,

,
Il

,'
{f
ePu'

!a-a:r -'"-.
tY eIerj(

 
 Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 1 of 15
PRISONER_CIVIL_RIGHTS, CLOSED, STAYED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:89−cv−01019−LKK −JFM

(PC) Barbar Doty, et al v. County of Lassen, et al Assigned to: Judge Lawrence K. Karlton Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds Demand: $0
Case in other court: 93−16163
Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/25/1989 Date Terminated: 10/09/1991 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Barbara Doty

represented by Dan Lewis Stormer Hadsell and Stormer The Marine Building 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Fabricant Boutwell Fay, LLP 1 Park Place Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614−5987 949−660−0481 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina S Berry Carol H Haffner Attorney at Law 877 South Victoria Avenue Suite 205 Ventura, CA 93003 805−645−0374 TERMINATED: 04/27/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold L Abbott P O Box 909 Susanville, CA 96130 916−257−5314 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Wayne Comiskey Prisoner Rights Union 900 G Street Suite 302 Sacramento, CA 95814−1019 916−442−6868 Email: paulcomiskey@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Turner Persons Law Offices of Paul T Persons 1834 Arroyo Canyon Chico, CA 95928

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 2 of 15

916−893−4710 Email: ptpersons@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Derevan Snell and Wilmer LLP 600 Anton Blvd Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626−7689 714−427−7000 Email: rderevan@swlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard P Herman Prisoner Rights Union PO Box 4108 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 949−494−9411 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rhonda Jones

represented by Deborah Fabricant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina S Berry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay−Allen Eisen Jay−Allen Eisen Law Corporation 2431 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 444−6171 x201 Fax: (916) 441−5810 Email: jae@eisenlegal.com TERMINATED: 04/27/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Plaintiff Nick Carlsen

represented by Deborah Fabricant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina S Berry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Derevan

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 3 of 15
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Lassen
Defendant Ronald D. Jarrell

represented by Lawrence Thomas Woodlock Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−322−5901 Email: lwoodlock@fppc.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta L. Franklin Downey Brand, LLP 555 Capitol Mall 10th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444−1000 x6221 Fax: (916) 444−2100 Email: rlfranklin1@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/10/1990
05/11/1990 05/11/1990 05/11/1990 05/11/1990
05/14/1990
05/14/1990
05/14/1990 05/15/1990

# Docket Text
77 AMENDED REQUEST for RECONSIDERATION by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen for Reconsideration of Mag's ruling. (old) (Entered: 05/18/1990)
78 STATUS MEMORANDUM re: discovery by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen (old) (Entered: 05/19/1990)
79 AMENDMENT by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen to Scope of expert witness. (old) (Entered: 05/19/1990)
80 STATUS MEMORANDUM re: Discovery by defendant County Of Lassen (old) (Entered: 05/19/1990)
81 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ; Pltf's expert Dr. Rundell to inspect Lassen Co. Jail 5−18−90, parties to prepare &tender to court a proposed schedule for completion of discovery by 5−10−11. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1990)
82 MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell to compel further answers to interrogs &expenses of motion set 6/7/90 @ 9:00am JFM. (old) (Entered: 05/22/1990)
83 MEMORANDUM of Points &Authorities by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in support of motion to compel further answers to interrogs &expenses of motion [82−1] (old) (Entered: 05/22/1990)
84 DECLARATION of Roberta Lee Franklin. (old) (Entered: 05/22/1990)
85 OPPOSITION by defendant County Of Lassen to Plaintiff's amended req for reconsideration. (old) (Entered: 05/23/1990)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 4 of 15

05/15/1990 05/18/1990 05/22/1990 05/23/1990 05/25/1990
05/31/1990
05/31/1990 06/01/1990 06/01/1990 06/01/1990 06/04/1990 06/05/1990
06/06/1990 06/06/1990
06/13/1990 06/21/1990 07/03/1990 07/03/1990 07/03/1990 07/03/1990 07/03/1990 07/05/1990

86 DECLARATION of Lawrence T. Woodlock in support of oppo to pltf's amd req. for reconsideration. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
87 Supplemental DECLARATION of Lawrence T. Woodlock in support of deft's oppo to pltf's req for reconsieration. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
88 STATEMENT by defendant County Of Lassen of outstanding discovery (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
89 PROPOSED STIPULATION re: discovery disagreements. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
90 MINUTES of 5/25/90 SC; CT trial reset 6/25/90 to 716/90 @ 9:00am ; Joint pretrial stmt by 7/3/90; PTC set 7/5/90 @ 1:30pm telephonice. Defts to provide witness list in 7dys. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
91 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; ntc to members of pltf class be issued. cpy notc to each inmate re; 7/ 6/90 trial date , to be posted at jail. Cnsl to complete posting w/i 10dys. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
93 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds ; ; Trial 7/16/90 @ 9:00am (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
95 MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen for protective order set 6/5/90 @ 11:00am (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
96 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen in support of defts mtn/protective ord (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
97 Certificate in support of appli for odr short time by Lawrence T. Woodstock. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
92 DECLARATION of Paul T. Persons in oppo to defts req protective order re; depos 6/7/&6/8. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
94 MINUTES of 6/5/90 Defts mtn/protective ord; Ct ord depos of Foley &Quinn to be taken 6/21/90 &Drs Andrew &Meadows 6/22/90. Subp. are contined to above dates. No futher cont excpt by stip. Ord to be prep by ct. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
98 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G. Hollows (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
99 ORDER by Magistrate Gregory G. Hollows:Pltf's to depose Roger Quinn &Roanld Poli 6/21/90; Pltf' s to depose Dr. Meadows &Dr. Andrew 6/22/90. subs to cont full force to 6/21/90 &6/22/90.No ext w/o written stip. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
102 DECLARATION of Roberta Lee Frankling to population log jail month 5/90. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
103 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; depo of Tim Leroy Holt 6/22/90. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
100 STATEMENT by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen of pretrial (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
101 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted − depo subp. Frank L. Packwood.DDS (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
104 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen of 7/3/90 (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
105 STATEMENT of pre−trial (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
106 DECLARATION of Paul T. Persons re: pretrial stmt. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
108 REQUEST by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen for an order requiring prisoners to appear at trial. (old) (Entered: 07/12/1990)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 5 of 15

07/06/1990 07/09/1990 07/09/1990 07/09/1990 07/09/1990 07/11/1990 07/12/1990 07/12/1990 07/13/1990 07/16/1990 07/16/1990 07/16/1990 07/17/1990 07/17/1990 07/17/1990 07/17/1990 07/20/1990 07/20/1990 07/20/1990
08/06/1990

107 DECLARATION of Robeta Leef Franklin − log of population count for 6/90. (old) (Entered: 07/11/1990)
109 LETTER to court from Roberta L. Franklin to JFM re:proposed notice referred to in 5/31/90 ltr. with notice. (old) (Entered: 07/12/1990)
110 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; Trial set 7/16/90 @ 9:00a JFM; Trial briefs due 7/11/90 @ 5:00pm ; ; (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/12/1990)
111 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; to issued writ of H/C ad testificandum on Barbar Doty on 7/16/90 @ 9:am .(writ issued) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/12/1990)
112 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; writ of H/C ad testificandum issue Tim Holt on 7/16/90 @ 9:00am (writ issued) (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/12/1990)
113 PLAINTIFF' TIRLA MEMORANDUM(BRIEF) by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen (old) (Entered: 07/13/1990)
114 TRIAL BRIEF on non−medical issues by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell (old) (Entered: 07/16/1990)
115 BRIEF re: medical issues by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell (old) (Entered: 07/16/1990)
116 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen to pre−trila statment. (old) (Entered: 07/16/1990)
117 MINUTES of 7/16/90 CT (1st dy) ; Mag &cnsl discussed prelimanry matters; Pltf witn Sheriff Ron Jarrell, &Ross Coombs sworn &testified. Pltfs exh 31, 1,3,4, &30 admitted. Coombs (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
121 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in support of motion for witness fees &expenses. [120−1], of motion in limine [118−1] (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
122 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin re motion for witness fees &expenses. [120−1] (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
118 MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in limine to exclude or limit testimony of pltf's exp doctors Rundle &Weinstein &for award of costs. No date set. (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
119 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin re motion in limine [118−1] (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
120 MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell for witness fees &expenses. (old) (Entered: 07/17/1990)
123 MINUTES of 7/17/90 ;filed 7/18/90 CT 2nd dy. Pltf wtn Neck Carlsen ,Babara Doty, Tim Holt sworn &testified.Pltfs exh 2−2 admitted. (old) (Entered: 07/18/1990)
124 MINUTES of 7/18/90 ; 3rd dy CT Trial; Pltf wtn Dr. Weinstein, Tim Holt, Dr. Frank Rundle sworn &testi; (old) (Entered: 07/20/1990)
125 MINUTES of 7/19/90 4th CT Triali; exh 37 admitted, Deft mtn/dismiss certain medical claims. Deft witn Ken Ventura , Barbar Cotton swn &testi. (old) (Entered: 07/20/1990)
126 MINUTES of 5th day C/T; x−exam of B. Cotton; recess; resume x−exam, ptlfs exhibits #40, 41, and 42; re−direct exam and re−cross exam; deft witn Dr. Meadows ST defts exh. I, B, E and J.; cont exam of Dr. Meadows; break; witn Meadows voir dire'd by counsel P. Persons; recess; C/T cont to 8/10/90 @ 9:00 and 8/13/90 (old) Modified on 07/24/1990 (Entered: 07/24/1990)
127 NOTICE of related case(s) CIV S−90−1003 EJG GGH (old) (Entered: 08/09/1990)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 6 of 15

08/13/1990 08/15/1990 09/04/1990 09/05/1990 09/06/1990
09/10/1990 09/10/1990 09/18/1990 09/25/1990 09/25/1990
10/09/1990 10/09/1990 10/09/1990 10/19/1990 10/23/1990 10/29/1990 10/29/1990 11/01/1990 11/13/1990 12/13/1990 01/16/1991
01/23/1991
01/28/1991 01/29/1991 02/08/1991

128 DECLARATION of Roberta Lee Franklin. (old) (Entered: 08/15/1990)
129 SUPPLEMENT by defendant County Of Lassen re brief [114−1] (old) (Entered: 08/21/1990)
130 MOTION and memo of p/a by defendant County Of Lassen to dismiss (old) (Entered: 09/06/1990)
131 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPT ON PROCEEDINGS of 7/16/90 (old) (Entered: 09/07/1990)
132 MINUTES of J/T 6th day; x−exam of Dr. Hal Meadows plfts exh 28; re−direct, plft exh 7; re x−exam, dft exh J, R, I; lunch recess; resume re x−exam; dft witness Dr. Armor Toormajian Splft exh 7; afternoon recess; x−exam; ct adjourned (old) (Entered: 09/12/1990)
134 MINUTES of C/T 7th day (old) (Entered: 09/18/1990)
133 NOTICE of cts exh and wit lst from trial (old) (Entered: 09/25/1990)
135 LETTER to court from defendant Ronald D. Jarrell signed by R. Franklin re briefing schedule set up (old) (Entered: 09/19/1990)
136 LETTER to court from Atty Persons re briefs (post trial) (old) (Entered: 09/25/1990)
137 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds; ordering plft to file an opening brief w/i 10 days; dft to file response 10 days thereafter; plfts have 10 days thereafter to close (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 10/03/1990 (Entered: 09/27/1990)
138 POST TRIAL briefs submitted by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen (old) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
LODGED amended proposed final judgment. (old) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
139 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RE: medical costs by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen (old) (Entered: 10/12/1990)
140 BRIEF post trial by defendant County Of Lassen (old) (Entered: 10/23/1990)
141 DECLARATION of Larry T. Woodlock enclosing exhibits (old) (Entered: 10/29/1990)
142 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of 7/20/90 of testimony of Hal Leslie Meadows, M.D (old) (Entered: 10/30/1990)
143 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of 7/16/90 of testimony of Ronald Jarrell (old) (Entered: 10/30/1990)
144 REPLY brief by plaintiff re brief [140−1] (old) (Entered: 11/01/1990)
145 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin (old) (Entered: 11/15/1990)
146 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin regarding population log (old) (Entered: 12/19/1990)
262 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS VOL II by plaintiffs in support motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
147 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin attaching a population log and yard log which shows the population in courts for the month of December 1990 and the access that was provided to the yard (old) (Entered: 01/29/1991)
148 NOTICE by plaintiff Barbara Doty of change of address by Litt, Stormer (old) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
149 WITNESS list (old) (Entered: 01/31/1991)
150 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin (old) (Entered: 02/15/1991)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 7 of 15

03/21/1991 04/19/1991 05/09/1991 06/21/1991 07/12/1991 07/12/1991 07/12/1991 07/12/1991 07/16/1991 08/01/1991
08/02/1991 08/07/1991 08/08/1991 08/08/1991 08/08/1991

151 DECLARATION of Roberta L. Franklin (old) (Entered: 03/25/1991)
152 DECLARATION of Roberta Franklin (old) (Entered: 04/22/1991)
153 DECLARATION of Roberta Franklin (old) (Entered: 05/15/1991)
154 DECLARATION of Roberta L Franklin (old) (Entered: 06/24/1991)
155 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
156 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen in support of motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [155−1] (old) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
157 DECLARATION of Steven W Warren re motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [155−1] (old) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
158 DECLARATION of Lawrence T Woodlock re motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [155−1] (old) (Entered: 07/15/1991)
159 DECLARATION of Roberta Franklin (old) (Entered: 07/17/1991)
160 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION concerning Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief: Recommending request be granted as follows; 1. For period of one year, deft's not to accept any inmate into LCJ w/out first providing bed and bedding in appropriate housing unit, or to accept any inmate when to do so would cause inmate population to exceed the population capacity as extablished by CBC; 2. Deft's shall modify written procedure re inmate access to law library to eliminate the provision for use of paging system, and be requred to adhere to the terms of written inmate law library access procedure re access within reasonable period of time; 3. Deft's shall carify written procedures re conduct and responsibilites of staff in casses of observations of inmate indicate possiblie mental disorder; 4. Deft's required to develop procedure whereby inmate requests for mental health care are referred to county dept of mental health in fixed amount of time; 5. Deft's required to prepare and submit to court a revised intake screening form containing space for info re an inmate's history of suicide attempts and if inmate has presently thought of suicide; 6. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, recommended Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief be DENIED; Within 10 days of service with these rindings and recommendations any party may file written objections with the court; such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. Any reply to objections shall be filed within 10 days after service of the objections; parties advised that failure to file objections within specified time may waive right to appeal D.C.'s order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/01/1991)
161 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [155−1] (old) (Entered: 08/02/1991)
162 REPLY by defendant County Of Lassen re memo in opp to mtn to vacate dissolve modify order of 10/17/91 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [161−1] (old) (Entered: 08/08/1991)
163 NTC OF MTN AND MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration, modification and augmentation of the findings and recommendations to be heard 9/19/91 at 9:00 bef JFM (old) (Entered: 08/09/1991)
164 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for reconsideration, modification and augmentation of the findings and recommendations to be heard 9/19/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [163−1] (old) (Entered: 08/09/1991)
165 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to report &recommendation motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [160−1] (old) (Entered: 08/09/1991)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 8 of 15

08/12/1991 08/13/1991 08/15/1991 08/15/1991 08/15/1991 08/15/1991 08/15/1991 08/19/1991 08/22/1991 08/22/1991 08/22/1991 08/23/1991 08/23/1991 09/05/1991 09/09/1991 09/12/1991 09/13/1991
09/13/1991 09/13/1991 09/16/1991

166 OBJECTIONS by defendant County Of Lassen to Report and Recommendation [160−1] (old) (Entered: 08/13/1991)
167 NOTICE by plaintiff's atty Paul Comiskey of change of address to 2310 J Street, POB 1019, Sacramento, CA 95814−1019, 325−−2701 (old) (Entered: 08/13/1991)
168 MINUTES of mtn to vacate that the motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 [155−1] is submitted; findings and recommendations to issue (old) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
169 DEPOSITION of Corey Weinstein MD taken on the following date(s): 6/26/90 VOLUME I (old) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
170 DEPOSITION of Corey Weinstein MD taken on the following date(s): 7/7/90 VOLUME II (old) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
171 DEPOSITION of Frank L Rundle MD taken on the following date(s): 6/25/90 VOLUME I (old) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
172 DEPOSITION of Frank L Rundle MD taken on the following date(s): 7/7/90 VOLUME II (old) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
173 REPLY by defendant County Of Lassen re objections to Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations [166−1] (old) (Entered: 08/19/1991)
174 MOTION by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
175 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen in support of motion for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
LODGED: Proposed order awarding attorney's fees and costs. (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
176 DECLARATION and exhibits by plaintiff in support re motion for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
177 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen of motion for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (old) (Entered: 08/23/1991)
178 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in opposition to motion for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (old) (Entered: 09/06/1991)
179 DECLARATION of Steven W Warren (old) (Entered: 09/10/1991)
181 REPLY by plaintiff re mtn for atty fees [174−1] (old) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
180 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION concerning motion to vacate, dissolve or modify order dated 10/17/89 to be heard 8/15/91 at 9:00 bef JFM [155−1]; after considering the briefs in support and in opposition to the mtn, the 10/18/89 preliminary injunction is modified as follows: The Sheriff shall be required to release inmates from the Lassen County Detention Facility when the inmate population exceeds the then−current population capacity as determined by the Board of Corrections; paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 are vacated; remaining provisions of the preliminary injunction shall remain in force as applied to the Lassen County Jail; any party may object within 10 days of service of findings and recommendations. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
182 SUPPLEMENT by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell of declaration of Lawrence T Woodlock in support of dfts oppo to plfts mtn for interim award of attys fees and costs (old) (Entered: 09/13/1991)
183 DECLARATION of Dan Stormer re motion for attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (old) (Entered: 09/16/1991)
184 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton ORDERING dfts to clarify procedures ( SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS ); in all other respects, plfts req

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 9 of 15

09/19/1991 09/23/1991 09/23/1991 09/24/1991 09/25/1991 09/27/1991 10/03/1991 10/09/1991 10/09/1991 10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/16/1991 10/17/1991 10/18/1991
10/25/1991 10/29/1991

for permanent injunctive relief are DENIED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/16/1991)
185 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds vacating hearing re motion for reconsideration, modification,augmentation of fand attorney fees set for 9/19/91 @ 9:00 [174−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/19/1991)
LODGED order NOT TO BE SIGNED. (old) Modified on 09/27/1991 (Entered: 09/23/1991)
186 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones to order [185−1] and application to the District court for interim award of fees and costs (old) (Entered: 09/23/1991)
187 OBJECTIONS by defendant County Of Lassen to objection [186−1] and application to the Dist Ct (old) (Entered: 09/25/1991)
188 BILL OF COSTS taxed for plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen in the amount of $ 23,367 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/26/1991)
189 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton denying pltfs request that the order 186−1 be modified or set aside. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/27/1991)
190 OBJECTIONS by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell to plaintiff's bill of costs [188−1] (old) (Entered: 10/04/1991)
191 LETTER to court from Lawrence Woodlock for defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell requesting judgment be entered in the case dated 10/3/91 (old) (Entered: 10/09/1991)
192 JUDGMENT: by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton terminating case per order of 9/16/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/09/1991)
193 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
194 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones in support of motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
195 DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS in support of motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
196 SUPPLEMEMTAL EXHIBITS list by plaintiff in support of request for award of attorneys fees costs and expenses (2 vols) (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
197 DECLARATION of Roberta Lee Franklin, inmate request form submitted in compliance with court order of 9/16/91 [184−1] (old) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
261 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS by plaintiff re motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
198 SUPPLEMENTAL declaration of Dan Stormer in support of application for atty fees [183−1] (old) (Entered: 10/18/1991)
199 SUPPLEMENTAL declaration of Paul L. Hoffman by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen re motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 10/21/1991)
200 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT DECLARATION of Harold Abbott by plaintiff re motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 10/28/1991)
201 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT by plaintiff re motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1]; typed timesheets of

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 10 of 15

11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/07/1991
11/07/1991 11/07/1991 11/12/1991

Richard P Herman (old) (Entered: 10/29/1991)
202 OBJECTIONS by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell to motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
203 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
204 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in support of motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
205 DECLARATION of Roberta Franklin in support of deft's motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] and in opposition to plaintiff's motion for fees and costs (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
206 EXHIBIT list by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in support of declaration of Roberta Franklin in support of defts motion for fees/costs (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
207 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of list [206−1], declaration [205−1], memorandum [204−1], motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1], objection [202−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
208 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell for order continuing hearing date to be heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
209 MEMORANDUM by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell in support of motion for order continuing hearing date to be heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [208−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
210 DECLARATION of Lawrence T Woodlock in support of motion for order continuing hearing date to be heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [208−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
LODGED proposed order continuing hearing date for plaintiffs motion for attys fees not to be signed (old) Modified on 11/20/1991 (Entered: 11/08/1991)
211 EX PARTE APPLICATION by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell for order shortening time for hearing on motion to continue hearing date (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
212 DECLARATION of Lawrence Woodlock in support of ex parte application for order shortening time for hearing on motion to continue hearing date [211−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
LODGED proposed order shortening time for hearing on motion to continue hearing date from defts not to be signed (old) Modified on 11/20/1991 (Entered: 11/08/1991)
213 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell of lodged [0−1], declaration [212−1], application [211−1], lodged [0−1], declaration [210−1], memorandum [209−1], motion for order continuing hearing date to be heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [208−1] (old) (Entered: 11/08/1991)
214 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell from Dist. Court decision [192−2] ( fee status: not paid) (old) Modified on 2/6/2009 (Donati, J). (Entered: 11/08/1991)
220 STATEMENT by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell of chronolgy of case in support of objection to plaintiff's motion for fees [202−1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991)
215 CERTIFICATE of Record Transmitted to USCA (Notice sent) (old) (Entered: 11/12/1991)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 11 of 15

11/12/1991 11/12/1991
11/15/1991 11/15/1991 11/19/1991 11/20/1991
11/27/1991 11/27/1991 12/05/1991
12/06/1991 12/06/1991 06/25/1992 07/21/1992 07/21/1992 08/19/1992 10/27/1992 01/11/1993 03/30/1993
04/06/1993

216 MAILED case information, docket fee payment ntc, certificate of Notice of Appeal and Appeal order/judgment to Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 11/12/1991)
217 RESPONSE by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen to motion for order continuing hearing date to be heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [208−1]; plaintiffs object to continuance until 12/5/91 (old) (Entered: 11/14/1991)
218 REPLY MEMORANDUM AND OPPOSITION by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen to defts' motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] (old) (Entered: 11/18/1991)
221 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: trial 7/16/90−7/20/90 and trial 9/5/90 and 9/7/90 (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991)
222 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION in support of motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991)
219 ORDER by Magistrate John F. Moulds granting motion for order continuing hearing date heard 11/14/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [208−1]; continuing hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs to 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] ; continuing hearing on motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to [193−1] 9:00 on 12/5/91 in ctrm 6 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991)
223 APPEAL fee paid [214−1] (old) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
224 REPLY by defendant County Of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell to opposition to motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] (old) (Entered: 11/27/1991)
225 MINUTES of that the motion for attorney fees and costs to be heard 12/5/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [203−1] is submitted, that the motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] is submitted. Court to prepare order. (old) (Entered: 12/05/1991)
226 NOTICE of filing of reporters' transcripts for dates 7/16/90−7/20/90 and 9/5/90 and 9/7/90 (old) (Entered: 12/09/1991)
227 TRANSCRIPT of 7/16/90−7/20/90, 9/5/90, 9/7/90 (old) (Entered: 12/09/1991)
228 NOTICE by plaintiffs of association of counsel: attorney Richard Derevan and Deborah Fabricant (old) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
229 OBJECTION by defendants County of Lassen et al to plaintiffs' modification of attorney's fees request (kh) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
230 MODIFICATION by plaintiffs to plaintiffs' request for attorneys fees (kh) (Entered: 07/22/1992)
231 REPLY by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen to response to motion for award of attorneys fees and costs to be heard 11/21/91 at 9:00 in ctrm 6 [193−1] (old) (Entered: 08/20/1992)
232 REQUEST by plaintiff for judicial notice (old) (Entered: 10/27/1992)
233 NOTICE by plaintiff's attorney Richard P Herman of change of address to Richard P Herman Suite 330 24012 Calle de la Plata Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (old) (Entered: 01/12/1993)
234 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate John F Moulds RECOMMENDING plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs [203−1] be granted and that plaintiffs be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $219,027.61 and [193−1] Denying defts' motion for attorneys fees and costs (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/30/1993)
235 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to Report and Recommendation (old) (Entered: 04/06/1993)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 12 of 15

04/06/1993 04/09/1993 04/16/1993 04/16/1993 04/20/1993
04/27/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 04/28/1993 05/04/1993 05/05/1993
05/10/1993 05/18/1993 05/18/1993 05/18/1993 05/19/1993 05/19/1993 05/21/1993 05/26/1993

236 EXHIBITS in support of objections to magistrate judge's findings &recommendations (old) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
237 OBJECTIONS by defendant County of Lassen to motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [234−1] (old) (Entered: 04/13/1993)
238 RESPONSE by defendant County of Lassen to [235−1] pltf's objections to magistrate judge's findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
239 REPLY by plaintiff re [237−1] deft's objections to magistrate judge's findings and recommendations (old) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
240 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING IN FULL report &recommendation motion [234−1], DENYING deft's motion for attorney fees and costs [203−1] and GRANTING pltf's motion for award of attorneys fees and cost in the amount of $209,106.25 and reasonable expenses in the amount of $9,921.61 for a total award of $219,027.61 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/20/1993)
241 JUDGMENT entered pursuant to order of 4/20/93: by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/27/1993)
242 EX PARTE APPLICATION by defendant for order staying execution pending appeal (old) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
243 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of application [242−1] (old) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
244 DECLARATION of Lawrence T Woodlock in support re application [242−1] (old) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
245 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision [241−1] ( fee status: paid) (old) (Entered: 05/04/1993)
247 LETTER to court from plaintiffs re request for Stay (old) (Entered: 05/06/1993)
246 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton STAYING the court's 4/20/93 order granting pltfs motion for attorney's fees and costs pending resolution of defts moiton for an order staying execution pending appeal Pltfs shall file their opposition or statement of non−opposition to defts motion by 5/18/93, Defts to file their reply, if any, by 5/28/93; Hearing on deft's moiton to stay execution of this courts 4/20/93 order is set for 6/21/93 at 10:00 am (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/05/1993)
248 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 11/21/91 (old) (Entered: 05/11/1993)
249 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs IN OPPOSITION TO the request for a stay/IN SUPPORT OF the application for writ of execution/modification; hrg 621/93 at 10:00 ctrm 1 (old) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
250 MOTION by plaintiffs for an order re writ of execution and/or modification of judgment by pltfs hrg 6/21/93 at 10:00 ctrm 1 LKK (old) (Entered: 05/18/1993)
251 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: 12/5/91 (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
252 CERTIFIED COPY of Appellate Court Order RECALLING the mandate; appellant's motion for consolidation shall be considered in a separate order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
253 EXHIBIT in support of motion for writ of execution/modification of judgment (old) (Entered: 05/19/1993)
254 NOTICE by plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Barbara Doty of association of attorney Jay Allen Eisen (old) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
255 REPLY by defendant County of Lassen re [249−1] pltf's opposition to defts motion for stay pending appeal (old) (Entered: 05/28/1993)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 13 of 15

06/11/1993 06/18/1993
06/21/1993 06/22/1993 07/22/1993 10/31/1994
12/21/1994
01/06/1995 01/06/1995 02/08/1995 02/15/1995 02/15/1995 02/17/1995 02/23/1995 02/27/1995 02/28/1995 03/02/1995 03/10/1995 03/10/1995 03/10/1995

256 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs; exhibits A−E (old) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
257 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING deft's motion for an order re writ of execution and/or modification of judgment by pltfs [250−1] is GRANTED; Pltf's cross−motion for writ of execution or modification of the award is DENIED; Hearing on this matter is VACATED Case stayed as to pending appeal (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 06/18/1993)
258 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of the pltfs' motion for atty's fees held on 12/5/91 (old) (Entered: 06/22/1993)
259 MAILED case information/docket fee payment notice, copy of Notice of Appeal and appealed 4/27/93 judgment to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Copy of appeal and certified copy of docket sheet to all parties. (old) (Entered: 06/22/1993)
260 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 93−16163 (old) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
263 CERTIFIED COPY of 9th Circuit Order remanding the matter back to District Court: That the judgment of the said District Court in this cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded [Appeal [245−1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
264 Order from Circuit Court TRANSFERRING appellees Barbara Doty's and all other persons similarly situated motion for attorney's fees for determination along with the other attorneys' fees issues in this matter re: appeal [214−1] (old) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
265 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for attorney fees on appeal by pltfs set 2/27/95 at 10:00 before LKK (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
266 DECLARATION of Julianne Sartain in SUPPORT of motion for attorney's fees on appeal [265−1]; EXHIBITS (old) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
267 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION to plaintiffs' application attorney fees [265−1] (ndd) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
268 NOTICE by plaintiffs of association of attorney Gina S Berry (old) (Entered: 02/17/1995)
269 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for interim fees by plaintiffs and stay of costs award by plaintiffs set 3/13/95 at 10:00 before LKK (old) (Entered: 02/17/1995)
270 REPLY BRIEF by pltfs Barbara Doty, Rhonda Jones, Nick Carlsen to in SUPPORT of motion for attorney fees on appeal by pltfs [265−1] (old) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
271 NOTICE from Sharron Jaggard: motion for interim fees, and stay of costs award and motion for attorney fees on appeal by pltfs RESET to 3/16/95 at 10:00 before Magistrate Judge John F Moulds (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 02/28/1995)
272 OPPOSITION by dfts County of Lassen, Ronald D Jarrell to motion for interim fees by plaintiffs [269−1] (old) (Entered: 03/02/1995)
273 NOTICE of Change of Date and Hearing by plaintiff Barbara Doty on motion for attorney's fees on appeal [265−1]; motion to be heard before Honorable John F Moulds on 3/9/95 10:00am (ndd) (Entered: 03/02/1995)
274 REQUEST by plaintiffs to appear by telephone at hearing on attorneys' fees motion currently set for 3/16/95 at 10:00 before JFM (old) (Entered: 03/06/1995)
275 REQUEST by plaintiffs for relief from reference to magistrate judge for interim fees motion; EXHIBIT A (old) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
276 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in SUPPORT of motion for interim fees [269−1], stay of costs award by plaintiffs [269−2] (old) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
277 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Richard P Herman in SUPPORT of motion for interim fees [269−1], [269−2] (old) (Entered: 03/13/1995)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 14 of 15

03/13/1995
03/14/1995
04/07/1995 04/07/1995 04/07/1995 04/14/1995 04/14/1995 04/27/1995 04/27/1995 07/26/1995
08/02/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/07/1995 08/07/1995 08/09/1995 09/19/1995
09/19/1995

278 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: th court has reviewed the opinion of the court of appeals, the record in this action, and the pending motions and has determined that the briefing on all matters pending before the court is complete and that all outstanding matters will be decided w/o oral argument; accordingly, the hearing on motion for interim fees [269−1], and stay of costs award by plaintiffs [269−2], and motion for attorney fees on appeal by pliantiffs [265−1] set for 3/16/95 is VACATED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
279 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: after review of the request, the record herein, and good cause appearing therefore, plaintiffs' request for relief from referral of motion for interim attorneys' fees to a magistrate judge [275−1] DENIED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/14/1995)
280 EX PARTE application by pltfs for withdrawal of attorney (old) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
281 DECLARATION of Gina S Berry in SUPPORT of withdrawal of attorney [280−1] (old) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
LODGED order (proposed) by pltfs granting withdrawal of attorrney (old) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
LODGED Ex Parte Application for withdrawal of counsel by plaintiff Barbara Doty, plaintiff Rhonda Jones, plaintiff Nick Carlsen (old) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
282 DECLARATION of Jay−Allen Eisen in support of ex parte application for withdrawal of counsel (old) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
283 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds WITHDRAWING attorney Gina Berry as atty of record for pltfs (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
284 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton WITHDRAWING attorney Jay−Allen Eisen as atty of record for pltfs (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
285 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds recommending pltfs be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees for this action in the amount of $79,772.75 and reasonable attorneys fees on appeal in the amount of $3,844; pltfs' motion for an interim award of attorneys fees [269−1] be denied; motion [269−1], [269−2] and [265−1] referred back to Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton; objections due within 10 days after being served; reply to objections shall be served and filed iwthin 10 days after service of the objections (cc: all counsel) (kb) (Entered: 07/26/1995)
LODGED Order and Judgment by defendant County of Lassen (ndd) (Entered: 08/03/1995)
286 DFTS' OBJECTIONS by County of Lassen, Ronald D. Jarrell to Report and Recommendation [285−1] (ndd) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
287 DECLARATION of Lawrence T Woodlock in support of Dfts' Objections to the Findings [286−1] (ndd) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
288 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to Report and Recommendation [285−1] on fee issues filed 7/26/95 (ndd) (Entered: 08/09/1995)
289 REQUEST for intrest on costs by plaintiffs (ndd) (Entered: 08/09/1995)
290 DFTS' REPLY to plts' objections [288−1] to Magistrate Judge's Findings &Recommendations on fee issues (ndd) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
291 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ADOPTING report &recommendation [285−1]; DENYING motion for interim fees by plaintiffs [269−1], GRANTING motion for attorney fees on appeal by pltfs [265−1]; pltfs are awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $79,772.75 AND reasonable attorneys' fees on appeal in the amount of $3,844.00 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
292 Order by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ENTERING judgment in favor of defts pursuant to 10/6/94 order of the Court of Appeals (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/19/1995)

Case: 2:89-cv-01019-LKK -JFM As of: 06/15/2012 08:27 AM PDT 15 of 15

09/20/1995 09/28/1995 09/28/1995 09/28/1995 10/03/1995 10/12/1995 10/18/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/23/1995
10/23/1995 11/06/1995 11/13/1995
11/29/1995
03/12/1996

295 NOTICE of change of address by attorney Herman to P O Box 4108, Laguna Beach CA 92652 (old) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
293 BILL OF COSTS submitted by defendant County of Lassen (old) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
294 DECLARATION of Roberta L Franklin in support of bill of costs [293−1] (old) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
LODGED Order/Judgment by defendant County of Lassen (old) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
296 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for reconsideration by pltfs and request for writ of execution; motion to be heard 10:00 on 11/6/95 by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton (old) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
297 STIPULATION for extension of time for plaintiff to object to bill of costs (old) (Entered: 10/16/1995)
298 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to form of judgment (old) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
299 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to bill of costs [293−1] (old) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
300 RESPONSE (OPPOSITION) by defendant County of Lassen, defendant Ronald D. Jarrell to motion for reconsideration by pltfs [296−1] (old) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
301 DECLARATION of Lawrence T Woodlock in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [296−1] (old) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
302 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: pltfs may have through and including 10/20/95 within which to file their objections to the bill of costs served by defts 09/28/95 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
303 MOTION by plaintiffs for reconsideration motion to be heard by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/13/95 at 10:00 in courtroom 1 (old) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
304 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs (kb) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
305 MINUTES of pltfs motion for reconsideration before Honorable Lawrence K Karlton: the motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration [303−1] is SUBMITTED; the motion for reconsideration by pltfs [296−1] is SUBMITTED; C/R Cathie Bodene (old) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
306 ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, for reasons set forth above, the court hereby orders as follows: pltf's motion for interest on attorneys fees from 4/27/95, is hereby GRANTED; the court's 9/29/95 order granting pltfs' attorneys fees CLARIFIED to include, in addition to those fees, the court's prior awards of costs and expenses, with interest running from 4/27/93; AND defendant's request for costs is hereby DENIED; IT IS SO ORDERED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 11/29/1995)
307 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by defendant County of Lassen of satisfaction of judgment (old) (Entered: 03/26/1996)

 
 37 F.3d 540

Barbara DOTY, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
COUNTY OF LASSEN, and Ronald D. Jarrell as Sheriff, and Individually, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 91-16755, 93-16163.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. Decided Oct. 6, 1994.
1 Lawrence T. Woodlock, Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer, Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellants.

2

Richard A. Derevan, Snell & Wilmer, Irvine, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.

3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

4

Before: ALARCON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and WILSON,* District Judge.

WILSON, District Judge:

5

On July 25, 1989, certain inmates at the old Lassen County Jail ("Old Jail") brought suit against the County of Lassen

("County") and the Sheriff of the County of Lassen under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging that conditions in the Old Jail

violated the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States as applied to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the prisoners alleged overcrowding, inadequate clothing,

inadequate medical, dental and mental health care, inadequate privacy for conversations with attorneys, and unequal

access to programs for women prisoners. Plaintiffs sought a broad set of injunctive remedies.

6

When the suit was filed, Lassen County was developing and implementing plans for construction of a new, much

larger jail ("New Jail").

7

On October 17, 1989, the District Court approved a stipulated order preliminarily enjoining certain Old Jail

conditions, primarily overcrowding.

8

On April 25, 1990, defendants made an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 68.

Plaintiffs rejected this offer. On July 6, 1990, defendants made a second offer of judgment limited to the medical care

issues. Plaintiffs did not accept this offer, nor did they formally reject it.

9

Beginning on July 16, 1990, the case was tried before Magistrate Judge John Moulds. The trial concluded in

September 1990.

10

On July 1, 1991, the New Jail opened and the County ceased using the Old Jail.

11

On August 1, 1991, Magistrate Judge Moulds entered his 129-page Findings and Recommendations. On September

17, 1991, District Judge Lawrence Karlton entered an Order adopting (with one minor modification) the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations. This Order granted only a small fraction of the injunctive relief sought by

plaintiffs. On October 9, 1991, Judge Karlton entered a judgment. On November 7, 1991, the defendants filed their

notice of appeal from the judgment. This commenced Appeal No. 91-16755.

12

The attorney's fees litigation then commenced, with both sides seeking attorney's fees. On March 30, 1993,

Magistrate Judge Moulds filed a 29-page Findings and Recommendations on the attorney's fees issue. On April 20,

1993, Judge Karlton filed an order adopting in full the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. This order

granted the plaintiffs some of the attorney's fees they had sought and denied the defendants' request for fees. On April

27, 1993, Judge Karlton entered his Judgment pursuant to the attorney's fees order. On April 28, 1993, the appellants

filed their notice of appeal from the attorney's fees order. This commenced Appeal No. 93-16163.I

Scope of Review

A. Jurisdiction

13

The inmates brought their action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1343. We have jurisdiction on appeal from the judgments of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.

1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

B. Standards of Review

14

The standards of review for our examination of the District Court's decision to grant injunctive relief regarding

prison conditions are set forth in Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1245-46 (9th Cir.1982). The District Court's factual

findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. The District Court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id.

15

When a constitutional violation has been properly identified, the District Court's fashioning of a remedy is reviewed

for abuse of discretion. Id. Thus, we may not reverse unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the District

Court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors. Maag

v. Wessler, 993 F.2d 718, 719 (9th Cir.1993). Under this standard, we must "scrutinize the injunction closely to make

sure that the remedy protects the plaintiffs' constitutional rights and does not require more of state officials than is

necessary to assure their compliance with the constitution." Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th

Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069, 107 S.Ct. 2462, 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987). "Within these parameters, we will defer

to the district court." Id.

http://federal.court.com/f.3d/37/37.F3d.540.91-16755.93-16163.html

Page 1 / 5

16

Awards of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rock Creek Ltd.

Partnership v. State Water Resources Control Board, 972 F.2d 274, 277 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113

S.Ct. 2439, 124 L.Ed.2d 657 (1993). However, any elements of legal analysis and statutory interpretation which figure

in the District Court's opinion are subject to de novo review. Id. The District Court's factual determinations underlying

its finding that plaintiffs are the "prevailing party" for purposes of collecting attorney's fees under Section 1988 will

not be set aside absent clear error. Sablan v. Department of Finance, 856 F.2d 1317, 1324 (9th Cir.1988).

C. Judicial Review of Prison Conditions

17

In examining prison conditions, federal courts must remember that "[t]he Eighth Amendment is not a basis for

broad prison reform." Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246. "The function of a court is limited to determining whether a

constitutional violation has occurred." Id. When a violation is found, the court must fashion "a remedy that does no

more and no less than correct that particular constitutional violation." Id. Beyond this responsibility, federal courts

have no role in the formulation of prison policy. "Any needed prison reform is an executive and legislative

responsibility." Id.

II

18

Original Conditions and the Preliminary Injunction

19

In issuing its final injunctive order, the District Court made factual findings regarding the conditions at the Old Jail

prior to the litigation. These findings are not appealed, and we therefore accept them as true. In 1970 the County built

the Old Jail. The Board of Corrections established a capacity of forty-one inmates for the Old Jail. The actual

population exceeded the rated capacity from 1987 until the time the lawsuit was filed. From January to August 1989,

the prison housed between fifty-two and eighty-two inmates at any one time, with an average of sixty-three. This

overcrowding resulted in numerous problems at the jail, including prisoners sleeping on bedding on the prison floor

and prisoners sleeping in unsanitary conditions within inches of toilets and/or showers.

20

The stipulated order entered on October 17, 1989, provided the prisoners with the following relief pending the

outcome of the lawsuit:(1) The County agreed to limit inmate population at the Old Jail to forty-one inmates;

21

(2) The County agreed to limit the temporary holding cell's population to the rated capacity;

22

(3) The County agreed to limit time spent in the temporary holding cell to eight hours;

23

(4) The County agreed that use of the detoxification facility would comply with California law;

24

(5) The County agreed that all inmates would be provided with a permanent bed appropriate to his/her

classification; and

25

(6) The County agreed that all inmates would have daily access to the "program room" and outdoor recreation.

III

The Final Injunction

26

The District Judge's 1991 Order granted the following relief:

27

(1) For a period of one year, the County was prohibited from exceeding the established inmate capacities at the Old

Jail or the New Jail;

28

(2) The County was required to "modify" and follow written policies regarding access to the jail law library;

29

(3) The County was required to clarify the procedures for staff handling of prisoners demonstrating a mental

disorder;

30

(4) The County was required to develop a procedure for ensuring a timely response to an inmate's request for

mental health care.

31

All further requests for relief were denied. Some of these requests were denied because the disputes had been

resolved by the County's implementation of new policies during the litigation. Others were denied on the merits with

findings that the plaintiffs had not established several of the alleged constitutional violations.

32

The County contends that the injunction was improper. We agree.

A. Population Cap

33

Pursuant to the terms of the injunction, the court-ordered population caps on the jails expired on September 13,

1992. Accordingly, the dispute over the imposition of the cap is moot, and this Court's opinion has no impact on the

now-expired portion of the injunction.

34

However, this Court must still examine the merits of the population cap because the propriety of that order is

central to the resolution of the attorney's fees disputes which we confront below. For organizational clarity, we will

address the merits of the population cap order here, rather than in the portion of the opinion addressing the attorney's

fees issue.

35

The portion of the injunction requiring a population cap on the Old Jail was improper. When the District Court

entered its injunction, it is undisputed that the County had transferred all its inmates to the New Jail and was no longer

using the Old Jail. As a result, the question of the need for a population cap at the Old Jail was moot.

36

The portion of the injunction requiring a population cap on the New Jail was also improper. Even assuming

arguendo that the Old Jail's overcrowding resulted in unconstitutional conditions of confinement,1 the District Court

abused its discretion in judicially imposing a population cap on the New Jail. The Old Jail's rated capacity was forty-

one inmates, and its peak population had been eighty-two inmates. The New Jail, by contrast, had a rated capacity of

248 inmates. In fashioning a remedy, the District Court must focus on the specific constitutional violations found.

Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1247. Here, the District Court had identified constitutional violations resulting from the

http://federal.court.com/f.3d/37/37.F3d.540.91-16755.93-16163.html

Page 2 / 5

overcrowding of a small jail. Remedying these problems did not require an injunction limiting prison population at the New Jail because the New Jail had capacity substantially in excess of any past Lassen County inmate population. The imposition of a remedy broader than the minimum necessary to correct a specific violation requires the violation of past court orders. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1455 (9th Cir.1993); see Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 564 (9th Cir.1990) (violations of preliminary injunction justify broad permanent injunction). Because there was no ongoing, overcrowding-related constitutional violation at the New Jail, because there was no reason to believe that past instances of overcrowding would recur in the much larger New Jail, and because there was no evidence of violations of past court orders, the District Court abused its discretion in extending the population cap order to the New Jail.

B. Law Library Access

37

The Constitution requires that prisoners be given adequate access to legal resources in the form of an adequate law

library or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491,

1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). This constitutionally-mandated minimum access requires more than a "paging system" by

which inmates can request books from a law library. Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1109-1110.

38

The District Court order required the County to alter the written policy regarding prisoner access to the law library

so that it could not be interpreted to allow a "paging system" as a full alternative to allowing physical access to a law

library. However, there is no evidence in the record that the County had ever interpreted or applied the policy to allow

the prison to use a "paging system" rather than allowing a prisoner direct access to the law library. The possibility that

the policy could hypothetically have been interpreted in an unconstitutional manner does not establish a

constitutional violation. Since this portion of the order did not address a constitutional violation, the required

"modification" was improper.

39

The order further required the prison to adhere to the policy's requirement that inmates be given law library access

within a reasonable time of a written request. In adopting the findings of the Magistrate Judge, the District Court did

not specifically find any constitutional violation with respect to inmate access to the law library.2 In the absence of a

constitutional violation, this injunctive relief was improper.

40

C. Handling of Prisoners Demonstrating Mental Health Disorders

41

The order required the prison to clarify apparently conflicting portions of the County's Standard Operating

Procedures regarding the referral of prisoner-patients demonstrating mental disorders. One provision of the Standard

Operating Procedures directed that certain prisoners be referred first to the mental health department, while a second

provision directed that certain, potentially identical, prisoners be referred first to the prison's medical staff and only

secondarily to the mental health department.

42

Having reviewed the evidence on this issue, the District Court did not find that any constitutional violation had

occurred as a result of this conflict. The District Court apparently believed that this order was appropriate because the

conflicting provisions might someday lead to unconstitutional care. However, since either alternative referral would

lead to constitutionally permissible care, since the conflict appears unlikely to result in delayed treatment, and since

no constitutional violation had occurred, the District Court abused its discretion in ordering the clarification.

43

D. Timely Response to Inmate Request for Mental Health Care

44

The final element of the injunction required the prison to adopt procedures to ensure responses within a fixed time

to all prisoner requests for mental health treatment. The requirements for constitutionally adequate mental health

care have not been directly addressed by this Court. In accordance with the other courts of appeals that have

examined this issue, we now hold that the requirements for mental health care are the same as those for physical health

care needs. Torraco v. Maloney, 923 F.2d 231, 234 (1st Cir.1991); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1977);

Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir.1990); Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 834 (11th Cir.1990); see Hoptowit,

682 F.2d at 1253 (analyzing mental health care requirements as part of analysis of general health care requirements).

45

The District Court's order requires us to consider whether plaintiffs established that the mental health care

treatment of any prisoner fell below constitutional standards or that the mental health care system at the prison fell

below constitutional standards.

46

To establish unconstitutional treatment of a medical condition, including a mental health condition, a prisoner must

show deliberate indifference to a "serious" medical need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992). A

"serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the

"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The "routine discomfort" that results from incarceration and which is

"part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society" does not constitute a "serious"

medical need.3 Id.

47

The district judge made this fixed-time-response order based on evidence that Plaintiff Doty had twice requested

mental health care and had not received any response to her requests. The only evidence regarding the seriousness of

Doty's mental health problems was evidence in her medical file that, at approximately the same time that she

requested mental health care, she was treated by a physician's assistant for symptoms including nausea, shakes,

headache and depressed appetite. The physician's assistant concluded that she was suffering from unresolved family

situational stress and anxiety.

48

The District Court's factual findings with respect to Doty's mental health are not clearly erroneous so we accept as

true that Doty was suffering from nausea, shakes, headache and depressed appetite due to unresolved family

situational stress. We review de novo the legal conclusion that these facts establish a "serious" medical need, and we

conclude that they do not. Doty's mild stress-related ailments are the type of "routine discomfort" that may result

merely from incarceration and the concomitant separation from one's family. A "serious" medical need requires an

ailment of a greater magnitude or with a cause separate from confinement. See Torraco, 923 F.2d at 235 & n. 4

(attempted suicide and separate drug overdose); cf. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc) (body

searches by male guards of female inmates who previously had been subject to sexual abuse causes severe emotional

distress constituting cruel and unusual punishment). Since Doty was not suffering from a "serious" medical need, no

constitutional violation occurred.

49

The Magistrate Judge's analysis also included an examination of the constitutionality of the prison's mental health

http://federal.court.com/f.3d/37/37.F3d.540.91-16755.93-16163.html

Page 3 / 5

care system. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the prison's mental health care system was constitutional except for the failure to ensure a fixed time response to prisoner's mental health complaints. The Magistrate Judge based this conclusion solely on the failure to respond to Doty's complaints. Accepting the fact of the failure to respond as true, we review de novo the legal conclusion that a constitutional violation has been established. We conclude that a constitutional violation was not established. An isolated failure to respond to a non-serious medical need cannot, by itself, establish an unconstitutional health care system.

50

Since no constitutional violation existed, the fixed-time response order was inappropriate.

51

In summary, we have concluded that the injunction as a whole was erroneous and that the still existent portions of

the injunction must be vacated. We therefore remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.

IV

The Attorney's Fees

52

Our decision to vacate the injunction requires that the attorney's fees order also be vacated and remanded. Despite

the need to remand, certain aspects of the attorney's fees in dispute are ripe for our review.

53

A. Award of Attorney's Fees Under Section 1988

54

Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the District Court may award

reasonable attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in a Section 1983 action. " '[P]laintiffs may be considered

"prevailing parties" for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves

some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.' " Hensley Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939,

76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978)). In determining whether the

plaintiffs are a prevailing party and in determining the appropriate amount of awardable attorney's fees, plaintiffs are

entitled to credit for "catalytic" changes in prison policy resulting from the litigation even if those changes are not part

of any order. Rock Creek Ltd. Partnership, 972 F.2d at 277.

55

Plaintiffs sought an award for their work in obtaining a preliminary injunction and because their work acted as a

"catalyst" for reforms at the jails.4 Defendants concede that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party for purposes of

obtaining the preliminary injunction, but appeal the District Court's award of fees for work done subsequent to the

preliminary injunction. Defendants also appeal the District Court's denial of defendants' motion for attorney's fees.

B. Catalytic Relief

56

This Court has adopted the First Circuit's two-part test for determining whether plaintiffs have obtained catalytic

relief. Sablan, 856 F.2d at 1325 (adopting standard established in Nadeau, 581 F.2d at 281). First, the District Court

must determine what plaintiffs sought to accomplish in bringing their lawsuit and then determine whether the lawsuit

was causally linked to the relief actually obtained. Id. Second, the District Court must determine whether there is a

legal basis for the plaintiffs' claim--it must not be "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless." Id.

57

Defendants do not appeal the District Court's conclusion, in applying the first part of the Sablan test, that the relief

described by the Magistrate Judge was causally linked to the lawsuit.5 Defendants' appeal is limited to their argument

that the District Court misinterpreted the second element of the Sablan test. This legal question is reviewed de novo.

58

Defendants contend that the second element of the Sablan test requires the District Court to determine whether the

relief was "required by the Constitution or federal law." Defendants are incorrect. The District Court correctly held

that the Sablan test requires only that the relief be related to a claim that is not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.

Rock Creek Ltd. Partnership, 972 F.2d at 277; Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Russell, 946 F.2d 717, 720 (9th

Cir.1991); Andrew v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 875, 877-78 (9th Cir.1988); California Association of the Physically

Handicapped, Inc. v. FCC, 721 F.2d 667, 671-72 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that claim did not have a "legal basis"), cert.

denied, 469 U.S. 832, 105 S.Ct. 121, 83 L.Ed.2d 63 (1984). This test sensibly keeps the District Court from having to

address, during the attorney's fees litigation, the merits of resolved disputes to determine whether the relief obtained

would have been obtainable by judgment. We affirm the District Court's holding regarding the Sablan elements.

59

C. Denial of Defendants' Request for Attorney's Fees

60

The defendants' opening brief states that they are also appealing the District Court's decision to deny defendants'

motion for attorney's fees. However, the defendants did not brief this issue on appeal. The failure to brief the issue

waives defendants' right to appeal the District Court's denial of defendants' motion for fees.

61

The District Court's award of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs is vacated. The plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees is

remanded to the District Court for determination of the appropriate fee award consistent with this opinion. In

calculating the appropriate fee, the District Court should consider plaintiffs' limited success and the factors set forth in

Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1992), Schultz v. Hembree, 975 F.2d 572 (9th Cir.1992), and Harris v.

Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir.1994).

62

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED and REMANDED.

*
Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation
1
While overcrowding itself is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, overcrowding can, under certain circumstances, cause effects, e.g., unsanitary conditions or high levels of violence, that violate the Eighth Amendment. Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1249, 1255-5 6
2
The plaintiffs offered testimony from only one unrepresented inmate who claimed he had been denied access to the law library. Plaintiff Holt testified that during March 1988, he made written requests to be taken to the law library because he was representing himself at a parole revocation hearing. Holt testified that his request was denied and that he was told that there was insufficient staff to accommodate his request. The Magistrate Judge did not make

http://federal.court.com/f.3d/37/37.F3d.540.91-16755.93-16163.html

Page 4 / 5

any explicit determination regarding the truth of Holt's testimony. The Magistrate Judge simply concluded that "the concerns raised by [Holt's] testimony related to the period of overcrowding and are, in any event, addressed by this court's recommended disposition."
To the extent that this constituted an implicit finding of a constitutional violation, the District Court abused its discretion in ordering compliance with the prison's written policy. In analyzing the law library issue, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the "root causes" of any library access problems were overcrowding and understaffing and that the resolution of these conditions should "eradicate" the law library problem. Since the larger New Jail solved the overcrowding problem and since understaffing problems had been separately solved, the ordered remedy was not "necessary" to redress the constitutional violation and was therefore improper.
3
In examining medical conditions separate from the "routine discomfort" of incarceration, indicia of a "serious" medical need include (1) the existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and worthy of comment or treatment, (2) the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities, and (3) the existence of chronic or substantial pain. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-1 0 6 0
4
Plaintiffs also sought fees for their work obtaining the permanent injunction. Our reversal of the order granting the permanent injunction requires the denial of this portion of the fee request
5
Beyond the relief obtained through the preliminary injunction, the District Court found that the plaintiffs had obtained the following catalytic relief:
(1) Increases in exercise opportunities for prisoners, including resurfacing of the outdoor yard;
(2) Improvements in access to clothing, including additional undergarments for female inmates;
(3) Increase in medical sick call from five to seven days a week;
(4) Improvements in medical record-keeping practices, including the gathering in a single site of prisoner medical records;
(5) Development and implementation of a formal detoxification policy;
(6) Improvements in the medical screening form for prisoner intake, including questions about suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts;
(7) Medical clearances for food handlers;
(8) Revision of medical protocols to meet the standards of the California Medical Association;
(9) Additional training on jail medical issues for corrections officers; and
(10) Other improvements in prisoner medical care.
C C∅ | PHONEBOOK.COM

http://federal.court.com/f.3d/37/37.F3d.540.91-16755.93-16163.html

Page 5 / 5

 
 1

'1' I I

I .

:

I]AUL w' co,ltrsRE@(055

f L

I]RISONERS RIGHTS U}IION

2 n 9 0 , 96 t h s r :

liacramento, CA 95814
3 r l9r 6 , ) 3 2 5 - 2 70 r

4 IIICHARD P. I{ERMAN

I

L29 Marine Avenue

5 P.O. Box 328

I3alboa f sland, CA 92662

6 rl7l4) 673-7670

r

7 ]]AUL PERSONS
1834 Arroya Canyorr
I Chico, CA,95928
r 1 9 1)6 8 9 3 - 4 7 1 0
I
l\ttorneys for Plaintiffs
10

l1

UNITED STA'TES DISTRICT COURT

,:il::'""']cff$i'I:e:qr'se- I

EASTERN

13 iIARABARA DOTY, RHONDA

LK[{_JiM

I{ICK CARLSEN, and all others
t4 s;irnilar,ly si-tuated

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTTVE

15

Plaintiff,

RELIEI'

16

VS.

t7 TIHECOIJNTYOF LASSENi
;ind, RONALDD. JARR]ILL as
18 fiheriff, and fndividually,

CLASS ACTION

19

Defendants.

20

2t

.iuRrE!!qTlpN

r l. This,is,a class action brought by the prisoners in

23 ' the LassenrCounty 'lail to redress the clepr:lvation by defenclanLs,

24 , r C o u n t y o f T , a s s e n a n d S h e r i f f R o n a l d D . J a r r e l l , o f p J - a i n t i f f s

25 ' r:i.ghts,, 'privil-egies and immunities arising under the Constitution 26 'etnd Laws of the United States and the depr,ivation under color

2V o , f r a w . b y t h e i n d j - v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s o f t h e s e r - i g h . B s ( l - i r s t .

28 , Irourth'

Eighth,

and Fourteenth Amendments of the Consti.tution $ fi
H

=l_
il

I of the united states) 42 usc section r9g3 through ove,rcrowdi_ng,

2 inadequate staff and inadequate procedures , hyrfa:l_li3g to
3 provide beds, personal storage space, adequate fooc1, croLhes" 4 'underwear, medicar, cle'tar, and mental healtrr care/ a dece't, 5 cle'an, adequately lit jai1, a safe jai1, reasorrable rrisiLation,

6 nail not reacr or copiecr or taken by deder-rdants, locar pori.ce

I o'r the D.A., access to attor:neys, access to legar niater_ial-s f
8 i:radequate grievance p::ocedures r prompt proLrabl.e caLlse a'cl

I detenti-on and bail heari-nqs, prj_vacy f or conversations with

10 al-torneys, access to telephones, and unequal access for

1 t women prisoners ' rnstead named.plai-ntif f s Rhonda Jones, Rarha.ra

t2 D.ty, and Nick carlsen a:re pri-soners in the La-ssen county,fai_l

l3 who were arrested wi.thout a warrant a'd take' to the Lassen

1 4 c c r u n t y J a i r , l o c a t e d a t z 2 o s . L a s s e n , s u s a n v i l r e , c a . r i _ fo : : n _ i a

I5 (hLereinafter caIlecl rrLdssefl County Jail_,,). Many war:rantl_ess

:

l

16 arrestees, and sentenced prisoners, are clet-aineclin t-he Lassen

t7 county Jail in such ovgrcrowded conditions that they are cleniecl

18 a constitutionally

adequate place of cleteltion, incluclincr

19 faitrure to provicle a becl to sleep on.

20

2- The jurisdiction

,

,

of this court is invokecl u'cler 28

2l usc -1331' thj-s bei-ng an action arisi'g under tl-re cons.ituti-o'

;

'

I

22 and Laws of the united st-ates; and u'de r 42 IJSC1343. trris rrei.'g
ze an acti-.n au'hhorized by raw to redress the clep:r_'vatio' under:

24
ii ::'

co'or of trre state raw, sLatue,

,, ' I

,'

i.,r ,

ordi-nancef regulati_on,

c's.r-om

25 ancl usage of a rightr privi-lege, and immunity securecl to

26 pj-erintiffs by the First, Fonrth, Eighth, and Fourt-eentir

27 Amendmentsof the constitution of the unit.ed stabes.

28

3. Defe'dant couNTy oF LASSEN(hereinafter cafrecl

.::ji]ii-:::.:'.::''.;|..l'.|j!)....!\i.|fi;'|:d'11i!i!i)|;....i::5.'I:i4i:'|,:.:iti''i.'.jl4{,r"t?rji'r'j:k4.ty+.13T''4$.ffiJ

,

ti 2
3i
4 5 6
I
I

!

CcoSsoao"ofpfuCuuuestontnhciahtutt-osnyelinzrfviticziy.aClldae"alloe)ulsdiluloty,,inei strspyCr,rntooahoduvefedi,nurdentLeryfti,ahsteasoenssfsdoesealfunLannpawt.eascLsrnosocvduertcoln:snnafuo.it-ln-ytothtghyneoTeJrvatnpertirrosrrCo^o-ntv,auor,pitgnul*de0erhenecr^tnssayitoolt,refneacrdsgolcuecSalinaiyhnlrcirerf_jo.-ftretrohj:'ansierefiim,f_a,1e"Ldscdaeif.sfD_aeasyecnreiprAcrrroa.lrsla_fr t,iphrnna_t :ert etnst, .

I 10 IT

4. fndiv_i_dual Ronald D. County of l,assen, responsib_te rts rnmates.

Jarrel.l for the

is the Lassen

Sliei:iff County

of bire Ja_il and

12
ts
14 15

5. j
:clalpi la:c:i"t'"y
and the

At all times pertinent
D e r e n d a nwt a s a c t i n s

tLoU bL rhriJs- s c o m p l a : i _ n t ,
underrlre coror or

the
his

namerl
orric.ral

a'cl the ordi'ances

a n d r - - e g r _ r l a L i _ o n so f r r c l s s o l r c o u ' L y , ,

laws of the State of California.

16

6. The neamed plaintiffs

17 in the United States."

are citj-zens or persons resj_clj_ng

'";'";;;',,1"1 r8
t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25

rr

7. During all,'.tim

each of them separately

ana pietense of law, to

'ordinances '

regualt-ions,

california and the Coun 'sepaprately

e s m eon t{ij_onnne^dr hLe r e -,i n , t h e d e f e n c l a n t s
anci in concertr ac.Leclunder color witr uflder color of the statues,
customs and usage of the state of ty. Eac' of the defen<lants herein,

,

a.ncl_

and i' concert engagecrand conspi::ed in the illega_t

,;":::::-nu:"tt

menti-oned to the injurv or pra:'-'rirrs,

dad

26 27 28

'securecl to A,mendments laws of the

plainLlff

by the Fisrtr

Fourth, Eighth and Fouri:.eent:h

t o t h e_ U n i.. t e d

Cv vornrsDtLi t-ult-_u u r l _ o no f States, pursuant

the United Stat.es .Lo tlie practice

and .hhe and policy

t' of, def,endant CounLy

2

,8. At aII relevant times, the plaintiffs Bar:]:ara Doty,

3 Ithonda Jones, and Nick Carlsen were prisoners and held in

4 the Lassen Countlr 'Jail.

it

9. The deprivations' suffered by plaintiffs were and are

6 'Lhe res,ult of ongoing patterns of conduct and practj-ces of

7 c l e f , e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g d e f e n c l a n t C O U N T YO F L A S S E N a n d d e f e n d a n t -

I Ilonal-clD. JarreII, and unl.ess and until oi:dered by this coulrt,

I overcrovr/ded condj-tions resulting i-n inadequate food, cloth:Lttg,

l0 sleeping arrangements, medi-caI and den'bal attcl mental heaJ-l-tr, 1l safety, 'access to attorneys and excessive deLention of

t2 nrarrantless ari:estees before proliable cause hearings and bail-
ts ldearings will cont-inue to deprive innates of t.he Lassen Cor-inty

t4 ,Ja,il-of their constitutional riqhts.

15

16

CLASII ACTION ALIiEGATIOI{S

tv

1 0 . , T h e n a r - n e c t6rl l a i t r t j - f f s a l : e r e p r e s e n t a ' b i v e s o f a c l a s s

I

,

i

18 'within,the,rneaningof Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2):of i:he Federal

19 Rutres of Civi,t Procedures.

20 , 1I. The members of tlte class are so r"rumerousthat. joincler:
2l qf aLl of them j-s impract-icaI, t.here being more 'bhan 60

22 p r i - s o n e r s i n t h e L a s s e n C o u n ' t y J a i l a i - a n y o n e t - i m e .

28

,L2;',The nembers of the class afe readily identi.fiakrl.e

f'rom the def,endan{-st recorcls.

'l?
J J .,

There are questions

of l-aw and fact

common to the

26 c l a s s ; their class claims predominaLe over any individual

27 c l a i m .

38

T 4. T h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e a c t e d o r r e f u s e d t o a c L e r l

4

i---:J::-.;;^-',,-..,;:;,-r

,-lri--+i -r----i:.a*.e1-fA?+-'"

"fli+'r"'1*n

pracabl"e to thq quate facil_,i"ties

C l eL S s l r y

. : : '' i ' ' :': ' :' . " fa-i-l.jng Lo t-ri;ovirte

ancl hearj-rrgs.

p,rotect the interes 1 5 ' T h e ucr-dl at ssiss
, t r , i 1 s s e n . , , c q u n t )J'a i l ftttrlre :pri*"oo*o

t

Lainti ffs will fa s of the class; h Cc oOnnsS.iisqt# so o^ cf a l l p r i
from JuIy lJ, j.989

ir ly and a a v _i n g n s r : soners hel tc present,

d tl d

eq'ately t e r - i - r r i - e n Lt l r e r
in 11re Lassen and al-l-

r -

17. trlaintiffs

do not propose notice at tiris tr_rne, sim:LIar cases"

i,
I

mental hea1ili c

5