STEPHEN L. PEVAR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 2074 Park Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 570-9830 Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

LEA C. COOPER ISB # 3505 American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho P.O. Box 1897 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 344-9750 ext. 206

DEAN JOSEPH MILLER ISB # 1968 Cooperating Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation McDevitt & Miller LLP P.O. Box 2564 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 343-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, NIKKI PRICE, ROCHELLE SAUCEDO, JEFFREY GROSS, PARNELL WILLIAMS, and ERIC COUCH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs.

CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, by and through the members of its Board of County Commissioners, MATTHEW BEEBE, DAVID FERDINAND, and STEVEN RULE, each sued in his official capacity; and CHRIS SMITH, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Canyon County.

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

INTRODUCTION The six named plaintiffs file this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all other persons incarcerated, now or in the future, in the Canyon County Jail in Caldwell, Idaho. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from conditions of confinement that are indecent, cruel, and inhumane. For years now, as defendants' own reports show and as repeated inspections from the Idaho Sheriff's Association detail, defendants have been incarcerating far more persons in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center--the largest of the three structures comprising the Canyon County Jail--than it was designed to hold, such that numerous prisoners must sleep on the floor. On March 23, 2007, Sheriff Chris Smith sent a letter to the Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney regarding this situation, stating: "As you are aware, this office is faced with a dilemma of huge magnitude. The Dale G. Haile Detention Center is continuously overcrowded. The facility has a rated capacity of 310 inmates, and as of this morning, the population was 418." The Jail also suffers from inadequate ventilation and temperature control; inadequate fire protection; inadequate recreation; inadequate plumbing; and inadequate medical care; and the Jail is unsanitary and filthy. Relief is sought pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court therefore has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Venue is properly found in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), in that all parties reside, and plaintiffs’ claims arose, within the District.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2

PLAINTIFFS 2. Plaintiffs Amanda Davis, Nikki Price, Rochelle Saucedo, Jeffrey Gross, Parnell Williams, and Eric Couch are adult citizens of the United States currently incarcerated in the Canyon County Jail.
THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 3. This action is brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of all other persons incarcerated in the Canyon County Jail, or who may become so incarcerated in the future. Class certification is sought pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2). Class certification is appropriate because the members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all persons is impracticable; there are questions of fact and law common to the class; the representative parties’ claims are typical of the claims of the class; and the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. In addition, the defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all members of the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief to the class as a whole, and the questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting individual members.
DEFENDANTS 4. Canyon County, Idaho, is a county organized and existing pursuant to Title 31, Idaho Code. The County is amenable to suit through its Board of County Commissioners, whose members are defendants herein--Matthew Beebe, David Ferdinand, and Steven Rule--each of whom is sued in his official capacity.1 The Board of County Commissioners is charged under Idaho law with the responsibility to maintain a safe,
1Plaintiffs are aware that Commissioner Beebe is leaving office. As soon as his successor, Kathy Alder, takes office, she will automatically be substituted as a defendant in this litigation by operation of law. See F.R.Civ.P. 25(d)(1). See also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 n.11 (1985).
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3

adequate, and secure jail. See Idaho Code § 20-622. Idaho Code § 20-612 states that the board must "furnish all persons committed to the county jail with necessary food, clothing and bedding, and medical care" and further provides that the board "is authorized to pay" for these provisions from the county treasury.
5. Defendant Chris Smith is the duly elected Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho, and as such has a duty under state and federal law to adequately administer the county jail and provide for the proper and humane care, custody, and control of the named plaintiffs. Defendant Smith is sued in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. The Canyon County Jail in Caldwell, Idaho, consists of three buildings commonly called the Annex, the Dale G. Haile Detention Center, and the Work Release Center. 7. The Annex, built in 1948, was abandoned in 1993 when the Dale G. Haile Detention Center was opened. However, due to overcrowding in the Detention Center, the Annex was somewhat refurbished and reopened in 2001. Due to its many violations of Idaho Jail Standards, the Annex was closed in 2006. In March 2007, the Annex was reopened after receiving some limited refurbishing and now houses approximately 70 prisoners. Although Sheriff Smith believes that the Annex should be closed permanently, the county currently uses this structure to house segregation prisoners on one floor and prisoner workers and minimum security prisoners on two other floors. 8. The Dale G. Haile Detention Center was built in 1993 and houses the majority of the Canyon County prisoners, both male and female, on its two floors. The Detention
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4

Center has four pods: Pod 1 contains housing units A, B, C, and D; Pod 2 contains units E, F, and G; Pod 3 contains units H, J, K, and L; Pod 4 contains units M and N.
9. Originally, all bunk beds in the Detention Center were double bunks. Over the years, however, the defendants converted many of these double bunks into triple bunks. The Detention Center now contains some 488 beds.
10. Yet even with these 488 beds crammed into the Detention Center, frequently there are more prisoners than beds, and the excess prisoners must sleep on the floor on a thin mattress. In 2008, for instance, class plaintiff Kathaleena Bowen spent more than 100 days, and named plaintiff Amanda Davis spent nearly three weeks, sleeping on the floor due to lack of bed space.
11. Each unit in each pod in the Detention Center has a common area with eating tables and benches on one side, and a partitioned area on the other side with shower stalls, sinks, and toilets. The Detention Center also contains on its first floor a booking and holding area that includes cells for medical isolation and suicide watch prisoners, and a cell for prisoners who arrive at the jail intoxicated.
12. In 2006, a 216-bed Work Release Center for male prisoners was opened. Due to overcrowding in the Detention Center, the Work Release Center houses some general population prisoners as well as prisoners on work release. Overall conditions of the Dale G. Haile Detention Center
13. Yearly inspection reports issued by the Idaho Sheriff's Association (ISA) detail the substandard, filthy, and unhealthy conditions of confinement in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center. The root cause of these deplorable conditions is overcrowding. Overcrowding produces a "domino effect," taxing all other systems--ventilation,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5

plumbing, staffing, laundry, recreation, etc.--beyond the breaking point. The 2007 ISA report, issued August 28, 2007, reaches that conclusion. The ISA determined that "overcrowding would seem to be the inherent problem that creates security issues, tasks the staff and the physical plant [and] makes it very difficult to keep up maintenance, cleaning and refurbishment of the facility." The report noted that persistent overcrowding, including the "flooring and multi-bunking" of prisoners, is "the basis for the liability that the County shoulders and an ongoing reason for concern." The ISA's 2008 inspection report, issued on June 11, 2008, reiterated that conclusion. The report found that cells in the Detention Center "were considerably overcrowded" and "were very humid and smelled." Inspectors found "mold, scaling of paint, and fixtures that were not working or needed cleaning and refurbishment in numerous cells." The inspection concluded that the "ventilation systems cannot move enough air" for the population, and that overcrowded conditions throughout the Detention Center makes it "impossible to do routine maintenance, painting and repairs, . . . [and] increase[s] the likelihood of mold and other airborne problems." The combined effect of these substandard conditions, the ISA concluded, compromises the health and safety of staff and prisoner alike. This is not to say that reducing the jail's population would be a panacea--because it would not--but it certainly would alleviate some problems. 1. Overcrowding
14. The Sheriff, the County Commissioners, and the ISA agree that the Dale G. Haile Detention Center is overcrowded. The Center is overcrowded in two respects. First, it contains too many beds given the limited living space in the housing units.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6

Second, the prisoner population of the Detention Center often exceeds the (already excessive) number of beds.
15. The Idaho Sheriff's Association, comprised of correctional and law enforcement officers from around the state, has promulgated a set of standards to govern the operation and administration of local jails. One set of standards, adopted from the American Correctional Association, is used to determine the number of beds that may safely and securely be placed in a given space. A recent study conducted by Sheriff Smith found that in order to comply with those ISA standards, at least 100 beds must be removed from the Detention Center.
16. Frequently, prisoners must sleep on the floor due to lack of bed space, despite the fact that the Detention Center has 100 more beds than it should have. During the past twelve months, named plaintiffs Amanda Davis slept on the floor nearly three weeks; Nikky Price two weeks; and Parnell Williams two weeks. In addition, class plaintiff Kathaleena Bowen slept on the floor more than 100 days. The Detention Center is chronically overcrowded.
17. As a result of overcrowding, the Detention Center is not able to adequately classify prisoners. Thus, prisoners who should be kept apart for various reasons, such as age, crime, their predatory nature or their predilection for violence, often must be housed together. This increases the risk of violence, intimidation, and strong-arming. Overcrowding also contributes to all of the other inadequacies discussed below. 2. Inadequate ventilation
18. Ventilation in the Detention Center is inadequate, resulting in a build-up of stale and foul air, thereby increasing the risk of air-borne disease and causing headaches
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7

and other physical and mental ailments. The ISA's 2008 inspection report, as noted above, found that the Detention Center's ventilation system "cannot move enough air" for the population, and that cells were "very humid and smelled." The Center's ventilation system was not designed to accommodate the size of this prisoner population, and it is simply unable to meet their need for fresh and clean air.
19. Numerous prisoners, including plaintiffs Eric Couch and Rochelle Saucedo, report suffering frequent headaches that they attribute in part to inadequate ventilation.
20. It is well known that inadequate ventilation contributes to the spread of mold, a problem that plagues the Detention Center, as discussed below. 3. Inadequate sanitation
21. Unsanitary conditions exist throughout the Dale G. Haile Detention Center, as well as the Annex and Work Release Center. Mold and soap scum exist in virtually every shower area. In some housing units, the humidity is so high and ventilation so poor that water droplets form on ceilings, and the Sheriff has installed plastic bags to catch the falling water and paint flakes. Mold and mildew are visible on shower stalls, walls, and ceilings. Concrete is deteriorating due to water damage.
22. There is no adequate or routine cleaning of shower and toilet facilities, and as near as plaintiffs can discern, there is no housekeeping plan to prevent the build-up of filth.
23. Several weeks ago, class plaintiff Kathaleena Bowen, unable to stand the stench emanating from the drain in the shower area in her housing unit, obtained the help of Deputy Atkinson in removing the drain cover. Seeing the filth and gunk that filled the drain, both of them vomited. They then cleaned the drain.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8

24. Recently, named plaintiff Eric Couch and class plaintiff Troy Fenster were given some cleaning supplies by a deputy and told to remove the mold in G-Unit. However, the mold was so encrusted on walls, ceilings, and floors, and the materials they were given were so inadequate, that their efforts barely made a difference, and three days later the mold was just as evident. (Moreover, these men were not issued protective clothing, eyewear, or masks, despite the toxic nature of black mold spores.)
25. Named plaintiff Rochelle Saucedo states that her housing unit has been issued bleach to clean mold only twice in the past eight months.
26. Named plaintiff Nikki Price spent ten days in a cell in the Annex a few weeks ago. The cell to which she was brought had blood caked on the walls, which Ms. Price scrubbed off. The cell also had water continually oozing down one wall. When Ms. Price asked a deputy for a rag to dry the resulting puddle on the floor, she was told to use her own towel, the one intended for her showering and washing.
27. The jail issues each prisoner one towel twice a week. Every named plaintiff will testify that the towels they receive smell of body odor. Ms. Saucedo believes, based on what she has seen and heard, that workers are overstuffing the washing machines, preventing the towels from being cleaned properly.
28. The jail issues each prisoner an orange jumpsuit twice a week, meaning that prisoners wear the same clothing three and then four days in a row. This results in an accumulation of body odor in the clothing, which permeates the air. Jumpsuits become so soiled and smelly that they are difficult to get clean and fresh-smelling.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9

29. In addition to the presence of mold throughout the Detention Center, there is a constant flaking of paint in several housing units, including the units occupied by the female prisoners, as plaintiffs Davis, Price, and Saucedo will attest.
30. Numerous prisoners, including named plaintiff Eric Couch and class plaintiff John Jankowski, have been suffering for the past several weeks from a sore throat, a sinus infection, and headaches that they attribute in part to the unsanitary conditions of the jail. 4. Inadequate plumbing
31. There is no adequate or routine maintenance of plumbing systems, including shower and toilet facilities, and the jail is beset with plumbing problems. Due to overcrowded conditions, showers and toilets in the Detention Center receive far more use than originally designed, and they frequently break down. Many of these broken facilities have remained unusable for weeks or months at a time. For instance, G-Unit contains 92 beds. (According to the Sheriff's recent study, it should have only 66 beds.) Named plaintiff Eric Couch and class plaintiffs John Jankowski and Troy Fenster reside in G-Unit. According to them, two of the nine toilets in G-Unit have been inoperable for three months, and five of the Unit's ten showers have been inoperable for several weeks. Prisoners have repeatedly notified staff of these deficiencies, to no avail.
32. Moreover, showers throughout the Detention Center have two buttons that must be pushed for water, one for hot water and the other for cold. They do not operate simultaneously, and prisoners must decide whether to be doused with hot or cold water while showering. Sometimes the hot water is so hot it scalds the skin instantly. Mr. Couch is one of the prisoners who has been scalded during a shower.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10

33. As a result of inadequate plumbing, standing water exists in drains and on some floors, creating a health and safety hazard. 5. Inadequate temperature control
34. All six named plaintiffs will testify that the housing unit in which they currently reside in the Detention Center is very cold, especially at night. Parnell Williams, for instance, will testify that while he was in F-Unit, it was so cold that his hands turned blue. Mr. Couch will testify that the temperature in his housing unit (GUnit) is so low that he constantly feels cold. Plaintiff Amanda Davis will testify that she and other female prisoners often ask deputies to raise the air temperature, only to be told that there is nothing the deputies can do about it.
35. Those prisoners who had been incarcerated in the Detention Center during summer months report that the jail was often uncomfortably hot, and prisoners would sweat even when they were inactive.
36. The constantly cold temperatures cause some prisoners to get sick and to stay sick. Plaintiff Eric Couch developed a cold soon after his arrival at the jail and it has not abated for the entire time he has been there, some five weeks. Mr. Couch attributes the green mucous he coughs up, his raspy voice, and his flu-like symptoms partly to the frigid temperature of his housing unit. 6. Inadequate bedding
37. Bedding in the Jail falls below acceptable standards, especially given the cold temperatures in the housing units. Defendants issue one very thin mattress per prisoner to be placed over a metal bunk bed, a mattress cover, a sheet, and two thin blankets.
38. Pillows are not issued to prisoners.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11

39. The blankets issued to prisoners are not sufficient to keep them warm during the winter months. All six named plaintiffs will testify that they are uncomfortably cold at night. Defendants maintain a rigid policy of not issuing a third blanket even when prisoners request one from a deputy or through the medical department. On November 20, 2008, for instance, named plaintiff Nikki Price submitted the following written request to the medical department of the Detention Center: "Can I please get an extra blanket. Thanks." The following day she received this written response: "Only 2 blankets are given." The medical department did not ask why Ms. Price wanted another blanket, as it apparently made no difference.
40. Most or all of the mattresses in the Detention Center are cracked, and many have large holes that expose their "stuffing." This prevents these mattresses from being properly cleaned or sanitized, and indeed, the defendants do not even try to clean or sanitize them. When a prisoner leaves the jail, his/her mattress is stacked on a pile and reissued to an arriving prisoner. Plaintiff Rochelle Saucedo has stacked nearly 100 mattresses during the eight months of her incarceration, and not one of them was cleaned or sanitized prior to being reissued.
41. Prisoners are not permitted to have a second mattress. Plaintiff Amanda Davis was nearly five months pregnant when she entered the Detention Center. No bed was empty, so a deputy assigned her to a place on the cold cement floor, and she was issued one thin mattress. She requested a second mattress but was refused. Even the jail's medical department refused to authorize the issuance of a second mattress, informing Ms. Davis that pregnant women qualify for a second mattress only when they enter their third trimester. Ms. Davis will testify that sleeping on one thin mattress
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12

caused bruising on her hips and made prolonged sleep impossible. Plaintiffs Davis, Saucedo, and Price will testify that at the time Ms. Davis was denied a second mattress, the jail had dozens of additional mattresses piled in the store room. Plaintiff Saucedo will also testify that she observed another pregnant prisoner spend many days on the floor and was denied a second mattress even though she was experiencing back pain and had submitted medical requests for an additional mattress.
42. Named plaintiffs Jeffrey Gross and Rochelle Saucedo will testify that after a period of time sleeping on a metal slab with one thin mattress and no pillow, they developed soreness in their back and neck, which continues to this day. Plaintiff Eric Couch, who has asthma, was told by his doctor that he should sleep with his head raised, something that Mr. Couch is unable to do in the Detention Center, not having a pillow. 7. Inadequate recreation
43. The Detention Center has no indoor recreation facility. 44. The Detention Center has no exercise equipment located either indoor or outdoor. 45. The Detention Center has two outdoor recreation yards. However, deputies rarely permit prisoners to use them. There are no scheduled times of recreation, and access to the yard is wholly within the discretion of the deputy on duty. Prisoners in GUnit will testify that during the past three months, they were offered access to the recreation yard on only two occasions. Plaintiff Couch, who has been incarcerated in GUnit since December 11, 2008, has been offered access to the recreation yard only one time. Prisoners often ask deputies to be allowed access to the yard but such requests are routinely denied. Plaintiff Nikki Price will testify that the same is true for access to the
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13

recreation yard for female prisoners, although it appears that deputies in their housing unit allow them slightly more access than the deputies in G-Unit allow male prisoners.
46. During the winter months when it is cold outside, the Detention Center only has a few zippered sweaters available for prisoner use in the recreation yard. In December 2008 during the one time that a deputy offered outdoor recreation to G-Unit, some thirteen prisoners went outdoors. They were given only five sweaters between them, and the zippers of three of the five were inoperable. The thirteen prisoners shared the sweaters, handing them back and forth, while they walked around the yard.
47. There is no exercise equipment in the outdoor recreation yard. A few months ago when some prisoners in G-Unit fashioned a ball from a rolled-up pair of socks and were using it in the recreation yard, the deputy on duty ordered them to stop.
48. The lack of equipment for aerobic exercise and for large and small muscle activity causes unnecessary pain and suffering, muscle atrophy, and lethargy. It results in enforced idleness. Plaintiff Couch, who used to exercise regularly and play football, has noticed a decided drop in his physical health since being confined in the Detention Center. Plaintiff Williams will testify that his doctor recommended that he exercise regularly due to a medical condition, but the Detention Center offers no realistic opportunity for him to do so.
49. At least one of the outdoor recreation yards is used on occasion to house K-9 dogs and they urinate and defecate in the yard. 8. Inadequate staffing
50. For the past three years, Sheriff Smith has requested funding from the County Commissioners to hire additional jail staff. To plaintiffs' knowledge, the Commissioners
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14

have denied all three requests. The jail is inadequately staffed, particularly given its overcrowded conditions. Not only is there an insufficient number of deputies on duty many shifts, but there is an excessive use of overtime, and deputies often are shorttempered and tired. This creates a dangerous condition for staff and prisoner alike. Moreover, the Detention Center and the Annex are staff intensive facilities, having linear designs and many "blind spots" that officers must inspect visually on a regular basis. 9. Inadequate fire protecton
51. The Detention Center is a fire trap. The fire alarm system has been inoperable for at least two years, and many of the Center's smoke detectors do not work. An inspection of the fire alarm system in January 2008 found "3 ground faults at the time of inspection, which will hamper system performance; as well as over thirty troubles. System needs further service . . . which may include panel and/or device replacement along with extensive rewiring and programming."
52. Only in recent weeks have the defendants begun to install an adequate fire alarm system. According to Jail personnel, the system will be operational in early February. Defendants' failure to install this system--or any other adequate system-sooner exhibits deliberate indifference to the safety of prisoners and staff alike.
53. To plaintiffs' knowledge, defendants have not had a fire drill in the Detention Center in years, not even one in which prisoners remain in their cells in a mock release. 10. Arbitrary rule enforcement
54. If the Jail has an Inmate Handbook, it is hidden from prisoner view. Prisoners will testify that either they or other prisoners in their presence have requested to see an Inmate Handbook, and it was not produced.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 15

55. As a result, prisoners do not know what conduct is proscribed or what punishments can befall them for engaging in any such conduct. As near as plaintiffs can discern, deputies have virtually free reign in setting rules and enforcing them.
56. Plaintiff Nikki Price will testify, for instance, that she was given forty days in segregation for engaging in an activity she didn't know was a rule violation, and she did not know that this activity could result in such a severe punishment. Plaintiff Jeffrey Gross will testify that ever since he began writing to the ACLU a few weeks ago, a certain deputy has subjected him to constant physical and cell searches, and that this deputy appears to have unbridled authority to commit those acts. 11. Failure to ensure the provision of special meals
57. Plaintiff Amanda Davis will testify that she has repeatedly notified Jail personnel that she has a severe allergic reaction to onions, such that her throat will close and she will have difficulty breathing and swallowing. Yet on every occasion in which onions are served as part of the prisoner meal, deputies have brought her that same meal. Whether other prisoners who need special medical or religious diets experience the same difficulty as Ms. Davis is currently unknown to counsel for plaintiffs. 12. Inadequate medical care
58. Several prisoners report positive experiences with the Jail's medical department, but other prisoners report negative experiences. Those with negative experiences include the two pregnant prisoners, one of whom is Plaintiff Davis, who were denied a second mattress. In addition, Plaintiff Price will testify as to the lack of adequate medical care she experienced.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 16

59. An overall problem faced by the prisoner class is that the Jail charges each prisoner seen by the medical department a fee of $10. (Prisoners who do not have $10 on their books are given a "negative" balance, and the money is seized as soon as it is placed on the prisoner's account.) Plaintiffs will testify that $10 is a lot of money to them, and that this charge has resulted in their not requesting needed medical attention. As a result of the $10 charge, prisoners often choose to remain sick and contagious in their housing units. Granted, the $10 fee may discourage the false reporting of medical claims but it has the immediate and disastrous effect of placing the entire prisoner population at unnecessary risk of infection and disease, and discourages prisoners from seeking necessary treatment. Defendants' deliberate indifference
60. Each defendant has made statements acknowledging that the Canyon County Jail is overcrowded and is beset with health and safety problems. It is well known that human beings confined in a sordid environment like the one that exists in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center will suffer predictable physical and mental illness over time, including disease, aches, pains, depression, listlessness, apathy, sleeplessness, anxiety, and tension, and will be at unnecessary risk of violent assault from persons whose existing problems are exacerbated by conditions of confinement of this nature.
61. Defendants have it within their power--and they have it within their duty--to take all reasonable steps to prevent the suffering that they know is occurring on a daily basis in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center. Their failure to take those steps reflects deliberate indifference to the health and safety of the prisoner class and subject the plaintiff class to cruel and unusual punishment. Unless and until this Court intervenes
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17

and orders the cessation of these intolerable and dangerous condition, plaintiffs will continue to suffer unnecessary harm. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Very recent improvements to the Jail
62. During the past three months, there have been numerous letters and telephone calls between prisoners of the Canyon County Jail and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), far more than in the past. On November 13, 2008, the Idaho PressTribune reported that the ACLU was considering filing suit against Canyon County in order to improve conditions in the county jail. Within the past 60 days, defendants have suddenly made a concerted effort to improve a few conditions in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center. For instance, some (but not all) of the housing units were painted, and work commenced on a new fire alarm system.
63. These efforts are commendable but they are too little and too late to avoid the need for judicial scrutiny. In the first place, most of the inadequacies described above will remain unabated. Second, based on past history, it must be presumed that defendants' remedial efforts are temporary and transitory. As the Supreme Court stated in a related context, "[i]t is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is a probability of recurrence." United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). See also Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1538 (10th Cir. 1983) (holding that a federal court must issue injunctive relief against prison officials, despite their recent remedial efforts, "until it can say with assurance that the unconstitutional practices have been discontinued and that there is no reasonable expectation that the unconstitutional practices will recur."
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 64. Some of the prisoners incarcerated at the Canyon County Jail are pretrial detainees, that is, they have not been convicted of any offense and the only reason they are incarcerated is because they are unable to post bond. For reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs allege that the actions of defendants, separately and in combination, acting under color of state law, has caused members of the plaintiff class not yet convicted of any crime to suffer punishment without due process of law in violation of rights secured to them under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Relief is sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 65. In addition to pretrial detainees, some members of the plaintiff class have been convicted of a crime and are incarcerated as a result, either as a county prisoner or as a state prisoner. For reasons set forth above, the actions of defendants, separately and in combination, in incarcerating members of the plaintiff class who have been convicted of crimes under the conditions described herein, subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Relief is sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray to this Court as follows: 1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), F.R.Civ.P.;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19

3. Issue a declaratory judgment that defendants’ actions violate rights secured to plaintiffs under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 4. Issue injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 F.R.Civ.P., enjoining defendants and all persons in concert with them, and their successors in office, from incarcerating plaintiffs in the Canyon County Jail in a manner that violates their federal rights; and 5. Grant plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees in this matter, and such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2009.
Dean J. Miller Stephen L. Pevar Lea C. Cooper Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 20

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 1 of 36

STEPHEN 1. PEVAR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 2074 Park Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 570-9830

LEA C. COOPER ISB # 3505 American Civil Liberties Union ofIdaho Foundation P.O. Box 1897 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 344-9750 ext. 206

DEAN JOSEPH MILLER ISB # 1968 Cooperating Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union ofIdaho Foundation McDevitt & Miller LLP P.O. Box 2564 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 343-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, et ai,

CaseNo.I:09-cv-00107-BLW

Plaintiffs, vs. CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, et ai,

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION On October 20, 2008, the Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho, Clu'is Smith, instl11cted his jail administrator, Captain Craig Hansen, to send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners of Canyon County. Hansen's letter (attached as Exhibit I)

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 2 of 36
contains a fitting explanation of why Plaintiffs are filing the instant motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. The letter states in relevant part (emphasis added):
On October 6, 2008, the Dale G. Haile Detention Center was inspected by Nick Albers, Executive Director of Idaho Jail Standards for the Idaho Sheriff's Association, Dave Sasser from ICRMP, Sheriff Clu·is Smith and Captain Craig Hansen. In this inspection, several concerns were voiced by Mr. Albers and Mr. Sasser concerning the condition of the facility. The two main concerns were the inmate over population and the health conditions ofthe institlltion. ...
The over population of the Canyon County Jail facilities, combined with the 24-hour operation, has brought the condition of the facility in regards to safety, health and the need for repair, to a critical point that must be addressed now. . . .fIjt is necessary that a large scale renovation of the facility be put into action. The approach can not be to just get by, which appears to be the past standard of operation as evidenced by the condition ofthe facility.
We must recognize that the Dale G. Haile detention center is in poor condition. Employees, visitors and inmates who are all Canyon County Citizens are affected by this. It is a matter of liability, responsibility, accountability and Canyon County pride that these facility issues be immediately corrected.
Two months later, on December 15, 2008, Sheriff Smith wrote Mr. Albers. (See
attached, Exhibit 2.) The Sheriff admitted in his letter that although the county had
begun addressing a few issues, the Jail remained overcrowded ("we have too many
inmates"); the Jail was still unsanitary ("mold ... continues to be a problem" and the
facility "falls short" in many areas involving prisoner health); the Jail still had plumbing
problems (including "toilets and faucets not functioning properly in the restrooms and
showers"); and the county commissioners had not responded to Captain Hansen's
recommendation that the Jail receive "a large scale renovation," including an upgrade of
the Jail's ventilation system.
2

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 3 of 36
Canyon County officials are well aware that their Jail has been overcrowded for more than a decade. (See "Canyon County ponders bond," Idaho Press-Tribune Nov. 13, 2008, www.idahopress.coml?=tme&id=16245).In 2005, the County Commissioners and Sheriff Smith sought voter approval of a bond to build a new jail--repeatedly informing citizens during the process about the many deficiencies in the present facility-but the measure fell short of the required two-thirds majority. (See id.)
During the time that county officials sought to build a new facility, conditions in the existing Jail continued to deteriorate, as Captain Hansen's letter details. The ACLU ofIdaho was allowed to tour the Jail on October 28, 2008. (See id.) In subsequent press statements, Canyon County officials acknowledged the Jail's many problems and shOltcomings. See, e.g., hltp:llwww.idahopress.com/newsf?print=true&id=16374. One county commissioner, Defendant Steve Rule, candidly admitted on November 16, 2008: "'There's no way we'll win [if the ACLU files suit] because we're in noncompliance.''' (See "Jail faces pressure from groups," Idaho Press-Tribune, Nov. 16, 2008, hUp:/Iwww.idahopress.com/news/?print=true&id=16374 at p. 5.)
There are four groups of persons intimately familiar with conditions of confinement in the Canyon County Jail: the prisoners who live in the jail, the staff who work there, the administrators who operate it, and the agency--the Idaho Sheriff's Association-that inspects it. For years now, all four groups have criticized the numerous conditions of confinement in the Jail that are dangerous and unhealthy, and yet the County has allowed these conditions to persist.
Plaintiffs submit this Rule 65 motion in an effOli to promptly abate the most serious of these dangers until such time as the Couti, after trial, has an opportunity to examine the full scope of Plaintiffs' claims for relief. These dangerous conditions are so
3

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 4 of 36
hazardous to human life that their continued existence must not be tolerated any longer. These conditions are (1) overcrowding, (2) inadequate ventilation, (3) inadequate sanitation, (4) inadequate plumbing, and (5) inadequate recreation. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed the issuance of preliminary injunctions in prisoner cases such as this. See Mayweathers v. New/and, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cil'. 2001); Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cil'. 1984); Wright v. EIIOIIIOtO, 462 F. Supp. 397 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (threejudge court), affd, 434 U.S. 1052 (1978). See also Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. 984, 987 (D. Ore. 1983) (granting prisoners of a county jail preliminary relief to immediately improve unhealthy conditions of confinement, including inadequate ventilation and inadequate recreation).
Plaintiffs have attempted to discuss and resolve these exigent issues with Defendants, to no avail. For instance, Plaintiffs requested information from Defendants as to whether they have conducted any environmental studies to determine just how dangerous these acknowledged unhealthy conditions are, and what measures must be taken to abate them. Defendants refused to supply that information. In addition, Plaintiffs offered to finance environmental tests on an expedited basis. Defendants refused to permit these tests to be conducted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no reasonable alternative but to seek preliminary injunctive relief in an effort to protect human life.
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The standard for issuing such relief was recently summarized by Judge Lodge in Balla v. Idaho Board of Correction, 2006 WL 1793555 (D. Idaho 2006):
4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 5 of 36
A Rule 65 preliminary injunction may be granted if the moving party satisfies one of two tests, designated as the "traditional standard" or the "altemative standard" of law. Intel'l1ational Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosollnd US.A. Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993). The traditional standard requires a demonstration of the following elements: (1) that the moving patiy will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) that the moving party will probably prevail on the merits; (3) that the balance of potential harm favors the moving party; and (4) that the public interest favors granting relief. Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987). Under the altemative standard, the moving pmiy may meet its burden by demonstrating either: (1) a combination of probable success of the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor. Benda v. Grand Lodge Intern'! Ass'n. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 937 (1979).
Balla, 2006 WL 1793555 at *2 (intemal footnote omitted). See also GlIzman v. ShelVlY, 552 F.3d 941,948 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing the same two tests); Goodrick v. Townsend,
2006 WL 694644 (D. Idaho 2006) (same).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626, is
applicable in this context because Plaintiffs are prisoners. Under the PLRA, a
preliminary injunction "must be narrowly drawn, extend no fmiher than necessary to
correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intmsive
means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). This standard, as the
Ninth Circuit has noted, merely restates the standard that pre-existed the PLRA. See Armstrongv. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872 (9th Cir. 2001).
Under the PLRA, though, a preliminary injunction must expire at the end of 90
days, see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), but a district comi may issue a new 90-day injunction if
the conditions that precipitated the first illjunction have not been abated. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that "[n]othing in
5

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 6 of 36
the statute limits the number of times a court may enter preliminary reliet" if plaintiffs continue to show the need for it).
It is important to bear in mind that evidentiary rules are relaxed when plaintiffs file motions for a preliminary injunction. As this Comt explained in Balla: "Affidavits submitted on a preliminary injunction motion are not subjected to the same strict standards (personal knowledge and competency to testify) as those submitted on a summary judgment motion, and they may contain hearsay. llA Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure '1f 2949 (2d ed. 1995); see also Flynt Distributing Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984)." Balla, 2006 WL 1793555 at *5. In this motion, Plaintiffs rely on several types of evidence of varying degree of reliability: declarations signed under penalty of peljury, grievances submitted by prisoners and responses to them from Jail officials, letters sent by Sheriff Smith and Captain Hansen, and inspection repotts issued by the Idaho Sheriff's Association. Naturally, the Court should give whatever weight to these submissions the Court deems appropriate, but at this stage Defendants may not seek to strike them based merely on their informality or because they contain hearsay. See Balla, 2006 WL 1793555 at *5.
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment is a prisoner's safety net. "[I]t is now settled that 'the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scmtiny under the Eighth Amendment.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). When prison officials disregard the Eighth Amendment, "judicial intervention is
6

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 7 of 36
indispensable." RllOdes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 354 (1981) (emphasis ill original). The Eighth Amendment obligates prison officials to "provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and must 'take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.'" Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832, quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984).
The Eighth Amendment test has two components, one objective and the other subjective. First, the plaintiff must show that he or she is "incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Farmer, at 834. Second, the plaintiff must show that the defendant prison official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. ld.
1. The objective component A prisoner alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment must show fi'om objective facts that a condition of confinement creates "a substantial risk of serious harm." Farmer, at 834. It is not necessary to show that the harm has already occurred, but only that it is substantially likely to occur. Unsafe or unhealthy conditions that "pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to [a prisoner's] future health" satisfy the objective prong. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Moreover, a prisoner is not required to wait until the injury actually occurs before filing suit. A "remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event," and prison officials are not free to "ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious injury and needless suffering" merely because no harm has yet occurred. Helling, 509 U.S. at 33; accord, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845.
7

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 8 of 36
Courts are permitted to consider prison conditions in their entirety in determining whether anyone condition violates the Eighth Amendment. Conditions that have "a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise" violate the Eighth Amendment in combination. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991). In addition, courts should consider the length of time that the plaintiff is subject to an unsafe or unhealthy condition. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978) (noting that confinement in a "filthy, overcrowded cell" may be tolerable "for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months. ")
2. The subjective component In addition to proving an objective risk of serious harm, Farmer requires an Eighth Amendment plaintiff to prove that the defendant official had a culpable state of mind--known as "deliberate indifference." The deliberate indifference standard is a middle ground that lies "somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other." Farmer, at 836. The Farmer Court likened this standard to criminal recklessness, which makes persons liable when they "consciously disregard[] a substantial risk of serious harm." Id. at 837-38. Proving deliberate indifference is an issue of fact that may be demonstrated "in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer, at 842 (emphasis added). Such constructive knowledge can be demonstrated by showing that a dangerous or unhealthy condition "was 'longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the
8

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 9 of 36
defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information concerning the risk.'" Id. (Citation omitted.)
Once a prison administrator is "exposed to information concerning the risk," he or she may not turn a blind eye to it. On the contrary, either the risk must be abated or, if the administrator is uncertain as to its depth or degree, an investigation must ensue. An administrator "would not escape liability if the evidence showed that he merely refused to verify underlying facts that he strongly suspected to be true, or declined to confirm inferences that he strongly suspected to exist." Id., at 842 n.8.
An Eighth Amendment plaintiff need only show that the risk of injury is obvious, and need not show that the defendant wanted the plaintiff or some other particular person to be injured by that condition. "[A] prison official [may not] escape liability for deliberate indifference by showing that, while he was aware of an obvious, substantial risk to inmate safety, he did not know that the complainant was especially likely to be" harmed. Fanner, at 843.
It bears emphasis that Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to adopt a "totality of conditions" approach, in which individual conditions of confinement are not unconstitutional but their combined effect is perceived as violating the Eighth Amendment. Such an approach was condenUled in Wright v. RlIshel1, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs, on the contrary, demonstrate here that each of the five conditions addressed in this motion--overcrowding, ventilation, sanitation, plumbing, and recreation--independently violate the Constitution. But as the Ninth Circuit explained in Wright v. RlIsliel1, in a jail or prison "each condition of confinement does not exist in isolation," and it is appropriate to consider them in combination "especially when the ill-
9

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 10 of 36
effects of pat1icular conditions are exacerbated by other related conditions." Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133. Here, for instance, as explained below, the Jail's inadequate ventilation is exacerbating the Jail's sanitation by making it virtually impossible to prevent the growth of mold due to the resulting humid conditions and limited air flow.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION The Canyon County Jail houses both pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners. Pretrial detainees have not been convicted of any crime and therefore the state has no authority to punish them; any punislmlent other than loss of libet1y is a violation of the due process clause of the FOlllieenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36
& n.l6 (1979); Pierce v. COllnty 0/ Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus,
those members of the Plaintiff class who are pretrial detainees enjoy greater protection against arbitrary or injurious state action than convicted prisoners. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39; Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205. See also Demel)' v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial detainees, while the Eighth Amendment only prevents the imposition of Cl1lel and unusual punishment on convicted prisoners.")
For purposes of resolving the present motion, the COlllt need not distinguish between the two subclasses of Plaintiffs. The dangerous and unhealthy conditions at issue here clearly violate the Eighth Amendment and, hence, must also violate the Fourteenth. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004); Redman v. COllntyo/ San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1441n.7 (9th Cir. 1991).
10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 11 of 36
FACTS RELATING TO EACH OF PLAINTIFFS' FIVE CLAIMS The following facts are related to each of Plaintiffs' five requests for preliminary injunctive relief. 1. The Canyon County Jail in Caldwell, Idaho, consists of three buildings commonly called the Annex, the Dale G. Haile Detention Center, and the Work Release Center. (See Exhibit I at I.) 2. The Annex was built in 1948. It was abandoned in 1993 when the Dale G. Haile Detention Center was opened. However, because of overcrowding in the Detention Center, the Annex was somewhat refurbished and reopened in 200 l. Due to violations of Idaho Jail Standards, the Annex was again closed in 2006. In March 2007, the Almex was reopened after receiving some limited refurbishing and now houses approximately 70 prisoners. (See Exhibit 1 at 1.) 3. The Dale G. Haile Detention Center was built in 1993 and houses the majority of the Canyon County prisoners, both male and female, on its two floors. 4. The Idaho Sheriff's Association (ISA), although not funded by the state of Idaho, performs official functions for the state and for county governments. See, e.g., Idaho Code 34-618 (requiring all newly elected sheriffs in Idaho to attend "the newly elected sheriffs' school sponsored by the Idaho sheriffs' association.") One of ISA's function s is to inspect each county jail twice a year and issue written findings.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION # 1: OVERCROWDING 1. In Rhodes v. Chapmall, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), the Supreme Court held that placing more prisoners in a cell than it was designed to hold is not unconstitutional per se. However, such overcrowding becomes unconstitutional when it (a) results in an
11

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 12 of 36
increase in violence or tJu'eat of violence, (b) results in preventing prisoners from receiving necessary services such as adequate clothing, bedding, and recreation, or (c) exacerbates or creates unhealthy conditions of confinement, such as inadequate ventilation, inadequate sanitation, or inadequate plumbing. See TOllssaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoptolt'it v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1249 (9th Cir. 1982); Balla v. Board o/Corrections, 656 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Idaho 1987).
2. Subsequent to Rhodes v. Chapman, this Court (and other courts) added another prohibition: overcrowding is unconstitutional per se if it results in forcing prisoners to
sleep on the floor. See Balla, 656 F. Supp. at 1118. h1 Loya v. Board 0/ COllilty Commissioners 0/BOImock, COllllty, Idaho, 1992 WL 176131 (D. Idaho 1992), the Court
reiterated this prohibition. See Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *2 ("This Court previously held that sleeping on the floor is constitutionally prohibited. Balla II, 656 F. Supp. at 1118.")
3. The Court in Loya concluded that the Bannock County Jail was "grossly overcrowded" because the jail routinely held 30% more prisoners than it was desigued to hold, some of whom were forced to sleep on the floor. See Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *2.
4. Overcrowding of the Dale G. Haile Detention Center is just as bad as it was in Loya. Sheriff Smith admitted in his December 15, 2008 letter to Nick Albers, cited earlier (see Exhibit 2), that "we have too many irunates." (Exhibit 2 at p. 4.) According to a study conducted for Sheriff Smith, the Dale G. Haile Detention Center should have no more than 344 beds. (See Exhibit 3.) But according to the Jail's population records, the Detention Center in 2008 had an average daily population 432 (92 more than it should have). (See Exhibit 4.) The excess prisoners were placed on bunk beds that had been added in some housing units or, when those were full, they were given a thin mattress and
12

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 13 of 36
ordered to sleep on the floor. On average, 21 prisoners a day slept on the floor in 2008. (See id.)
5. Named plaintiff Amanda Davis is one of the prisoners forced to sleep on the floor in 2008. Ms. Davis, who was four-and-a-half months pregnant at the time, spent nearly three weeks on a thin mattress on the floor. See Declaration of Amanda Davis, (attached as Exhibit Decl.1).
6. As discussed below, the Canyon County Jail suffers from inadequate ventilation, inadequate sanitation, and inadequate plumbing. The overcrowded conditions in the Jail exacerbate these health hazards. The Idaho Sheriff's Association has drawn the attention of Canyon County officials to the correlation between the crowded conditions in their Jail and the Jail's inability to provide a safe and healthy envirollll1ent. For instance, on August 28, 2007, ISA Jail Standards Coordinator, Nick Albers, sent a letter to Sheri ff Smith stating that "overcrowding would seem to be the inherent problem that creates security issues, tasks the staff and the physical plant [and] makes it very difficult to keep up maintenance, cleaning and refurbishment of the facility." (See Exhibit 5 at 1.) The ISA's 2008 inspection report, issued June 11, 2008, reached the same conclusion. (See Exhibit 6 at 1.) The ISA found that cells in the Detention Center "were considerably overcrowded" and "were very humid and smelled;" that "mold, scaling of paint, and fixtures [] were not working or needed cleaning and refurbishment in numerous cells;" the Jail's "ventilation systems cannot move enough air" for the popUlation; and the Jail's overcrowded conditions renders it "impossible to do routine maintenance, painting and repairs, ... [and] increasers] the likelihood of mold and other airborne problems." (See id.)
13

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 14 of 36
7. Sheriff Smith made celtain that the Commissioners of Canyon County knew about the Jail's unhealthy and dangerous conditions of confinement. They were notified in Hansen's October 20, 2008 letter (Exhibit I) that overcrowding "affects the irunates negatively and contributes to their hostile response to the environment. This raises the level of aggression that irunates have toward each other and toward Canyon County employees, thus increasing the potential for a violent situation." The letter also notified them that sanitation was deficient (including mold and rust in the housing units); plumbing was deficient (including "standing water" and "[p]Iumbing leaks from sewer lines"); and ventilation was deficient. (See id. at 2.)
8. Based on a similar combination of unhealthy and dangerous conditions as those present here, the Ninth Circuit in TOllssaint v. Yockey affirmed a district cOUli's grant of preliminary injunctive relief. See TOllssaint, 722 F.2d at 1492. See also HoptoJllit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1249 (9th Cir. 1982); Balla v. Board a/Corrections, 656 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Idaho 1987). The same relief should issue in the instant case.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION # 2: INADEQUATE VENTILATION 1. "Inadequate ventilation and air flow violates the Eighth Amendment if it
undermines the health of inmates and the sanitation of the penitentiary. Hoptoll'it v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985)." Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996).
2. The Canyon County Jail suffers from inadequate ventilation and air flow that undermines the health of irunates and the sanitation of the jail. Two ISA inspection reports in 2008, followed by the candid and urgent request from Sheriff Smith and Captain Hansen to the Commissioners, present indisputable evidence in this regard. On
14

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 15 of 36
April 1,2008, the ISA inspected the Canyon County Jail, and issued its report on June 18, 2008. (See Exhibit 6.) The ISA found that cells in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center "were very humid and smelled;" that the Center's "ventilation systems cannot move enough air" for the population; and the Center's overcrowded conditions renders it "impossible to do routine maintenance, painting and repairs, . . . [and] increasers] the likelihood of mold and other airborne problems." (See Exhibit 6.)
3. On October 6, 2008, ISA inspectors returned to the Canyon County Jail but this time confined themselves to "selected locations." (See Exhibit 7 at 1.) One location inspected was the Annex, the 1948 jail that the county had reopened. On October 16, 2008, ISA issued its inspection report. The report expressly notes, as the earlier repOli noted with respect to the Detention Center, that poor ventilation in the Annex was undermining sanitation. The report (Exhibit 7) states in relevant pati:
The cells in the Annex were the most troubling and there were several issues that need immediate attention. The bathroom/shower areas were found to be without exhaust or appropriate ventilation. Moisture and condensation was everywhere in these areas. There were water droplets on the ceiling, which then dropped onto the floor. Mold was observed on the ceiling and upper shower walls. Several toilets were not in working order.... These areas were very dirty and unsanitary. 4. Several weeks later, Captain Hansen sent his letter to the Commissioners, asking that they finance "a large scale renovation" of the Jail. As pati of this renovation, Hansen advised, "HVAC vents should be cOlmnercially cleaned and the system upgraded to meet the current demand for HVAC so that proper air quality is maintained in the living environment tln'oughout the year in the facility." (See Exhibit 1 at 2.) 5. Ventilation deficiencies in the Canyon County Jail have been repOlied in the media. An article in the Idaho Statesmall on May 21, 2008 states: "The air is thick with
15

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 16 of 36
humidity at the Canyon County jail. Black plastic trash bags hang from overhead pipes in one unit, collecting condensation." (See "Jail issue dominates in Canyon elections," reprinted at www.idahostatesman.comieyepieceiv-printistorv/387261.html.)
6. The Supreme Court has made it clear, as explained earlier, that prisoners complaining about unhealthy conditions of confinement, including poor ventilation, need not demonstrate a current infirmity from the offensive conditions. Prisoners need only show that these inadequate conditions create a significant risk to health and safety. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (holding that prisoners SUbjected to high levels of second-hand cigarette smoke need not prove current illness to obtain relief under the Eighth Amendment). This principle applies to claims of inadequate ventilation, as Helling illustrates. Inadequate ventilation exposes prisoners to "communicable diseases and identifiable health threats" and thus implicates constitutional guarantees. WilSall v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 1989). See also See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388, 1396, 1409 (N.D. Cal. 1984), rev'd ill part all other grounds, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that inadequate air flow "fosters the spread of communicable disease among the inmates"). Poor ventilation also exacerbates sanitation deficiencies (as ISA reports confirm is occurring here), raising additional constitutional concerns. See HoptolVit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 784; Ralllos v. Lallll1l, 639 F.2d 559, 569 (loth Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981).
7. Many prisoners of the Canyon County Jail have complained to staff about the inadequate ventilation. Named plaintiff Alisha Baker, who has been confined in segregation in the Annex for nearly two months, submitted a Grievance to staff on March 4, 2009. (See Exhibit Grievl.) Ms. Baker reported that ventilation in her cell is
16

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 17 of 36
"horrible," that she is experiencing "dizzy spells," and that the air is "extremely stuffy." (See id.) The only response she received was: "Maintenance is aware of the ventilation issues." (See id.)
8. Similarly, class plaintiff Misty Canada, who resides in Pod L of the Detention Center, submitted a Grievance on March 4, 2009. (See Exhibit Griev2.) Ms. Canada repotted having difficulty breathing due to the lack of fresh air, that the air in the Pod is stuffy and humid, and that prisoners "can't get rid of colds that are brought in by the new inmates." (See id.) As with Ms. Baker, the only reply she received was: "Maintenance is aware ofthe ventilation issues." (See id.)!
9. Likewise, on March 5, 2009, lead plaintiff Amanda Davis, who resides in H Pod of the Detention Center, submitted a Grievance to staff. (See Exhibit Griev3.) Ms. Davis reported that "a lot of inmates including myself are getting ill because we do not have some type of proper way for us to get fresh, clear air into OUl' unit." In a separate Grievance filed the same day, Ms. Davis reported that she has "trouble breathing" due to the mold in the shower area. (See Exhibit Griev4.)
9. The Jail's poor ventilation results in a build-up of stale and foul air, increases the risk of spreading airborne disease, and exacerbates the problem of mold, which plagues the Jail. The unhealthy ventilation in the Canyon County Jail violates the Eighth Amendment. See TOllssaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. at 1396 (finding unconstitutional ventilation deficiencies similar to those here); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 784; Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d at 1090; Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. 984, 999 (D. Ore. 1983).
'Next to this response on the Grievance are some words that Ms. Canada wrote, not staff. In reply to the statement that lIMaintenancc is aware of the ventilation issues," Ms. Canada wrote: "It's been like this awhile. They need to be not only aware of it but fixing it as well."
17

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 18 of 36
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION # 3: INADEQUATE SANITATION 1. Sanitation is one of "[t]he discrete basic human needs that prison officials must
satisfy." Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamlll, 639 F.2d at 568-70; Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727, 736 (D.V.I. 1997) ("Generally, sanitation is one of the most basic human needs.")
2. Comis have enforced the Eighth Amendment guarantee of a sanitary environment in a host of different contexts relevant to this case. Courts have held, for instance, that (1) jails must provide adequate cleaning supplies to prisoners on a daily basis and supervise prisoners to ensure cleanliness of living areas, see HOptOlVit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779,784 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lalllm, 639 F.2d at 569-70; Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252, 1264, 1289 (S.D.W.Va. 1981); (2) jail officials must engage in aggressive action to eliminate mold in housing areas and ensure adequate ventilation to prevent the buildup of mold, see Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F.Supp.2d 151, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), a/I'd in part, vacated ill part and remanded on other grounds, 343 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2003); (3) jails must promptly repair leaky sewage pipes and ensure proper drainage from showers, see Balla v. Board of Corrections, 656 F.Supp. at 1118-19; Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. at 1287; Jones v. City and County ofSan Francisco, 976 F. Supp. 896, 910 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Tillel)' v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256, 1271 (W.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd, 907 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1990); Inmates ofOccoquan v. Ban)" 717 F.Supp. 854, 86667 (D.D.C. 1989); and (4) jails must clean and sanitize mattresses prior to issue to another prisoner. See Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F. Supp.2d at 180; Carver v. Knox County, Tenn., 753 F.Supp. 1370, 1389 (E.D. Tenn. 1989), remanded for reconsideration, 887
18

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 19 of 36
F.2d 1287 (6th Cir. 1989), adhered to on remand, 753 F.Supp. 1398 (E.D.Telll. 1990); Toltssaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 at 1411.
3. Jail officials cannot escape their constitutional duty to ensure a sanitary jail by blaming the prisoners either for causing the poor conditions or for failing to clean them. Jail officials may use inmate workers to help clean the jail, but they cannot abdicate their responsibility to ensure that the jail is sanitary. See Hop!owi! v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 784; Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139 (7th Cir. 1989); Blake v. Hall, 668 F.2d 52, 57-58 (Ist Cir. 1981) ("the prison administration must bear the ultimate responsibility for cell block conditions."); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F.Supp. at 963-64 (holding that jail cleanliness "must be the basic responsibility of management").
4. Many aspects of the Canyon County Jail are unsanitary. Captain Hansen informed the Commissioners last October that the Canyon County Jail needs "more than just cosmetic and routine cleaning." (See Exhibit I at 2.) Due to years of neglect, what the Jail needs, the Captain said, is "[cjomplete deep sanitizing and cleaning of the living units that house inmates. This should include power washing and painting." (See id.) Moreover, given that such a deep sanitizing will likely require the use of toxic materials and create airborne contaminants, "[ijnmates may need to be housed in other facilities to accomplish this." (See id.)
5. As recently as December 15, 2008, Sheriff Smith acknowledged in a letter to the Idaho Sheriff's Association that the Canyon County Jail was unsanitary in many different areas. (See Exhibit 2.) For one, "mold ... continues to be a problem." (ld. at 2.) In addition, "sanitation and maintenance in regard to a written housekeeping plan is not in place." (ld. at 3.) Furthelmore, the Jail was violating eight different provisions of the
19

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 20 of 36
Idaho Jail Standards regarding sanitation, which Sheriff Smith cited as subsections b, c, d, e, f, g, i, and k of Chapter 10.4 of the Standards. (!d. at 4.) Those provisions (attached as Exhibit 8) require jails, inter alia, to wash exposed areas of housing units at least weekly; to scrub floors at least weekly; to wash walls and ceilings as needed; to clean toilets, lavatories, showers, and sinks with hot, sudsy water daily; to require prisoners to keep their own cells clean; and to provide adequate cleaning supplies to prisoners to be used under the supervision of facility employees.
6. Prisoners of the Canyon County Jail have submitted many grievances seeking to have sanitation problems fixed. Listed below are nine examples in alphabetical order by prisoner surname. Three things of significance should be highlighted. First, in not one instance did staffrefilte the claim olil/adequate sanitation. Second, the response of staff in virtually all instances is essentially to blame the prisoner and suggest that if he or she would only request cleaning supplies, the defect could be e1iminated--even when the prisoner was complaining about such systemic problems as clogged drains, leaky pipes, and persistent mold. Lastly, in most instances when prisoners complained about mold (as many prisoners have done), staff respond by suggesting that these prisoners notify "maintenance" or "the housing manager" of the problem. Jail administrators, however, already know about the persistent problem of mold. (See Exhibit 2, letter of Sheriff Smith to Nick Albers: "mold ... continues to be a problem.") Ironically, as discussed below, a prisoner who complained in February 2009 about mold in her living area was told that "maintenance is aware of tlus issue," and yet one week later, several prisoners who made similar complaints about mold were advised to notify "maintenance." In short, prisoners often get the run-around, and in any event, unsanitary conditions persist.
20

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 21 of 36
(a) On March I, 2009, Misty Canada reported "black mold in the restroom/shower areas." In response, Ms. Canada was told that she was already receiving "adequate amounts of cleaning supplies." (See Exhibit GrievSi
(b) In a separate Grievance, Ms. Canada asked staff to remove the "standing water in the floor drains/showers," which has a foul odor. She was told in response to "[f]eel free to scmb and clean your living area." (See Exhibit Griev6.)
(c) Named plaintiff Desiree Comingo submitted two Grievances on March I, 2009, advising staff that she is a severe astlunatic and that the mold in her housing area is placing her health "in grave danger." She repOlted that there is mold "everywhere, but in the bathroom is where it is the very worst." She was told in response to "let the housing manager know about" the mold. (See Exhibit Griev7.)
(d) Lead plaintiff Amanda Davis submitted a Grievance on March 5, 2009, advising staff that the drains in the showers were clogged and, as a result, the showers were filling with water. She also repOlied that the showers have mold, and that this is making her sick. In response, Ms. Davis was advised to "point out" these cleaning issues to the housing manager, and to "ask for supplies" if she wanted to clean the drains. (See Exhibit Griev4.) In her Declaration (Exhibit Decl. 1), Ms. Davis states that she is an asthmatic and the unsanitary conditions of the Jail, especially all the mold, is causing her to have coughing spells, sneezing, and headaches.
2With due respect, the Jail's response is disingenuous. There is 110 "adequate amount" of cleaning supplies that prisoners could be given to clean the mold, and Defendants know it. This is why Captain Hansen told the Commissioners that the Jail needs "deep sanitizing and cleaning." Moreover, until the Jail's ventilation is improved, fighting the mold is a losing battle. In any event, it is the Jail's responsibility, and not that of Ms. Canada, to ensure that mold is eliminated. If employees believe that Ms. Canada can cure this problem, they should supervise her efforts and make sure it is completed, not merely suggest that she obtain supplies.
21

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 22 of 36
(e) On December 18, 2008, prisoner Jeffrey Gross submitted a Grievance advising staff that drains were clogged and he has seen insects fly out of the drains; that there is mold in the showers as well as stagnant water; and that there was "deplorable filth" in his housing unit because staff were not ensuring that prisoners cleaned their cells. In response, Mr. Gross was told that the administration was "aware of some physical maintenance issues," and it was suggested that Mr. Gross submit maintenance requests to the housing manager. (See Exhibit Griev8.)
(f) Named plaintiff Pedro Martin submitted two Grievances to staff on March 3, 2009 regarding sanitation, advising them that faucets were "caked with grime;" his Pod is issued only one mop per week, which is not sufficient; and mattresses are not sanitized before being issued to the next prisoner. He was informed in reply: "Mr. Maliin you may receive and use cleaning supplies on your time out." (See Exhibit Griev9.)
(g) Class plaintiff Sabra McGinnis submitted a Grievance on February 25, 2009 advising staff that there was "inadequate sanitation [in the] shower and toilet areas, mold on floor, ceiling, walls inside showers." She was told in reply: "Maintenance is aware of this issue," and she should "feel free" to clean these areas herself. (See Exhibit Grievl 0.)
(h) Class prisoner Derek Trefren submitted a Grievance on December 17, 2008 advising staff that "no cleaners or equipment is made available to individuals who wish to try and make their living space clean and sanitary." Mr. Trefren also called attention to the mold on the walls, as well as "insects breeding in the stagnant water in the batlu'oom from the plugged floor drains and cracked floor seals." Mr. Trefen was told in response that the Jail was "aware of some physical maintenance issues," and it was suggested that he "put in maintenance requests." (See Exhibit Grievll.)
22

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 23 of 36
7. What was true for the prison at issue in Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 784 is true here: there is "overall squalor" at the Canyon County Jail that violates the Eighth Amendment. The conditions described above--documented by the Idaho Sheriff's Association, admitted by Sheriff Smith and Captain Hansen, and repeatedly repOlied by prisoners--exceeds the bounds of human decency and constitutes clUel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d at 1107; Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1246; Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 784; Ramos v. Laml1l, 639 F.2d at 568-70; Balla, 656 F. Supp. at 1118-19; Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. at 1287; Jones v. City and COllnty o/San Francisco, 976 F. Supp. at 910; TiIlel), v. Owens, 719 F. Supp. at 1271; Illmates o/Occoquan v. Ba/'l)', 717 F. Supp. at 866-67; Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. at 991-92,1000.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION # 4: INADEQUATE PLUMBING 1. Plumbing that is "in such disrepair as to deprive inmates of basic elements of
hygiene and seriously tln'eaten their physical and mental well-being" constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d at 783. Accord: Ramos v. Lamlll, 639 F.2d at 567-69; Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300-03 (5 th Cir. 1974); Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. at 736 ("Inoperable plumbing systems contribute to both the risk of conveying waterborne disease and vermin infestation, and thus implicate constitutional violations."); Belljamin v. Fraser, 161 F. Supp.2d at 171; Dennis v. Thurman, 959 F. Supp. 1253, 1261 (C.D.Cal. 1997) ("Water and functioning plumbing are basic necessities of civilized life."); Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. 984, 999 n.7 (D. Ore. 1983).
23

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 24 of 36
2. This COUl1 has found that plumbing deficiencies similar to those present here violate the Eighth Amendment. See Balla v. Idaho Bd. oj Correction, 656 F. Supp. at 1118; Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *3.
3. Occasional, isolated plumbing problems will occur in every jail and prison. But plumbing problems in the Canyon County Jail are not isolated or occasional. Rather, they are incessant, widespread, and systemic. Captain Hansen's letter to the Commissioners cites six examples of systemic plumbing problems in need of repair: "Plumbing leaks from sewage pipes that nlll tlu'ough the interior of the building need to be repaired;" leaking shower faucets should be repaired; "[p]lumbing drains and lines in units need to be cleaned out so there is no standing water in them;" plumbing leaks in ceilings need to be repaired and damaged ceiling panels replaced; hot water must be made available in janitor closets to facilitate proper cleaning of housing units; and a "documented schedule" needs to be created to ensure proper maintenance, including "drain cleaning." (See Exhibit I at 2-3.)
4. Numerous prisoners have complained to Jail staff about precisely the deficiencies cited in Hansen's letter. For instance, class plaintiff Misty Canada submitted a Grievance on March 1, 2009, in which she asked staff to repair the "standing water in the floor drains/showers" that was causing the Pod to "stink." She was told in response to "[f]eel free to sClUb and clean" those areas. (See Exhibit Griev6.) Lead plaintiff Amanda Davis submitted a Grievance on March 5, 2009, stating that she has "continuously" asked staff to fix plumbing problems that remain unresolved, including leaks in the shower area; "our ceiling has been leaking above our [dining] table;" and some cells lack hot or cold water. She was advised in response to inform "the housing deputy." (See Exhibit
24

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 25 of 36
GrievI2.) Class plaintiff Sabra McGitmis submitted a Grievance on February 25,2009, informing staff that water was leaking onto the floor from clogged drains in the showers. She was told in reply that "maintenance is aware of this issue." (See Exhibit GrievI3.) Named plaintiff Pedro Matiin submitted a Grievance on March 4, 2009, advising staff that his sink leaks, that it is caked with rust and that "no matter what I do," he cannot remove the rust. In addition, Mr. Mm1in repol1ed that the showers are not working properly and that the water in the shower is dispensed either really hot or really cold. He was advised in reply to "speak with the pod deputy." (See Exhibit GrievI4.)
5. The plumbing system in the Canyon County Jail is in such disrepair that it deprives prisoners of basic elements of hygiene and seriously tlu·eatens their physical and mental well-being. Jail staff either cannot or will not maintain plumbing fixtures in proper working order. These conditions violate the Eighth Amendment. See HoptolVit v. Spellman , 753 F.2d at 783 ; Balla, 656 F. Supp. at 1118; Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *3; Ramos v. Lall/m, 639 F.2d at 567-69; Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300-03 (5th Cir. 1974); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1396-97, 1409; Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. at 736; Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F. Supp.2d at 171; Dellnis v. Thurman, 959 F. Supp. at 1261; Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. at 999 n.7.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION # 5: INADEQUATE RECREATION I. "Exercise is one of the basic human necessities protected by the Eighth
Amendment. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that pre-trial detainees not be denied adequate opportunities for exercise without legitimate governmental objective." Pierce v. Coullty oj Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2008), citing LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993). Prisoners held in a county jail
25

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 26 of 36
"for more than a ShOll period of time" must be offered a reasonable 0ppoltunity for both indoor and outdoor recreation. Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1212.
2. It is well settled that "some oppOilunity for exercise must be afforded to prisoners" unless a legitimate penological reason warrants a denial. See Anderson v. Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 1985). See also Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1212; Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979); Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir. 1987).
3. Four policies and practices of Defendants with respect to recreation violate the Constitution: (1) the only indoor "exercise" Defendants offer is a dayroom that contains no exercise equipment; (2) although the Jail has an outdoor recreation yard, access to it is rare; (3) even when prisoners are allowed access to the outdoor yard, they often find that guards have allowed the county's K-9 dogs to use the yard as a toilet; and (4) segregated prisoners are not allowed access to the outdoor recreation area and thus have no oppOilunity for out-of-cell exercise.
4. In Pierce, the Ninth Circuit expressly held that jail dayrooms do "not--given the space constraints and absence of any appropriate equipment--constitute an exercise opportunity." See Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1212 n.22. Thus, prisoners who requests access to exercise equipment should not be told--as they were in Pierce and as they are in the Canyon County Jail--to do calisthenics in their dayroom instead. See id.
4. The Canyon County Jail has no indoor recreation facility and no recreation equipment located anywhere in the jail. Indeed, Defendants contend that they have no duty to offer exercise equipment. When named plaintiff Alisha Baker submitted a Grievance on March 4, 2009, requesting access to exercise equipment for "aerobic
26

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 27 of 36
[exercise] and weights for large muscle activity," explaining that when not incarcerated she exercises three to five times a week, she was told by the administration: "We are not required to provide equipment for exercise." (See Exhibit Griev15.) When lead plaintiff Amanda Davis submitted a Grievance on March 5, 2009, requesting access to exercise equipment, she was told in reply that she could do pushups and situps instead. (See Exhibit GrievI6.) Class plaintiff Misty Canada submitted a Grievance on March 1,2009, requesting access to exercise equipment either indoors or outdoors. She was told that "Equipment is not allowed for safety and security reasons." (See Exhibit GrievI7.) Given that exercise equipment has been constmcted for use in correctional institutions--and virtually every prison and jail in the United States provides access to such equipment--the response given to Ms. Canada's request lacks credibility. Courts would not be requiring jails to provide access to recreational equipment, as the Ninth Circuit did in Pierce, if safe and secure equipment were unavailable.
5. An outdoor recreation area is available for prisoner use in the Detention Center. However, access to it is rarely offered, and sometimes when it is offered, prisoners who enter the area discover that employees have allowed the county's K-9 dogs to use the area as a bathroom. (See Exhibit Grievl7, noting that prisoner Misty Canada has found "messes" left by dogs in the outdoor area.) (See also ExhibitGriev8: prisoner Jeffrey Gross notified staff that "officers even let their dogs out there [in the recreation area] to piss on the walls and floor.") (See also Exhibit Grievl8: prisoner Alisha Baker reported that she was offered outdoor recreation "once in a six week period of time" while confined in the women's housing unit). Moreover, there is no exercise equipment in the outdoor yard and prisoners are not even allowed to run in the yard. Prisoner Sabra
27

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 28 of 36
McGinnis submitted a Grievance on March 4, 2009, notifying staff that she had been ordered by a deputy not to run in the outdoor exercise yard. The response: "You're right. You're not allowed to I1Ul." (See Exhibit Griev19.)
6. Defendants do not permit prisoners in segregation to access the outdoor recreation yard. See Declaration of named plaintiff Alisha Baker (Exhibit Dec!. 2). Ms. Baker spent nearly two months in segregation earlier this year. Not once was she allowed to use the outdoor recreation yard, despite repeated requests. In TOllssaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d at 1493, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief to halt the practice of denying outdoor recreation to prisoners confined in segregation. See also Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1065 (1995) (holding that segregation for six weeks without access to outdoor recreation states a constitutional claim); Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. at 1001 ("expelt witnesses testified that the denial of all outdoor exercise endangered the physical and mental health of prisoners and led to physical and mental deterioration. I agree with this testimony.")
7. Indeed, segregated prisoners in Canyon County are denied both outdoor and indoor recreation, given that the Jail has no indoor recreation facility or exercise equipment. This total denial of recreation clearly violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1212. "It is generally recognized that a total or near-total deprivation of exercise or recreational 0ppoliunity, without penological justification, violates Eighth Amendment guarantees." Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F.2d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F.2d 284, 289 (6th Cir. 1983). See generally TOllssaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. at 1401-02, 1412 (enjoining a practice similar to the one at issue here).
28

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 29 of 36
PLAINTIFFS MEET THE STANDARDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction on five urgent health and safety issues: overcrowding, ventilation, sanitation, plumbing, and recreation. In order to prevail on their motion, Plaintiffs must prove: (1) that they will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied; (2) that they will probably prevail on the merits; (3) that the balance of potential harm favors them; and (4) that the public interest favors granting relief. See Balla, 2006 WL 1793555 at *2. Plaintiffs satisfy all four criteria. 1. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied
Every cOUli to address the kinds of unhealthy and dangerous conditions as those existing in the Canyon County Jail has enjoined their continued operation, concluding that such conditions constitute cmel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In several instances, cOUlis issued preliminary injunctive relief prior to issuing permanent injunctive relief. See, e.g., Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984) (affIrming the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief to cure overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, inadequate sanitation, and inadequate plumbing); Wi'igllt v. EIIOI1/0to, 462 F. Supp. 397 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (three-judge court), affd, 434 U.S. 1052 (1978); Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. at 987 (noting that the court had previously issued interim relief to immediately halt inadequate ventilation and inadequate recreation) .
Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be undone through monetary remedies. When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, no further showing of irreparable il1jury is necessary. See Elrod v. Bums, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Mayweatheri>' v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (affIrming the issuance of a
29

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 30 of 36
preliminary injunction to protect the First Amendment rights of prisoners). Furthermore, "[0]ne does not have to await the consummation of t1n'eatened injury to obtain preventative relief." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845, quoting Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 (1923). The deficiencies present in the Canyon County Jail have the substantial likelihood of causing irreparable injury, as every court to consider similar deficiencies has recognized. 2. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Mel'its
Prisoners claiming, as here, that the conditions of their confinement violate the Eighth Amendment must satisfy the two Farmer tests discussed earlier in this brief. First, they must show that the deprivation is "objectively, sufficiently serious." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Second, they must show that defendants are "deliberately indifferent" to this harm. [d.
The Canyon County Jail is overcrowded, dhiy, smelly, damp, poorly ventilated, unsanitary, and beset with plumbing problems. Every court to consider similar conditions of confinement has recognized that the likely injuries from such conditions are objectively serious.
Plaintiffs also satisfy the second prong of Farmer because it is clear that Defendants have long known about these health and safety deficiencies and have been deliberately indifferent to them. The County Commissioners have riveted their attention on building a new jail while neglecting their responsibilities to the existing facility. Indeed, for years the Commissioners have campaigned for a new jail by explaining how the present facility is deficient. The Commissioners can hardly say that the facts set forth in this brief come as some surprise. See Jones v. Cily and COllnty ofSan Francisco, 976
30

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 31 of 36
F. Supp. 896, 906 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (holding that county defendants "had actual and constructive knowledge of every significant deficiency" in the county jail given newspaper accounts, their own correspondence, and bond issues seeking a new jail, and thus prisoners had proven deliberate indifference). Here, too, deliberate indifference is demonstrated by the fact that officials "failed to act despite [their] knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm." See Farl/ler, 511 U.S. at 842.
Indeed, Plaintiffs anticipate that in response to this motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Defendants will advise the Comt that they have undeltaken some efforts in recent weeks to improve conditions in the Jail. But while these effOlts are commendable, they also demonstrate deliberate indifference. Every single one of these effOlts could have--and should have--been commenced years ago. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d at 864 (noting historic pattern of violations in upholding systemic relief in prison litigation); LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985) (same). In any event, Defendants efforts are too little and too late to avoid the need for preliminary injunctive relief to guarantee that, at long last, these five unconstitutional conditions of confinement will be eradicated. 3. The Balance of Potential Harm Favors Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to comply with their obligations under the Constitution, and no more than that. Without that order, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury. Defendants should already be operating the Canyon County Jail in a manner consistent with the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, ordering Defendants to perform tasks that they should already be performing will cause them no cognizable harm.
31

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 32 of 36
To be sure, it may cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to bring the Canyon County Jail into constitutional compliance, but this is a cost required by the Constitution. "[C)osts cmmot be permitted to stand in the way of eliminating conditions below Eighth Amendment standards." Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129,1134 (9th Cir. 1981). See also Spain v. Proclinier, 600 F.2d 189, 200 (9th Cir. 1979) ("The cost or inconvenience of providing adequate [recreation) facilities is not a defense to the imposition of a cmel punishment."); Alberti v. SheriffofHarris County, Tex., 937 F.2d 984, 999 (5th Cir. 1991) ("[I)nadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. ")
In fashioning an appropriate remedy, county officials may of course choose less expensive options provided that the results are effective, but they must not delay or ignore needed improvements merely because of the required cost. Wright, 642 F.2d at 1134. We may sympathize with Canyon County's financial concems, but "[t)his Court rejects the notion that citizens of the greatest democracy in the world cannot 'afford' to construct a jail that complies with minimum requirements of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent cmel and unusual punishment. See Battle v. Anderson, 594 F.2d 786, 792 (10th Cir. 1979). See also Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 748 (5th Cir. 1977)." Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *4. See also Hamilton v. Love, 358 F. Supp. 338, 343 (E.D. Ark. 1973) (holding that the lack of financial resources "can never be an adequate justification" for failing to provide recreation equipment for pretrial detainees) .
32

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 33 of 36
4. The Public Interest Favors the Granting of Relief There is a strong public interest in requiring that Canyon County provide its
prisoners with constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement. See TOllssaint v. Rushen, 553 F. Supp. 1365, 1378 (N.D. Cal. 1983), affd, 722 F.2d F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984) (granting preliminary injunction in prisoner's rights case, finding that the eradication of unconstitutional conditions of confinement is in the public interest). See also Cohen v. Coahoma COllllty, Miss., 805 F. Supp. 398, 408 (N.D. Miss. 1992) (acknowledging a strong public interest "in the vindication of constitutional rights and the proper and lawful administration of the jail"). Canyon County has 110 legitimate interest in operating a penal facility that violates constitutional minima. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction on all five constitutional claims.
REMEDY Once a constitutional violation has been identified in prisoner litigation, the Court's function is to fashion a remedy "'that does no more and no less than correct that particular constitutional violation.' Balla, 595 F. Supp. at 1563, quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982)." Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *1. See also PLRA, 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(2) (requiring that preliminary injunctive relief "be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means to correct that harm. ") Given that all five constitutional violations occurring here--overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, inadequate sanitation, inadequate plumbing, and inadequate recreation--are the product of systemic failures in policies or practices, Plaintiffs are entitled to systemic relief, the same type of relief granted in Balla and Loya. See also
33

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 34 of 36
Arll1strong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 870 (9'h Cir. 2001), eert. denied, 537 U.S. 852 (2002) ("System-wide relief is required if the injury is the result of violations of a statute or the constitution that are attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system (even
though injuring a relatively small number of plaintiffs)."); Hoptoll'it v. Ray, 682 F.2d
1287 (9th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court has emphasized that "'strong considerations of comity.
require giving the States the first opportunity to correct the errors made in the internal administration of their prisons.' Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 492 (1973)." Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.s. 343,362 (1996). Accordingly, Plaintiffs recommend that this Court
do precisely what Magistrate Williams did in Loya; give the defendants deadlines by which to submit to the Court an effective remedial plan to cure each constitutional violation. See Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *5.
Clearly, it will be incumbent on the county to hire correctional and/or environmental experts to inspect the Canyon County Jail and offer recommendations as to curing its deficiencies in these five areas. See, e.g., Loya, 1992 WL 176131 at *5 (giving Bam10ck County thhty days "in which to obtain electrical and plumbing inspections and to provide a written report to the COUlt detailing the necessary repairs. ")
See also Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Supp. at 1006 (ordering county officials to submit
"within thirty days of the date of this opinion, a plan for alleviating" unconstitutional conditions of confinement).
What Sheriff Smith and Captain Hansen told the County Commissioners on October 20, 2008 wi11likely prove to be correct: the Canyon County Jail needs "a large scale renovation." (See Exhibit I at 2.) Entire systems will likely need to be refurbished,
34

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 35 of 36
including the ventilation system and much of the plumbing. Moreover, the population of the Jail must be capped at a tolerable level, adequate space must be set aside for indoor recreation with exercise equipment, and all prisoners (including those in segregation) must be afforded an 0ppOliunity for reasonable outdoor exercise. Mold must be eradicated, and proper sanitation ensured.
Defendants, then, should be ordered to submit a remedial plan. Plaintiffs should then be given an 0ppOliunity to comment on the plan's likely effectiveness, but the Court should give deference to any reasonable proposal submitted by Defendants. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 362. See also Skinner v. Uphoff, 234 F. Supp.2d 1208, 1217-18 (D. Wyo. 2002) (ordering prison officials to submit a remedial plan and suggesting that they consult with counsel for the plaintiff class "so that, if possible, a joint proposed Remedial Plan may be submitted"). But without question, Defendants cannot be expected to devise an effective remedial plan unless they first have the Jail thoroughly inspected. As Captain Hansen stated in his letter to the Commissioners, as a first step there should be "[a] complete facility appraisal and recommendation of the work needed to develop a complete renovation plan with a time frame done by an outside contractor."
CONCLUSION Captain Hansen ended his letter to the Commissioners (Exhibit 1) with the same language that Plaintiffs now wish to borrow as their concluding remarks: "We must recognize that the Dale G. Haile Detention Center is in poor condition. Employees, visitors and inmates who are all Canyon County Citizens are affected by this. It is a matter of liability, responsibility, accountability and Canyon County pride that these facility issues be immediately corrected."
35

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 36 of 36 Dated this 27th day of March, 2009.
~!~
Stephen L. Pevar Lea C. Cooper Dean J. Miller Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
36

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009

DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER

INMATE GRIEV

FORM

Page 1 of 21

Status (circle one)

Sentenced

Unsentenced

Siate

DescriptionofGrie~ance: ;--'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-------:----;-:-:-=--:::--:---,----_:--~ '

.'

, This'decision is acceptable to rile: Ilnmate Signature:

Date:

I ·~~'W.~~~~7f?fC.ahs;e..1%:0I9i?-c-v~-:0r0P1~0~7~-~B~L~W~"l:~D;o'~c-u.Rm.etn~Wt ~5~-2;*~(t.FWil·~ ed~03t/2q 7/2~0.0}9T~ Pagf'>e:'~ 2 of 21 EXHIBIT

DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER

&Cle.V. ':l..

INMATE GRIEV.n.r'~'"

Status (circle one)"

YES

-::,,-:¥ .,-. :,.~ -.'. :...

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2, ,', Filed 03/27/2009
DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER . IJ'I!MATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Page 3 of 21

" ,'

.: "
. . A..cii,o~R.~.q.t.iested:._-,",-,-":,,,;,----,~,----.,-_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _----,_~_ _,-----,--,---_ _ _ _~_~,",--,-~

.'. .'

.' "

'1":'

.....

••• • •

•

p'

. Date: .

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009
DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Page 4 of 21

':.
... .;..
, " :... ..
:: . .
.: "
.. ...

, .. '
"',
Datel
"'=::::T'.><-;P--'-'-!"----I
Date: '

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 5 of 21
DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER INMATE GRIEV.n.I~"',~ F.!DR1~~---·--·
" .
. '. . .' ,

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009
DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER INMATE GRIEV.."",-", FJ).:&A~-"'"',

Page 6 of 21

Name Number: ,;221'56 7

Unsentenced

"Federal

.... '
uunal:e Signat\1re:

"(!f l ",. ,'
Case 1:09-cv-00107D-BALLWE G.DHoAcuILmEenDtE5T-2ENTFIiOleNd 0C3E/2N7/T2E00R9 INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Page 7 of 21

(
D escription of ",rILey,mce: ----.,..--'---.---,...,--7--t-;;----.---:--TI-r---;=--:--r---~-----~

Decision:

\

Administrator Signature:

Date:

Inmate:

This decision is acceptable to me:

YES

NO

Inmate Signature:

Date:

• -' '1

!.

. :,.. ,

Case 1:09-cv-00107D-ABLLWE G. DHoAcIuLmEenDtE5T-2ENTFIilOedN0C3E/2N7l/2'E0R09 Page 8 of 21

INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

"

:..

"

Supervisol," Signature: b,LJ..=*"'-.=!!L.U="'-.......'-'-'+="""'~+"--)'-,------­ Inmate:

This decision is ac,:er>ta'ble to me:

YES

Inmate Signature:

Date:

- Decision: -----------------------------------------------------------4

Administrator Signature:

Date:

Inmate:

This decision is acceptable to me:

YES

NO

, .. ~

Inmate Signature:

Date:

\
Case 1:09-cv-00107D-BALLWE G. DHoAcIuLmEenDtE5T-2ENTFIiOleNd 0C3E/2N7T/2E0R09 Page 9 of 21 EXHIBIT INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Inmate Name: (;.,1..,;.LLf"'O-"S'--S.L.t-I-.d'-"'".Ll:.L!!!"*______

?E Name Number: [$9

Status (circle one)

Unsentenced

Federal

Description of Grievance: ~f,LLL!=!!.!l!4-1!!L!1L.j1L!.i!illlL.D......:i=:p~!l1l.L.f.lL..1.1J='_'_M;/...L"""'.LJ=:.t!..Jr}LJ{L./.M~~&5.!:L!~

Decision:-----------------------·c, ------------------------------------~

Supervisor Signature: ____________________-'--___ Date:_ _--=_ _ _ _ _-I

Inmate:

This decision is acceptable to me:

YES

NO

Inmate Signature: -------------------------------------- Date:

D

..
eC1SlOn:

,./
/./.

•

;v. '"

:v 4k'.,..··I./'-<-~~-: !?<..v.-.. ~
NdinmlSti'ator :)lgifitture: 4.

. ' /..;;r.;

~ A

-/C,I'/Jl/. ~../..<.A,.~/

p'·....e

A/.'-,/A~''~V·.~

/~
Date:

Inmate:

C7vt?'''"~/~'''~-- C/,u'l t:;ft'i "'3" Y<". ,;ZVb +",",~F-....,L<s...;l~--I

This decision is acceptable to me:

YES -

~

Inmate Signature:

Date: /2 I

...- .... .. .. .

. ' .,- .

.. ..- (

.. '\ '

-

Case 1:09-cv-0010D7-ABLLWE G.HDAocIuLmEeDntE5T-2ENTFiiloeNd 0C3E/2N7T/2E0R09 Page 10 of 21

11

INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

, I

Statu~ (circle one)

Date:'-----~--___:_1

This decisioJl isacceptable to

Inmate 'Signature:

' ~',

' . ':
Date:

Case

1:09-cv-00107D-BALLWE.

G.DHoAcuImL.EenDt 5E\ -T2

E

NTFIilOedN0C3/E2N7/T20E0R9 .'

Page 11 of 21

INMATE GRIEVrH~'-'L~·v.l"'u

Status (circle one)

Supervisor Signature: ~.1....!-='-".--,-.L4,........-'S1.l..t.,.A--A Inmate: This decision is acceptable
Inmate Signature;
----~~~~~~~~-------------

Decision:
----------------------------------~------------~----------4

Administrator Signature:

Date:

Inmate:

This decision is acceptable to' me:

YES

NO

Inmate Signature:

Date:

", , '.' ", '. ." ~ .:.

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009
DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER . INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Page 12 of 21

.,.

Gr\-<L0 \0

. ....

de,dsi.o··ri.··.isaccepmble to me:.· .

.. D~te:

• r

"

'""" "

..'/

' ··..7

. ':')" _. . ,.;l·

.

Case 1:09-cv-00107D-BALLWE G.DHocAuImLeEnDt 5E-2tENFtIilOedN0C3/E2N7/T20E0R9 Page 13 of 21

INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

\ j "',

SuperVisor Signature: __---'--'-------------------~ Daie:~_...,._~----_I

Inmate:

' ..

This decision is acceptable to me:

YES

NO

Inmate Signature: -------------------------------------- Date:

This decision is acc:ep'ta!lJe-to·~mi:,:_·..., Inmate Signature:

Date:

.:::

Case 1:09-cv.-.0; .. 0107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 14 of 21

DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

.lStaitlS(CircleQn~e)~.r·~~~j~§~),~~~-uUnnsentenced

. ",.
····YES . .
jk;M.
Date:

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009
DALE G; HAILE DETENTION CENTER INMATE GRIEVANCE"!:ORM

Page 15 of 21

,. .

I.Sllpe'r'Viso.r. Signature: ~#~~

lu~.deCJSJl()n·· is acc~p~abi~

. (!!5!).

PJ~i,nat.e Signature: .-'--._7· .1·.~fr~~?~'"'~1'=~~~~~~:;~~~~_-"!":;;',....:._~~

• . ->
. . ~~? :~
Date: .;) ;;:?? c;j

;i

Case 1:09-cv-00107D-BALLWE G.DHocAuImLEenDt 5E-T2ENTFiIleOdN0C3/E27N/2T0E0R9 Page 16 of 21EXHI

1

INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

Supervisor Signature: i ': /, . j(, \, '" If (;(I(ll. ,

Inmate:

I

This decision is accePl:Jb~~}9 me: ' ) , .

Inmate Signature: .. (,' Y ';''.l'/';.fi ::'5"'··"" " ,

JIS/III(I
,I
YES

Decision:
Administrator Signature: Inmate: This decision is accepta Inmate Signature:

D ate:~!...-'.::....::::....:....!....:....;ft...;'.:'",).'.::":)..:,._._-I
Da. te: .,.,V..)~ / )'" ,/ ~ /"') .
Date:

, " ,

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009

DALE G. HAILE DETENTION FENTER

INMATE GRIEV

FORM

Page 17 of 21

Status (circle one)

Sentenced

Unsentenced

Federal

State

Inmatedecision is ac(;eptat*'t9,Y'IJfJ;:'-'-/.
.....,

.....
Date;'
'Date:
NO
Date:

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009
'-. DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER " INMATEGRIEVANCEFQRM

Page 18 of 21

Adl\lJi~(~tr<\'tQi:...S. ~¢nattll:e:

:

J..,~~~JJj~~;I1.llll¥1(11~~L-J..Q~~:,..:•. , . '

de~(lsio~'.is '~~cepiabie-tolUe:

YES , " •.

1

I ~7tJl~*~%W~C~a~s~ej'1':0'9>-~c'v-'0~0'110%7%-B0*L,W~~W.D=o:c;u~m;e;n:t~5~-;2;:~;F:ile;d:=0~3:/2:7:/~2~0~0¥9w.~P"a'g"ec-19 of 21EXHIBIT
INMATE GRIEV
NO.·

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009

DALE G. HAILE DETENTION CENTER

INMATE GRIEV

FORM

EXHIBIT Page 20 of 21

Status (circle one)

Sentenced

Unsentenced

Federal

State

Description of Grievance; -;:;-;-;--;:7:-;-;::~:--;;.;-;:::;:<:v;:ru;--;::;-;::r--;~,,~:-::;:;:--\--;;;-;;::::~;-;-:~:;::v---:----J

< .

Supervisor Signature: -1.~~~~~!!:T2..lF~=-"::::'---:J..!f:!::=--~~:.l.:::"""-­

Inmate:

Tltis ,Jecision is acceptable

Inmate ·Slgnature: .

. Date: .

~~~~~~~~~~~------~----~

~~~~--~,

decision is"acceptat)le}();i),1~/ Signature:

Date:

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 5-2 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 21 of 21

• .v.n...."" Go HAILE DETENTIOuNrJCBE~N',-,T"ER_----...D. ~ty1 0H II)11 r .

. INMATE GRIEV

n

'J j v V '

. ~ .'
. ' ..
" ..

: ;c Thi~decisioh,i~ ac~ept~bie to m~: :

YES

.. . '. . Inmate Signature': .

. ·W~ ·

' ". ", -. ". . . . ". . . .. .. . . ~=- . 02?

. Thl.~ .dedsib~isacceptal;>leto .

Date:'

 
 . ·

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 1 of 20

-.

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ORIOINAI.

AMANDA DAVIS, et ai, Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

vs.
~
CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, et ai,

CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Defendants.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Consent Decree, Order and

Judgment entered Into by the parties and is of the opinion that it Is a fair and reasonable

resolution of the Issues pending between them. Based thereon, the Court hereby

approves the proposed Consent Decree and directs the entry of the Order and

Judgment as follows.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The partieS to this agreement stipulate that this Court has Jurisdiction over the

parties and subject maHer of this action.

2. This class action was Initiated by six named Plaintiffs: Amanda Davis, Allsha

Baker, Troy Fenster, Desiree Comlngo, Parnell Williams, and Pedro Martin on their own

behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and was brought against

Canyon County, Idaho, the Board of County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho

(the "Board"), and Chris Smith, the Sherriff of Canyon County, Idaho (the "Sheriff').

These Defendants shall be collectively referred to herein as "the County."

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09·cv·00107-BLW

6-6194

-1 -

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 2 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 20

3. This action seeks declaratory and Injunctive relief relating. to conditions of confinement for prisoners held in the Canyon County Jail.
4. The agreement of the parties and these provisions are not io be construed as establishing or modifying any standard of civil or criminal liability of any official, employee, agent or representative of the County, other than for the sole and limited purpose of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment.
5. The parties hereto agree that wllh the exception of the Issue of aHorney fees and costs, which the parties agree they will attempt to resolve In a separate agreement between them, this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment fully resolves all issues raised In the Complaint by the named Plaintiffs and the class they represent. The parties further agree that this action my be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 23(e) and 41 (';)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the agreements set forth herein.
6. Unles~ otherwise agreed herein, all ~erms, conditions, and agreements set forth In this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment that do not obllgete the County to p~yslcally alter, construct, or make installations In the existing facility are to be Implemented within thirty (30) days from the date on which the Court enters flnal approval of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. Unless otherwise agreed to herein, all terms, conditions or agreements set forth herein that obligate the Defendants to physically aller, construct, or make installations In any part of the existing facility, such as Improvements to and/or maintenance of the ventilation system, shall be initiated wllh all deliberate speed. Moreover, they shall be completed wllhln sixty (60) days from the date on which the ·Court preliminarily approves this Consent Decree, Order and

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO.1:09-cv-00107-BLW

8-8194

- 2-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 3 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 3 of 20

Judgment unless the contractor is unable to complete the process wiihln that period of time and the County notifies counsel for Plaintiffs at least 10 days prior to the deadline and sets forth legitimate reasons for the delay.
7. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment shall be ongoing In nature and shall continue in full force and effect. All parties to this agreement recognize and submit to the continuing jurisdiction of this Court for the limited purpose of carrying out the intent of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment.
8. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment shall remain In effect for a minimum of two years from the date of approval hereof by the Court. Thereafter, this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment Is susceptible to being terminated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
9. The following sections of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment address specific issues raised by Plaintiffs in this action relating to aileged deficient conditions of . confinement in the Canyon County Jail and the resolution of these Issues. The parties stipulate that the terms of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment extend no further than necessary to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
10. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment or any statements contained herein may be used in any other case or administrative proceeding, except that the County and its employees may use this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment to assert issue andlor claim preclUSion and to preserve the Jurisdiction of this Court In other litigation.
11. Plaintiffs' action aileges unconstitutional conditions In the Jail relating io (1) overcrowding; (2) inadequale ventilation, sanitation, plumbing, temperature control,

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09·cv-00107-BLW

.

8-8194

-3-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 4 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-001 07-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 4 of 20

bedding, recreation, staffing, "re protection, medical care, and training and supervision of lall staff; (3) failure to ensure the provision of special meals for prisoners with food allergies; (4) arbitrary rule enforcement; (5) and sex discrimination against female prisoner workers.
12. The parties hereto have reached agreement on each olthese Issues as set forth below.
II, I;fISTORY OF THE CANYON COUNTY JAIL 13. The Canyon County Jail consists of three buildings: the Dale G. Halle Detention Center ("DHDC"), the Annex, and the Work Release Center. Plaintiffs have not asserted any issues with regard to the conditions of the Work Release Center. 14. The County constructed the Annex In the 1940s, which then served as the main jail. Following litigation In the 1980s over the Annex, the County built the DHDC, which opened in 1993, and closed the Annex because of Its disrepair. In 1999, the Annex re-opened after It was refurbished. In 2006, the County partially closed the Annex and made additional substantial improvements to It. 15. The Anne~ consists of four levels. The top three levels house prisoners and are designated Annex 2, Annex 3, and Annex 4.
16. The optimum prtsoner capacity of the DHDC as originally built In 1993 was
255. However, by approximately 1997, the DHDC began exceeding its optimum capacity. As a result, programming space was removed from the DHDC In order to put in additional bunks. As prisoners continued to flow Into the DHDC and Annex, triple bunks were Installed In the DHDC.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

8-6194

-4-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 5 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 5 of 20

17. The DHDC consists of two floors and has 13 housing units for prisoners.

Pods H, J, K, and L house female prisoners. Pods Ai B, C, D, E, F, G, H, M, and N

house male prisoners.

18. Under the Idaho Sheriffs' Association jail standards, jails can functionally

house one Inmate per 70 square feet. Optimum capacity is approximately 80% of

functional capacity. The DHDC currently has a functional operational capacity of 296

Inmates, and optimum capacity of 255. The Annex currently has a functional and

optimum operational capacity of 62.

19. According to Defendants' records, from January 1, 2009 to present, the

DHDC had an average of 307 prisoners per day. In the month of May 2009, the DHDC

had an average of 283 prisoners per day. The Annex averaged 48 prisoners per day in

.2008 and 52 In 2009, well within its optimum capacity. In 2007, the DHDC peaked at a

one day high of 490 prisoners.

III. OVERCROWDING

20. The fun ctional capacity of the DHDC, the Annex, and each of the individual

living u,nits within those facilities is as follows:

Pod 1, UnitA Pod 1, Unit B Pod 1, Uolt C Pod 1, Unit D Pod 2, Unit E Pod 2, Unit F Pod 2, Unit G Pod 3, Unit H Pod 3, Unit J Pod 3, Unit K Pod 3, Unit L Pod 4, UnitM -Pod 4, ,Unit-N

12 inmates 22 Inmates 22 inmates 10 inmates 16 Inmates 36 Inmates 66 Inmates 12 Inmates 5 Inmates 1210mates 23 inmates 30 Inmates -30-lnmates

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AN D JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

6-6194

- 5-

,

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 6 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-SLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 6 of 20

Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4

14 inmates 20 Inmates 28 Inmates

21. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Defendants may be unable at times to

prevent the population of the Jail from exceeding its functional capacity. While the

County, through the Sheriff, Is able to directly affect the population through decisions to

book and release an arrestee or to clle and release him or her, the inmate populal/on Is

also affepted by factors beyond the County's control, Including by reason of bonding

and sentencing decisions of the courts and arrest decisions of other law enforcement

agencies which are authorized to place arrestees in the Jail. Such occurrenCes in which

the funcl/onal capacity of the jail Is exceeded, however, should be rare because the

Defendants will strive to maintain enough open beds to accommodate the number of

new admissions reasonably expected. For Instance, the County must ensure enough

empty beds by noon each Friday to accommodate the usual weekend surge In

population. The County -acknowledges that II has several options to control the .jail's

population, including lis discretion to book and release an arrestee, to cite and release

an arrestee, or to transfer prisoners to other facilities. However, the County does not

have authority to compel arrest decisions by other agencies, I. e. city police departments

.and the state poJ/ce, but It has entered Into a Memorandum of Understanding with other

agencies .authorlzed to place arrestees In the jail In which the agencies acknowledge

that they will also minimize bookings Into the Jail through utilization of book and release

and cite and release procedures. The County Is expected to enter Into contracts with

neighboring facilities to accommodate Canyon County prisoners when necessary to

_ malnt,!inS.Q'IlQllan~e with.!~e p.op,!lat",~ ~a'p.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

8-8194

- 6.-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 7 of 20 Ca se 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 7 of 20

22. The Canyon County Sheriff's Office Is undertaking a pre-Irlal services program, which will provide information 10 Ihe Canyon County Prosecuting Morney's . Office and Ihe courts for Ihe purpose of setiing appropriale bonds for Individual prisoners held In Ihe Jail. This program Is anticipaled 10 assist In lowering the number of prisoners held In the Jail. However, Ihe County underslands thai even if Ihis program 1s nol implemented and ulilized, or is not as successful as anllcipaled, the County will still abide by the population caps, and will rely on olher options to malnlain compliance.
23: The County agrees Ihal II will set and malnlain Ihe prisoner population of eacfi housing unil of the DHDC and Annex al or below Ihe level Ihal complies wllh square foolage per prisoner recommendations set forth in the Idaho Sheriff's Associalion's (ISA's) Minimum Standards For Detenllon Fecllliles. It Is Ihe Intenl of Ihe County Ihat II will be a rare occurrence In which Ihe funcllona! capacity of Ihe Jail is exceeded. However, if due to circumslances beyond the County's conlrol, Ihe
population of any unit (or of Ihe lam exceeds ils cep, Ihe population will be reduced
. wilhin 48 hours consistent with th e cap. There are no exceptions for weekends. Any
,
bunk beds currently existing In Ihe DHDC or Annex thai exceed Ihe number of prisoners allowed by th Is Consenl Decree In Ihal housing unll will be removed wilhin.90 days from Ihe dale Ihis decree Is preliminarily approved by the Court. Moreover, Ihe holding lime in an Intake holding cell In Ihe DHDC for any prisoner will not exceed elghl hours unless said holding cell provides each prisoner in Ihe cell wilh al leasl 70 square feet of living space, is fitled wllh a lollet, sink wllh hoi and cold waler as recommended by ISA slandards.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09"",-OOI 07-BLW

8-8194

-7 -

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 8 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-0010 7-BLW Docu ment 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 8 of 20

24. The County agrees that In an effort to comply with the prisoner population cap, the Sheriff shall utilize incarceration altematives as allowed by law for those prisoners committed to his care and custody based upon a classification system as
required by Idaho Code § 20-602, including sheriff Inmate labor detail, day reporting, house arresl, GPS monitoring, work release andlor housing of prisoners In olher
facilities. The parties agree that If the County cannol maintain compliance with the population cap desplle ils best efforts and utilization of these alternatives, one of the
parties may request the Issuance of a prisoner release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3626(a)(3). If a prisoner release order Is entered, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees Incurred by them relating to the proceedings for Issuance of the order.
IV. VENTILATION 25. The County agrees to have the ventilation system, Including the ducts, vents, ceiling grates, and applicable areas above the ceiling grates, In the Canyon County Jail tested, Inspected, evaluated, cleaned and repaired by competent HVAC professionals. These professionals will determine whether the HVAC system Is qperatlng sufficiently to provide adequate .heatlng, air cond itioning, and ventilation to prevent the accumulation of humidity, odors, smoke, dust, carbon dioxide and other contamlnimts. The Inspection shall include a check for mold In the ducts, vents, and above ceiling grates. 28. In Ihe evenl that such inspection reveals material deficiencies that Inhibit the proper operation of Ihe ventilation syslem, the County will have the deficiencies promptly corrected by compelently trained personnel or professionals.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

·CASE NO. 1 :0 9.cv·001 07~BLW

8-81 94

- 8-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 9 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/20 09 Page 90f20

27, The County shall have the HVAC system In the DHDC and Annex Inspected

by HVAC professionals on a quarterly basis and shall perform such maintenance as

necessary to maintain the system in proper functioning order,

28, The County shall have all vents and ducts cleaned by a professional service

and such work shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date the Court

preliminarily approves this decree,

29, The County shall maintain a loglflle of all Inspections and work performed on

the HVAC system, Including the changes of filters in the system,

V.
, SANITATION

30. The County shall comply with and follow established Jail policy and

procedures for cleaning of living units, including providing cleaning supplies to prisoners

for cleaning the units, See attached Exhibit "A," A log of cleaning activities shall be

maintained and a checklist of cleaning requirements shall be developed and

maintained.

31, The County shall perfo'rm rouline maintenance on the drains In the living

units to Insure proper drainage and will repair or unplug an inadequately performing

drain within 46 hours, The County shall maintain a log of all drain maintenance.

32. The County shall develop and Implement prooedures for razors to be

collected and disposed on a daily basis SQ that razors are not re-used or re-dlstributed

for use by prisoners,

33, The County shall implement procedures to ensure that washing machines

are operated consistent with manufacturer's instructions and are not overloaded with

clothing-and bedding,-thereby,preventlng-these -items from being properly cleaned and

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09·cv-00107...BLW

8-8194

-9-

.. ...... - ., i
I

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 10 of 20 Case 1:09-ov-00I 07-Bi=W---Soetlme" t.22-2- Filed 08/04/2009 Page 10 of 20

dried. All prisoner laundry workers will be trained in the proper operation of washers

and dryers.

34. The County shall regularly conduct Inspections for deteriorated clothing and

blankets and will repa ir or replace those that are In such condition that they do not

provide prisoners with privacy or protect them from tha cold.

35. The County will sanltiza each mattress betwaen each use by a different

prisoner. Cracked mattresses In which the Inner stuffing Is visible and cannot be

repaired shall be discarded.

36. Shower curtains will be cleaned periodically and kapt frae of mold. These

curtains shall be long enough to restrict the spray of water outside of the showers.

VI. PLUMEiING

37. The County will perform weekly checks of the faucets, Sinks, toilets and

showers to determine whether they ara functioning properly and report to maintenance

any apparent problems. There shall be one functioning sink with hot and cold water for

every 16 prisoners or fraction thereof In each living unit. See Idaho Jail Standards

18.50.

38. Reported problems with plumbing fixtures must be addressed and fixed

within 48 hours, unless the repair requires parts or services that have been ordered but

not yat available or unless there Is at least one shower or sink for every 15 prisoners In

that living unit. See Idaho Jail Standards 18.60.

39. Defendants will ensure that the temperatura of the waler leaving shower

heads and sink faucats Is always within tha range of 100 10 106 degraes F. AI leasl one

shower and one sink 'per housing ·unlt will be lested once -every two weeks at

CONSENT DECREE ORDER A ND JUDGMENT

CASENO. l :09·cv,OOI07-BLW

8·8194

- 10-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 11 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-001 07-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 11 of 20

approximately 0700, 1400, and 2100 hours, and the results documented In a separate

log. In addition, if a prisoner reports that the water temperature Is too hot or too cold In

a particular shower or sink, the temperature will be tested In that shower or sink within

24 hours at approximately the same time of day that the prisoner had used it. Shower

curtains will be cleaned periodically and kept free of mold. These curtains shall be long

enough to restrict the spray of water outside of the showers..

40. The County will Implement a new work order system to electronically track

completion of work requests.

VI/.
TEMPERATURE

41. Air temperature in all housing units In the DHDC and Annex shall be

maintained within the range of 65 to 80 degrees F.

42. The County will develop and Implement procedures to measure and log

temperatures in each living unit at least two times per day and will repair each HVAC

unit that is unable to maintain temperatures within the range noted above.

VI/.
BEDDING

43. Every prisoner will be given two blankets at intake. Prisoners will only be

provided more than two blankets If the medical department determines they have a

medical need for additional blankets_

IX.
OUTDOOR RECREATION

44. The County shall make outdoor recreation available to each prisoner, except

as noted below, for one hour each day. The County will allow prisoners to run, jog or

eng'!ge I_n cali~thenlcs . in the outdoor recreation area. The scheduled outdoor

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

,;:ASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BlW

8-tl194

-11-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 12 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 12 of 20

recreation times will be posted In each living unit. During colder weather, the County

will make available a sufficient number of clean and usable coats so that all prisoners

who choose to go outdoors will have one.

45. Prisoners may be refused access to outdoor recreation If Inclement weather

(such as rain or snow) prohibits the use of outdoor facilities or a natural disaster or Jail

lockdown or other emergency occurs. In addition, a particular prisoner may be denied

outdoor reoreatlon due to medical or disciplinary restrictions or where providing such

access to that prisoner presents a real and Immediate danger to the prisoner, other

prisoners, staff, or public safety. However, the County will not deny equal access to

outdoor recreation to persons In segregation merely because they are In segregation.

46. The County will maintain a log of outdoor recreation periods that will include

the time the recreation was offered and the number of prisoners who participated in It.

Recreation must be scheduled such that no one housing ' unH Is scheduled to go

outdoors during the same portion of the day every day; to Illustrate, G-Unit will be

offered recreation In the morning on some days of the week and In the afternoon on

other days of the same week. Inmate workers may have to be offered recreation at the

same time each day due to the nature of their work.
X.
STAFFING

47. The County agrees that It will maintain staff levels to accommodate all terms

of this Consent Decree.

48. The County agrees to train and instruct detention officers to provide

equitable and consistent application of policies and procedures In the Canyon County

.. .!JIIl.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

6-6194

-12-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 13 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 20

XI. RULE ENFORCEMENT 49. The County agrees to physically post the Inmate Handbook, Including grievance procedures, In each living unit so that It is accessible for prisoners to review. Staff will enforce these rules fairly and appropriately.
XII. SPECIAL MEALS 50. The County agrees that if a prisoner claims a food allergy, helshe will receive a special diet free of the food claimed to cause the allergic reaction unless the claimed allergy Is proven to ,be medically unfounded. The County may require any prisoner claiming such an allergy to sign a medical release so that proof of such medical cond~ion maY 'be obtained. The prisoner has the responsibility to provide the County with names and oontact Information of persor"!s, including medical care providers and family, who can confirm the claimed allergy. If no medical records are available, the Jail may require that the prisoner permit blood testing If the allergy Is one that can be proven through such analysis. The County may also contact members of the prisoner's Immediate family to confirm the existence of the claimed allergy. 51. The County agrees that Its food selVlces will maintain an active list of ell prisoners Who are authorized to receive special diets and wllllmp,lement procedures so that any food that would cause an allergic reaction will not be delivered to the'prisoner.
XII. MEDICAL CARE 52. The County agrees that It will reduce the co.payment charged to prisoners for visits with a nurse or doctor from $10.00 to $5.00. As stated in the current Inmate

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv·00107·BLW

8-8194

-13-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 14 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 14 of 20

Handbook, this charge Will only be Incurred for vislls with medical staff and not when the medical office responds to a prisoner's medical request.
XIV. SEX DISCRIMINATION 53. The parties recognize that the County does not have a separate facility for female work release prisoners analogous to the facility for male work release prisoners, and that as a resull, female work release prisoners must be housed In the DHDC and/or Annex wllh general population prisoners. This resulls in an inequality of the beneflts of . work release between the male and female prisoners. Consequently, the County agrees to provide female work release prisoners with certain benefils not available to their male colinterparts. 54. There are no female work release prisoners In the DHDC or the ANNEX at the present time, and the Sheriff does not Intend to hold such prisoners In these facilities. The County recognizes its continuing obligation to provide female work release prisoners wllh comparable treatment as enjoyed by male work release prisoners. 55. The. County recognizes lis continuing obligation to appOint female inmate worker prisoners in the same approximate proportion as male Inmate worker prisoners.
XV.
Rt:Mt:DIATION 56. The County agrees to continue the renovation currently occurring of all housing units In DHDC except for the holding cells. ' This remediallon consists of blasting where necessary the walls and ceilings of each unit with dry Ice pellets to remove mold, and ensuring the proper and heallhy removal of mold and mold spores

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT . CASE NO. 1:0g·cv·00107-BLW

8·8194

·14·

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 15 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00 107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 15 of 20

during this process. These treated areas are then repainted with mold-resistant paint and stainless steel panels are ptaced In shower stalls. Remediation of all housing units shall be completed by April 30, 2010. The County agrees to use its best efforts to complete the work prior to that deadline. The renovation work will proceed in the
following order for the living units: C, G, F, E, L, K, H, J, M and N. 57. The County agrees to maintain the fire alarm system In DHDC and the
Annex in proper working order consistent with manufacturer's recommendations and state and local fire codes.
XVI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 58. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is binding upon the parties hereto and, in the event thilt any .provlsion causes a result unintended by the parties, or causes an ambiguous interpretation, the aggrieved party shall notify the other party In writing of the unintended result or ambiguous .lnterpretatlon. Such wri~en notification shall Include a statement of facts sufficient to identify the unintended .result or ambiguous Interpretation. Upon receipt of said written notice, the parties shall have 20 days to make a good faith effort to negotiate a seHiement of the problem: If the parties are unable to reach an agreement within 20 days, the issue may then ba submitted to the Court. 69. The parties agree that In the event of a dispute between them regarding the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree, they will provide written notice to the other of the alleged dispute, Inciuding a statement of facts sufficient to Identify their dispute and make It possible for them to attempt to resolve the matter through neg.otlation. In

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:08·cv·00107-BLW

8·81.84

-15-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 16 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08104/2009 Page 16 of 20

the event that they are unable to resolve the matter within 20 days, each'party has the option of seeking the Court's assistance to resolve the issue.
60. No action may be brought by either party to enforce this Consent Decree until 20 days after writlen ,notification of recognition of an unintended result, an ambiguous interpretation, or a dispute regarding the terms, conditions of or compliance ' With this Consent Decree, Order end Judgment. The parties agree to exhaust these administrative remedies prior to requesting assistance from the Court and the parties expressly agree that neither shall be entitled to attorney fees or costs if they fall to negotiate and/or exhaust these administrative remedies prior to seeking the Court's assistance. The sale exception to the 20·day notice provision Is that In cases of emergency Involving Immediate health and safety issues, the 20,day provision Is reduced to 5 days after notice is sent to the other party and a good faith effort Is made by the party sending notice to resolve the Issue during that time:
61. It Is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the object of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is to obtain compliance herewith, and the County expressly agrees to provide adequate funding to assure compliance with the provisions set forth herein.
62. In the event that the County learns that any portion of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment Is totally Impossible to implement or impossible to implement within the time allowed, the County shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel as soon as the County becomes aware of such Impossibility and shall include In such notification the following:
a. The precise provision of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment that it cannot fulfill.

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09·cv·00107-BLW

8-8194

-16-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 17 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 17 of 20

b. The reason why said fulfillment canna) take place or cannot take place

on time.

c. A statement of an alternative plan to satisfy the requirements of the

. provision, if possible.

d. An estimate of the time necessary to fully satisfy the requirements of

the referenced provision.

e. If It Is contended that any such provision cannol, under any

circumstances, be fully satisfied, an explanation of the reason why full

satisfaction is Impossible.

f. Upon receipt of such notification, the parties will attempt to resolve such

Issues In accordance with the negotiation process set forth previously herein. In

the event they are unable to resolve the Issue within 20 days, the Issue may be

stibmltted to the Court for resolution.

63. The parties agree they are obligated to attempt to resolve Issues Involving

proposed modifications of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment through use of Ihe

dispute resolution procedure set forth .In Ihls "Implementation and Enforcement"

provIsion.

XVI. VERIFICATION AND INSPECTIONS

64. The parties have selected Lawrence Richards to serve as the compliance

monitor relating to the terms of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. The costs of

the monitor shall be borne by Ihe Counly.

65. The parties agree that an Inspection of the existing Canyon County Jail

.w. _i-l-l -b- -e-

conducted
. . . .- .-,

b--y

the

monitor

approximately

every

six

months

after

the

effective

date

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09·cv·00107-BLW

6·6194

-17-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 18 of 20
· of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment to verify compliance with the agreements set forth herein, or more frequently if the Monitor deems it necessary. After the first two inspections, the Monitor may skip the third inspection if this is deemed reasonable but must conduct the fourth inspection prior to the end of the second year of operation of this Consent Decree. Following each inspection, the Monitor will ·issue a report to the
parties summarizing the findings and conclusions regarding compliance with the terms
and conditions of the decree. 66. In the event that either of the parties desires verification of any information
pertinent to this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment, counsel for the parties agree to attempt to develop the necessary information, and if necessary, to select an expert or other qualified individual who shall be permitted to make the necessary inspections and provide the parties and the Court with information necessary to resolve any questions relevant to this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. It is understood by the County that counsel for the Plaintiff class have a need to conduct reasonable monitoring of this Consent Decree to ensure continued compliance. Therefore, Defendants must timely produce such documents and answer such ·questions as reasonably requested by Plaintiffs' counsel, at no cost to Plaintiffs. (If at any time Defendants believe that Plaintiffs' requests are unreasonable or unnecessary, Defendants will follow the process outlined above in an effort to resolve the dispute.)

Hon. B. n Win mill
U.S. Dis tJ> t Court for the District of Idaho

CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

8-8194

-18-

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 19 of 20 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/04/2009 Page 19 of 20
DATED thlS~ dayo! .~, 2009.
CANYON

Ospuly Cler

DATED this _ day 01 ___· ~, 2009.

AMERIOAN .CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

l·T~~L ~ ~

:cooper

-

. Joseph Miller

.

. .. . . . .

....

. Counsel for the Plaintiff Cla..s·
-.

. ,

CONSENT QECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

.. CAsE NO. ;f:09-ov-00107·BlW · .

8.8194

-19-

j.

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 36 Filed 11/12/09 Page 20 of 20

Case 1:09-cv-001 07-BLW Document 22-2 Filed 08/0412009 Page 20 of 20

CHAPTER 9: Facility Cleaning and Maintenance
It Is the policy of Canyon County Sheriffs Office to provide a clean, sanitary, and operational facility.
9.01 Cleaning
Mops and cleaning equipment shall be provided for each housing unit dally. All cleaning supplies shall be accounted for at the beginning of each shift and after use. All cleaning supplies shall be secured In a locked storage area when not In use.
Kitchen counters, floors and other work areas shall be cleaned dally at a time acceptable to food service personnel. The housing deputy shall make daily inspections of assigned housing units to ensure cleanliness . If the housing deputy feels that the area is not clean, the housing deputy shall assign further cleanup duties to the Inmates. Deputies will oversee and facimate the cleaning of the units by Inmates. Inmate workers shall mop and clean daily all hallways, beoklng area, holding area and all other Inner perimeter rooms or areas. .
The deputy stations, the area behind the booking counter, and office areas are the responsibility of the deputy. Inmates are not allowed In these areas to clean. Cleaning supplies will be provided.
9.02 Maintenance
Maintenance and repair is the responsibility of the Canyon County Maintenance Department.
Deputies shall note any maintenance requirement on a maintenance request form. This form shall be forwarded to maintenance (yellow and white copy) with the pink copy being plac~d In the Admin mailbox in booking.
Items that are deemed as a maintenance emergency can be requested by the shift supervisor, who may contact the on-call maintenance person If necessary.

33

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 42 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 5

..

u.s. COURTS

MAY 0 4 2010

Revd

Filed kf.h.;me /I ''ilB"

EliZABEn:fii:SMITH

-" CLERK. DISTRICT OF IDAHO

IN THE UNITIIDSTATlIS D1STR1Cf COURT

FOR THE DISTRICf OF IDAHO

AMAJir>A DAVJS, eral,
. Plalntl((s, . vs. CAN~9N COUNTY, l~>AHO, el ai,
Deleadantl.

CASE NO.1:09-CV-IIOI07-BLW ·
AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE, ORDi;RANDJUDGMENT ·

..
The. p.artfe3 bereto, by.ai'ld thrinlgb their CQunseJ o. f record, do hereby stipulate and agree ..
Order tha, ,tbat [he Consent De:cree•. and ~t was approVed by the .uni~ Stale.! District

.

Court,

District

of

ldiho~ on
.'

N<wember

12;
.

2009, '

shal l

bC

.8mcnded

to
-

i,nclude

no\~
.

pamgraph

-48,8 , which shall read 'as follows:

". .

.

'

'~

. .

.'.

'.

'48,a. The Coun.ty.agl'ees that s.ccun(y checks'in the. Canyon County Jiliishall be .

. . perfOrme.d In acco'rd.ance with tho applicable polioie.!J and procedures. A true and

is as .co~.t"

copy

of

Po lie),
".

10'..05..

10.0;,01

'a.nd. .iO.05.oi

a.tt.a.c~.he.reto

Exhibit .
'.

or 1. In ex~u1lon

11,

dt1t~.' to

i?erfl'~

~~ty

~
.

CanYon

Co~ty
'' .

will
, ' .

do

~,e fol~owini:

.1: ":..

T.h~ County has trwiled ~d 'iMlrUcted~ and w,ill:'OOntin~ to lrain

'

".

,

, ', , '

"

and In,squct,' deientlon officers on ~~ need to comply with, the poUcies Imd

piweaut'es tO'perform security cllcc4 '

, "

~.,

. '.
. ,

.

.

,AMENDED COJ'JSBNT Df£REB ORDeR AND JUOOMIJNT

CASE NO. 1:09·CV-OO'I01~BLW '

8·8194

'

' ~~gelor-4 .

E xh1~t t "A"

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 42 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 5

2. The County has trained and Instructed. and will continue to train and instruct, detention officers to make 8 radio check each time thc~ enter into and exit from the Jiving units for the purpose ofperfonnlng sccurity checks.
3. Th¢ County has trained and instructed, and will continuo to train and instruct. ~cten~on officers regarding the 'proper 10Sgblg on the oomputer system of their entry into and exit from living imits for the purpose of pcrfonning ..
security checks:
4. The Cmmly. represents that 11 has ' rev.ampe.d and . simplif. ied the
codes fo~ logging: security checks In the computer sy~tem, e.nd h~ 1I11ine4 and .
instructed; and will continue to train and Instruct; detention officers on the proper use of.thc cOOOl for loggjng these cbecb.
5. The County rePresents that it hu deyelo~d a new electronic report that ~II ~ provJ~ to .jail administration and supervisors each day ' that will show all s~urity chCclc.$ in each of the Wlits over the previous tw~~four (24) . 'hours, ~d whieh speclfiea.lIy'li~ the time between each seCurity check.
6. 'f1le County. ~1I11 tfllined and instruoted, ~d will continue 10 Imin
to . and InstJlict, superVisors .that they. must. daily reyiew sccuritr ch,eck logs aild
. .. Tile p. a.rties agree.that.~ .issue.s Identified above relate to' alleg~d dcficient cPnditions of·
conflnemerH In the Cmyon C~tr ]01,1/ and·theresolulion ofth~!O issues. The parties stipulate
" ; that thc' tenns OftJ).is Amenetment to ~ Con,.sent Decree, Order ~d JUdg~Mt extend no further .
. than nCoessary to satisty therequlrements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)cIXA).

. AMENDED CoNSENT DecRE~ ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASB'NO.I:09-CV-00101-BLW

.

8·8194 '

PAgo2of4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 42 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 5
..
f L DATED Ih.i' day ofApril, 2010.

. J,AM H. HURST, CLERK

. LiI~/l""

, ~#J!) , _ .

.,

"

. ~-

. 'sSmitll

.

. .

..

.

AMERlCAN CIV IL LIBERTIBS UNION

~-I.f~

S~~Lt~~ · ~-----

Lla:'toopci

.

Counsel for PiaintiffClass

. AMENQBD CONSBNT DECREB ORnER AND JUOOMENT '

C~SE NO, 1:09·CY.{)9 J01. BLW

.8·8194

PllgoJof4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 42 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 5

, . ..

ORDER

The Court hereby approves and adopts this Amendment to COll:sent Decree, order and

1udgment. DATED

lhl't"~' .

day

or~lO.

,
B. LYNNWlNMlL~ oult for the District orrdaho

....

AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND nmGMENT

CASH NO. i:09-CV·O(H07·BLW

, ,

8·8194

. Pago'4of4'

"

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 42 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 5

No unaulhOrized person shall be permitted Insklelhe main control center area. Unless
a8;slgned relief duty, condu,ctJng official Canyon CourrtY bus'ne~ or conducting an observance tour, ,all other deputieS shall be consIdered unauthorfzed personnel.
The control room door &half remaln closed and locked at ell times. /I Is the solo re8~nslblUty ~f the control room operator to maintain the seourfty and Integrity of this area at all times,
10.05 Security Checks

To ensLl'o the-security. contfnued safety. and well..beJng of all Inmates, sec:uritychecks

Shall be conducted. on a regular baste, day and night.

.

, OepuUes'shall observe a.lnmates·for weJl-bulng wtthln thIrtY mlnutfS. on an Irrogular

schedllle: Remote television may be used to assist In routine mOnItoring, but shall '

never be substituted tor physical well-being dlacks.

' .

More frequent challlCs shOufd be made on lildMdoals who are \!folent. suIcidal, monlaUy 1ll,lnfoxlcated, or.have o,therl8sue'!t or ne6ds tnat YJarrant closer observatiOn.

10.05.01 Radio Traffic,

Ali deputies are required to call over the radio for secLtlty checks every thirty minUtes or

leS8. No offlcer tlhall en~r 8 unit or stan a secur1iy,check YAthout nrl:l.t notifYIng oonlrol

via radio. At the conau8lon of the security C:heok, the deputy shan notrfy contf91 vf,a

radio that Hie security check Iff Complete. .

'

10.05.02 ' Ccmputer Log

, , All security checks sh'aU be loggBd Into the In-hou'!~ ~mputer system. The check ahaJ1
.be !OgQed at t,M beginning and cpncluslon of the ev~ry security check.

. , ,10:05.03 BLink/Ceil S.~lqn~

, ,

'"

,.

~\ , . ,,:,.' : '~ , '.

. .

. ..

It [s neceSS&fY t9 conduct ranaom and OnsnnOUIloed,bunk, ceA and building searc,hes1o '

locate Weapons and 'oonlraband and e/so to kl8I)11fy safe~ 'and maintenance l88ue8 '

: ....~thln the facUlly. Thls,ls to facilitate staff ~nd Inmato,saI~. .

Deput[~s should do 85 mfiny sea,rch~& ~ possIble durfng'thelrdally tourof duty.

,

Alth~ugh ,here Ie no ,nurnerlOf!IS!fIO.unt of sesr¢h(J8 t~ be 06mpieted, It Is ma~atory that

all s,aff oonrjuc\'d,aHy,searches.

"

'

,

36
. .

"

 
 Part Description 1 26 pages 2 Exhibit Exhibit A; 4 pages

Multiple Documents

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L4FSLUO2?documentName=1.xml

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 26

STEPHEN L. PEVAR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 2074 Park Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 570-9830 Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

LEA C. COOPER ISB # 3505 American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho P.O. Box 1897 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 344-9750 ext. 206

DEAN JOSEPH MILLER ISB # 1968 Cooperating Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation McDevitt & Miller LLP P.O. Box 2564 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 343-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, ALISHA BAKER, TROY FENSTER, DESIREE COMINGO, PARNELL WILLIAMS, and PEDRO MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs.

CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, by and through the members of its Board of County Commissioners, KATHY ALDER, DAVID FERDINAND, and STEVEN RULE, each sued in his or her official capacity; and CHRIS SMITH, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Canyon County.

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 2 of 26

INTRODUCTION

The six nam ed plaintiffs file this acti on on their own behalf and on be half of a

class of all other persons incarcerated, now or in the fu ture, in the Canyon County Jail in

Caldwell, Idaho. Plaintiffs seek declarato ry and injunctive relief from conditions of

confinement that are ind ecent, cruel, and inhumane. For years now, as d efendants' own

reports show and as repeated in spections from the Idaho Sherif f's Association detail,

defendants have been incarcerating far m ore persons in th e Dale G. Haile Deten tion

Center--the largest of the three structures comprising the Canyon County Jail--than it was

designed to hold. The Jail also suffers fr

om inadequate ven tilation; inadequate

temperature control; inadequate fire protec tion; inadequate recreation; inadequate

plumbing; inadequate medical care; and inad equate sanitation. In addition, Defendants

invidiously discriminate against fem ale prisoners in the operati on of the Jail' s work

release and inm ate worker program s. Re lief is sought pursuant to the E ighth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Eighth and Fourteenth Am endments to the U.S.

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdicti on exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and

1343(a)(3) and (4). Venue is properly found in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1391(b), in that all parties reside, and plaintiffs’ claims arose, within the District.

PLAINTIFFS

2. Plaintiffs Am anda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster, Desiree Com ingo,

Parnell Williams, and Pedro Mar tin are adul t citizens of the United States cu rrently

incarcerated in the Canyon County Jail.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 3 of 26
THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 3. This action is brought on behalf of th e named plaintiffs and on behalf of all other persons incarcerated in the Ca nyon County Jail, or who m ay become so incarcerated in the future. Cl ass certification is sought pu rsuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2). Class certification is appropriate because the members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all persons is impracticable; there are questions of fact and law common to the clas s; the rep resentative parties’ claims are typical of the claims of the class; and the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. In addition, the defendants have act ed or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all m embers of the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief to th e class a s a whole, a nd the questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting individual members.
DEFENDANTS 4. Canyon County, Idaho, is a county organized and existing pursuant to Title 31, Idaho Code. The County is am enable to suit through its Board of County Comm issioners, whose m embers are defendants here in--Kathy Alder, David Ferdinand, and Steven Rule--each of whom is sued in his or her official capacity. The Board of County Commissioners is charged under Idaho law with the responsibility to m aintain a safe, adequate, and secure jail. See Idaho Code § 20-622. Idaho C ode § 20-612 states that the board must "furnish all persons comm itted to the county jail with necessary food, clothing and bedding, and m edical care" a nd further provides that the board "is authorized to pay" for these provisions from the county treasury.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 4 of 26
5. Defendant Chris Smith is the du ly elected Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho, and as such has a duty under state and federal law to adequately administer the county jail and provide for the proper and humane care, custody, and control of the named plaintiffs. Defendant Smith is sued in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. The Canyon County Jail in Caldwell, Id aho, consists of three buildings called the Annex, the Dale G. Haile Detention Center, and the Work Release Center. 7. The Annex, built in 1948, was a bandoned in 1993 when the Dale G. Haile Detention Center was opened. However, due to overcrowding in the Detention C enter, the Annex was somewhat refurbished and reop ened in 2001. Due to its m any violations of Idaho Jail Standards, the Annex was cl osed in 2006. In March 2007, the Annex was reopened after receiving som e limited refurbishing and now houses approxim ately 70 prisoners. Although Sheriff Smith believes that the Annex should be closed permanently, the county currently uses this structure to house segregation prisoners on one floor and prisoner workers and minimum security prisoners on two other floors. 8. The Dale G. Haile Detention Center was built in 1993 and houses the m ajority of the Canyon County prisoners, both male and female, on its two floors. The Detention Center has four pods: P od 1 contains housing un its A, B, C, and D; Pod 2 contains units E, F, and G; Pod 3 contains units H, J, K, and L; Pod 4 contains units M and N. 9. Originally, m ost or all bunk beds in the Detention Center were double bunks. Over the years, however, the defendants converted many of these double bunks into triple bunks. The Detention Center now contains some 488 beds.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 5 of 26
10. Yet even with these 488 beds in the Detention Center, there frequently have been more prisoners than beds. Throughout 200 8, scores of prisoners had to sleep on the floor--often for weeks or months--due to the lack of an available bunk bed.
11. Each unit in each pod in the Detention Center has a common area with eating tables and benches on one side, and a partit ioned area on the other side with shower stalls, sinks, and toilets. Th e Detention Center also contains on its first floor a booking and holding area that includes cells for medical isolation and suicide watch prisoners, and a cell for prisoners who arrive at the jail intoxicated.
12. In 2006, a 216-bed Work Release Center for male prisoners was opened. Due to overcrowding in the Detention Center, th e Work Release Center houses som e general population prisoners as well as prisoners on work release. Overall conditions of the Dale G. Haile Detention Center
13. Yearly inspection reports issued by the Idaho Sheriff' s Association (ISA) detail the s ubstandard, filthy, and unhealthy c onditions of confinement in the D ale G. Haile Detention Center. The root cause of these deplorable conditions is overcrowding. Overcrowding produces a "dom ino effect," taxing all other system s--ventilation, plumbing, staffing, laundry, recreation, etc. --beyond the breaking point. The 2007 ISA report, issued August 28, 2007, reaches that conclusion. The ISA determ ined that "overcrowding would seem to be the inherent problem that creates secu rity issues, tasks the staff and the physical plant [and] m akes it very difficult to keep up m aintenance, cleaning and refurbishment of t he facility." The report noted that persistent overcrowding, including the "flooring and multi-bunking" of prisoners, is "the bas is for the liability that the Count y shoulders and an ongoing reas on for concern." The ISA's
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 6 of 26
2008 inspection report, issued on June 11, 2008, reiterated that conclusion. The report found that cells in the Detention Center "were considerably overcrowded" and "were very humid and smelled." Inspectors found "mold, scaling of paint, and fixtures that were not working or needed cleaning and refurbishm ent in num erous cells." The inspection concluded that the "ventilation systems cannot move enough air" for the population, and that overcrowded conditions throughout the De tention Center makes it "impossible to do routine maintenance, painting and repairs, . . . [and] increase[s] the likelihood of mold and other airborne problem s." The com bined effect of these substandard conditions, the ISA concluded, compromises the health and safety of staff and prisoner alike. This is not to say that reducing the jail's population would be a panacea--because it would not--but it certainly would alleviate some problems. 1. Overcrowding
14. Sheriff Sm ith and the County Comm issioners have acknowledged that the Dale G. Haile Detention Center is overcrowded.
15. The Idaho Sheriff's Association (IS A), comprised of correctional and law enforcement officers from around the state, has promulgated a set of standards to govern the operation and adm inistration of local jails. One set of standard s, adopted from the American Correctional Association (ACA), is used to determ ine the number of beds that may safely and securely be placed in a given space. A recent study cond ucted by Sheriff Smith found that in order to com ply with those ISA standards, at least 100 beds must be removed from the Detention Center.
16. On December 15, 2008, Sheriff Smith admitted in a letter to the ISA that "we have too many inmates to meet [the ISA living space] standard."
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 7 of 26
17. During the past twelve m onths, named plaintiffs Am anda Davis, Alisha Baker, and Parnell W illiams each h ad to sle ep on the floo r due to overcrowding in the Detention Center. Ms. Davis, who was nearly five m onths pregnant at the tim e, was required to sleep on the floor for nearly three weeks.
18. As a result of chronic overcrowding, the Detention Center is not able to adequately classify prisoners. Thus, pris oners who should be kept apart for various reasons, such as age, crime, their predatory nature or their predilection for violence, often must be housed together. This increases th e risk of violence, intim idation, and strongarming. Overcrowding also contributes to all of the other inadequacies discussed below. 2. Inadequate ventilation
19. Standards issued by the ACA, the Am erican Public Health Association, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning require regular and constant intake of fresh or outside air to prevent the spre ad of respiratory infections, reduce odors, and dilute exhaled carbon dioxid e. Respiratory secretions from an individual with an inf ection of the respiratory tract contaminate both surrounding surfaces as well as inf use the air with tiny, d roplet nuclei. Adequate ventilatio n is necessary to remove airborne contaminants.
20. Ventilation in the Detention Center is in adequate, resulting in a bu ild-up of stale and foul air and in creasing the risk of air-borne disease, headaches, dizziness, and other physical and m ental ailments. The ISA's 2008 inspection repo rt, as noted above, found that the Detention Center' s ventilation system "cannot m ove enough air" for the population, and that cells were "very hum id and smelled." The Center' s ventilation
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 8 of 26
system was not designed to accommodate the size of this prisoner population, and it is simply unable to meet their need for fresh and clean air.
21. Num erous prisoners, including na med plaintiffs Amanda Davis, Parnell Williams, Alisha Baker, and Desiree Com ingo, report suffering headach es and dizziness that they attribute in part to inadequate ventilation. Ms. Davis has repeatedly aske d deputies to improve the air quality, only to be told on each occasion that there is no thing they can do to im prove it. The living units in which they are confin ed are hum id and stink due to inadequate ventilation.
22. When class plaintiff Misty Canada recently complained to a guard about the foul air in her living unit, the guard replied: "W ell, obviously you're still breathing." Nothing was done to improve the air quality.
23. Inadequate ventilation contributes to the spread of mold, a problem that plagues the Detention Center, as discussed below. 3. Inadequate sanitation
24. Unsanitary conditions exist throughout the Dale G. Haile Detention Center, as well as the Annex and W ork Release Center. Mold and soap scum exist in vir tually every shower area. In some housing units, the humidity is so high and ventilation so poor that water droplets form on ceilings, and the Sheriff has installed plastic bags to catch the falling water and paint f lakes. Mold and mildew are visible on shower stalls, walls, and ceilings. Concrete is deteriorating due to water damage.
25. In late February 20 09, class plaintiff Sabra McGinnes s ubmitted a grievance calling attention to the mold growing on the fl oor, ceiling, walls, and in side the showers.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 9 of 26
The shift supervisors responded: "Maintenan ce is aware of this issue." Indeed, Maintenance has been aware of the issue for years and has failed to remedy it.
26. There is no adequate or routine cleaning of shower and toilet facilities, and as near as plaintiffs can discern, there is no housekeeping plan to prevent the build-up of filth. Sheriff Smith acknowledged in his De cember 15, 2008 letter to ISA: "Facility sanitation and maintenance in regard to a written housekeeping plan is not in place."
27. In late 2008, prisoner Kathaleena Bowen, unable to stand the stench emanating from the drain in the shower ar ea in her housing unit, obtained the help of Deputy Atkinson in removing th e drain cover. Seeing the f ilth and gunk that filled the drain, both of them vomited. They then cleaned the drain.
28. In late 2008, na med plaintiff Troy Fe nster and another prisoner w ere given some cleaning supplies by a deputy and told to remove the mold in G-Unit. However, the mold was so encrusted on walls, ceilings, and floors, and the m aterials they were given were so inadequate, that their efforts barely made a difference, and three days later the mold was just as evide nt. (Moreo ver, the dep uty failed to issue thes e men protective clothing, eyewear, or m asks, despite the toxic nature of black m old spores.) Today, the mold is G-Unit remains as bad as it ever was.
29. Prisoner Curtis Jay Mill er was selected by guards to be a janitor. Mr. Miller will testify that not on ce during ne arly six months of his work was he instru cted to try and clean the m old, nor was he given proper equipment with which he could clean the mold. Mold was and is rampant throughout his housing area.
30. Named plaintiffs Amanda Davis and Desiree Comingo are allergic to mold. Both women have had trouble breathing the air in their housing units. Ms. Com ingo,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 10 of 26

who uses an inhaler, uses three tim es the number of inhalers inside the jail than nor mal

due to the unhealthy build-up of mold in her housing unit.

31. Ms. Davis believes that no t once since Decem ber 19, 2008 have guards

sought to clean, or supervised prisoners in the cleaning of, mold in her housing unit.

32. On February 20, 20 09, named plaintiff Alisha Baker s ubmitted a grievance

stating that only once during the past week was a disinfectant brought into the housing

unit for th e prisoners to use. She received a reply from the adm inistration stating that

"cleaning supplies will be offered when

convenient for [em ployees], not you."

Apparently, it has been very in convenient for guards to provide prisoners with adequate

cleaning supplies.

33. In late 2008, prisoner Nikki Price spent ten days in a cell in the Annex. The

cell in which she was placed had so meone else's blood caked on the walls. The cell also

had water continually oozing down one wall. When Ms. Price asked a deputy for a rag to

dry the resulting puddle on the floor, she was told to use her own towel, the one intended

for her showering and washing.

34. The jail issues each prisoner one to wel twice a week. Numerous prisoners

will testify that the towels they receive smell of body odor.

35. The jail issues each prisoner an orange jum psuit twice a week, m eaning that

prisoners wear the same clothing three and then four days in a row. This results in an

accumulation of body odor in th e clothing, which perm eates the air. Ju mpsuits become

so soiled and smelly that they are difficult to get clean and fresh-smelling.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 11 of 26
36. Class plain tiff Traci Jennings recentl y told a guard that her laundry had not been properly cleaned and still smelled. The guard replied: "You're a piece of crap. You don't deserve clean stuff."
37. In addition to the presence of mold throughout the Detention Center, there is a constant flaking of paint in several hous ing units, including the units occupied by named plaintiffs Davis, Baker, and Comingo.
38. Several prisoners, including class plai ntiffs Misty Canada and Jam ie Neider, will testify that on occ asion they have been issued shav ing razors with ha ir lodged between the blades, indicating that these razors had been used previously. Class plaintiff Sabra McGinnes received a razor with what appeared to be blood on it.
39. Num erous prisoners suffer from a continuous series of influenza-like symptoms due to the unhealthy an d unsanitary conditions in the ja il. Nam ed plaintiff Troy Fenster has had one cold af ter another while in the jail, even though he rarely gets sick otherwise. Prisoner Curtis Jay Miller has been healthy virtua lly all his life and was healthy when he entered the jail eight m onths ago. However, since his adm ission to the jail, he has been ill m ost of the time, suffering flu-like symptoms. Class plaintiff Ronda Luna has suffered similarly. She even lost her job as an inm ate worker because she kept getting sick. 4. Inadequate plumbing
40. There is no adequate or routine m aintenance of plumbing systems, including shower and toilet facilities, and the jail is beset with plumbing problems that create health and safety hazards.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 12 of 26
41. Due to overcrowded conditions, shower s and toilets in the Detention Center receive far more use th an originally designed, and they frequently break down. M any of these broken facilities have rem ained unusable for weeks or m onths at a tim e. For instance, G-Unit contains 92 beds. (Acco rding to the Sh eriff's recent study, it should have only 66 beds.) N amed plaintiff Troy Fe nster resides in G-Unit. Mr. Fenster will testify that as many as five of the ten showers in the unit have been inoperable for weeks at a time, and two of the nine toilets were inoperable for three months.
42. All six named plaintiffs will testify that the housing units in which they reside have plumbing problems, such as clogged drai ns; standing, stagnant water; and/or water dripping from ceiling pipes ont o the floor and dini ng tables. Som e prisoners, including plaintiff Fenster, have seen bugs crawling out of the water.
43. Showe rs throughout the Detention Ce nter have two buttons that m ust be pushed for water, one for hot water and th e other for cold. They do not operate simultaneously, and prisoners m ust decide whether to be do used with hot or cold w ater while showering. Som etimes the hot water is so hot it scalds the skin instantly. Na med Plaintiff Comingo is one of the prisoners scalded during a shower.
44. Class plaintiff Ja mie Neider will testify that he was an i nmate worker in the Detention Center's kitchen for several m onths. During that tim e, leaking water was allowed to stand underneath the walk-in refrigerator/freezer and it had a horrible odor. 5. Inadequate temperature control
45. Plaintiffs will tes tify that the h ousing units in which th ey currently reside in the Detention Center are very cold, especially at night. Pa rnell Williams will testify that while he was in F-Unit, it was so cold that h is hands tur ned blue. Nam ed plaintiff
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 13 of 26
Amanda Davis will testify that she and other female prisoners often ask deputies to raise the temperature, only to be told that there is nothing the deputies can do about it. Nam ed plaintiff Troy Fenster will tes tify that one reason he believes he keeps getting sick in the jail is because of the cold tem peratures. Former prisoner Eric Couch will testify that he believes his chills, his raspy voice, and the green m ucous he was expectorating for som e five weeks was due to the frigid temperatures in his housing unit.
46. Many p risoners wrap themselves in blankets in the m orning because it is so cold in their living units.
47. On occasion, and f or reasons unknown to Plaintiffs, the tem perature inside the jail during winter days will suddenly spike so that it is uncomf ortably hot, but it is mostly cold.
48. Prisoners who have been incarcerated in the Detention Center during summer months report that the jail is often uncomfo rtably hot, and prisoners sweat even when they are inactive. In addition, the hot temperatures cause the mold to grow faster. 6. Inadequate bedding
49. Bedding in the jail falls below acceptabl e standards, especially given the cold temperatures in the housing units during wi nter months. Defendants issue one thin mattress per prisoner to be placed o ver a metal bunk bed, a m attress cover, a sheet, and two thin blankets.
50. Pillows are not issued to prisoners. 51. The blankets issued to prisoners are not sufficient to keep them war m during the winter months. All six nam ed plaintiffs will testify that they are uncomfortably cold at night because they do not have sufficient blankets.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 14 of 26
52. Defendants m aintain a rigid policy of not issuing a third blanket even when prisoners request one from a deputy or through the m edical department. On Nove mber 20, 2008, for instance, prisoner Nikki Price submitted the following written request to the medical department of the Detention Center: "Can I please get an extra blanket. Thanks." The following day she received this written response: "Only 2 blankets are given."
53. Most or all of the mattresses in the Detention Center are cracked, and m any have large holes that expose their stuffing. This prevents these m attresses from being properly cleaned and sanitized, and Defendant s do not even try to clean and sanitize them. When a prisoner leav es the jail, his/her mattress is stacked on a pile and reis sued to an arriving prisoner. Former prisoner Ro chelle Saucedo will testify that she sta cked nearly 100 mattresses during the eight m onths of her incarceration, and not one of them was cleaned or sanitized prior to being reissued.
54. Prisoners are not p ermitted to have a seco nd mattress even when m edically indicated. Na med plaintiff Am anda Davis wa s nearly five m onths pregnant when she entered the Detention Center. No bed was empty, so a deputy assigne d her to a place on the cold cem ent floor, and she was issued on e thin m attress. She requested a second mattress but was refused. Even th e jail's medical department refused to authorize the issuance of a second m attress, informing Ms. Davis that pregnant wom en qualify for a second mattress only when they enter their th ird trimester. Ms. Da vis will tes tify that sleeping on one thin mattress caused bruisi ng on her hips and m ade prolonged sleep impossible. At the tim e Ms. Davis was denied a second m attress, the jail had dozens of additional mattresses piled in the store room.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 15 of 26
55. Prisoners will testify that in 2008 another pregna nt prisoner, besides Ms. Davis, spent many days on the floor and wa s denied a second m attress even though she complained of severe back pain and submitted medical requests.
56. Numerous prisoners, including named plaintiffs Parnell Williams and Pedro Martin, have developed back, neck, or shoulder problems because the jail refuses to issue them adequate bedding.
57. Named plaintiff Alisha Baker will testify that as a result of a car accident, she had four broken ribs and a fractured collar bone and that she gave the name of her doctor to the jail's medical department when requesting a second mattress. Ms. Baker believes that the jail did not contact he r physician and simply denied her a second mattress. As a result, Ms. Baker has difficulty sleeping and experiences back pain. 7. Inadequate recreation
58. The Detention Center has no indoor recreation facility. 59. The Detention Center has no designa ted exercise equipm ent for aerobic or anaerobic exercise located either indoor or outdoor. 60. The De tention Center has two outdoor recreation yards. However, deputies rarely permit prisoners to use them . Ther e are no scheduled tim es of recreation, and access to the yard is wholly within the discretion of the dep uty on duty. Prisoners in GUnit will testify that during the last three months of 2008, they were offered access to the recreation yard on only two occasions. 61. Prison ers often ask deputies to be allowed access to the y ard but such requests are routinely denied. Plaintiff Alisha Baker will tes tify that she spent six weeks
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 15

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 16 of 26
in segregation without once being offered an opportunity to use a recreation area, either indoor or outdoor.
62. During the winter months when it is cold outside, the Detention C enter only has a few zippered sw eaters available for pr isoner use in the recreation yard. In December 2008, during the one tim e that a deput y offered outdoor recreation to G-U nit, some thirteen prisoners went outdoors. They were given only five sweaters between them, and the zippers of three of the five were inoperable. The thirteen prisoners shared the sweaters, handing them back and forth while they walked around the yard.
63. There is no exercise equipment in the outdoor recreation yard. A few months ago when some prisoners in G-Unit fashioned a ball from a rolled-up pair of socks and were using it in the recreation yard in order to create some form of athletic activity, the deputy on duty--for no legitimate penological reason--ordered them to stop.
64. The lack of equipm ent for ae robic exercise and for large m uscle activity causes unnecessary pain and suffe ring, muscle atrophy, and lethargy. It results in enforced idleness. Named plaintiffs Baker and Martin, both of whom engage in regular exercise on the outside, have noticed a drop in their phys ical health since being confined in the De tention Center. Nam ed plaintiff Williams will tes tify that his doctor recommended that he exercise regularly due to a m edical condition, but the Detention Center offers no realistic opportunity for him to do so.
65. At least one of the outdoor recreati on yards is also used to house K-9 dogs. These dogs urinate an d defecate in the yar d. On several occasions, prisoners have entered the yard and found dog feces still present.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 16

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 17 of 26
8. Inadequate staffing 66. The County Comm issioners have repe atedly denied requests from Sheriff
Smith for additional staffing in the jail. 67. The jail is inadequately staffed. Employees of the jail have publicly admitted
this, as well as acknowledged th e overall substandard conditions in the Detention Center. See http://www.idahopress.com/?id=20318. (Attached as "Exhibit 1").
68. On ma ny shifts, not only is there an insufficient num ber of deputies on duty but the jail must rely on staff working overt ime, and deputies often are short-tem pered and tired. This creates a dangerous condition for staff and prisoner alike.
69. The Detention Center and the Annex are staff-intensive facilities, having linear designs and many "blind spots" that require officers to visit personally (rather than observe from a central post) at least once every half-hour.
70. The lack of adequate staffing increas es the risk of pr isoner-on-prisoner violence. In recen t months, for instance, named plaintiff Martin was present when another prisoner was beaten so badly that br ain matter was released from his head. Due to staffing shortages, deputies were unable to arrive in time to protect this prisoner.
71. Housing units have "panic buttons" that prisoners m ay push i n case of emergency. However, em ployees rarely re spond when the buttons are pushed. Class plaintiff Sabra McGinn es will tes tify, for instance, that a deputy told her that he will ignore the button and will simply conduct his half-hourly inspections. 9. Inadequate fire protection
72. An ins pection by the fire departm ent of the Detention Center' s fire alarm system in J anuary 2008 found "3 ground fau lts at the time of inspection, which will
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 18 of 26
hamper system performance; as well as over thirty troubles. System needs further service . . . which m ay include panel and/or devi ce replacement along with extensiv e rewiring and programming."
73. Only in recent weeks have the defenda nts begun to install som e type of fire protection system. Pla intiffs do not know if installation of this system has been completed or what type of system it is.
74. To plaintiffs' knowledge, defendants have not had a fire drill in the Detention Center in years, not even one in which prisoners remain in their cells in a mock release. 10. Arbitrary rule enforcement
75. Various deputies have told prisoners that an Inmate Handbook exists. However, few prisoners have seen it. A copy is not distributed to prisoners on intake and the Handbook is not p osted anyplace. Prison ers will testify that eith er they o r other prisoners in their pr esence have requested to see an Inmate Handbook, and one was not given to them. Na med plaintiff Pe dro Martin has been denied several tim es. Som e prisoners were given incomplete Handbooks.
76. As a result, prisoners do not know what conduct is proscribed or what punishments may be imposed for any of these unidentified infractions. Deputies appear to have virtually free reign in setting rules and enforcing them.
77. Former prisoner Nikki Price will testify, for instance, that she was given forty days in segregation for engaging in an activ ity she did not know was a rule violation. Named plaintiff Alisha Baker will testify that ever since she began writing to the A CLU, she has been found to have violated rules she did not even know existed and given severe punishments, including lengthy sentences to segregation.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 19 of 26
11. Failure to ensure the provision of special meals 78. Nam ed plaintiff Am anda Davis will testify that she has repeatedly notified
jail personnel that she has a severe allergic reaction to onions, such that her throat will close and she will have difficulty breathing and swallowing. Yet on every occas ion in which onions are served as part of the prisoner meal, deputies have brought her that same meal.
79. Other prisoners have reported sim ilar problems. For mer prisoner Viola Quintana repeatedly informed jail personnel that she is allergic to fish, but whenever fish was served to everyone else, she was given the same meal. 12. Inadequate medical care
80. Several prisoners report po sitive experiences with the jail' s medical department, but other prisoners report nega tive experiences. Those with negative experiences include the two pr egnant prisoners, one of whom is na med plaintiff Davis, who were denied a second mattress even after requesting them for medical reasons.
81. An overall problem faced by the pr isoner class is that the jail charges prisoners a fee of $10 each a nd every time they are seen by the medical department and an additional $5 for each m edication, even for m edication, such as cold tablets, that do not cost $5 to procure. (Prisoners who do not have m oney on th eir books are given a "negative" balance, and the m oney is seized as soon as it is placed on the prisoner' s account.) Plaintiffs will testif y that $10 is a lot of m oney to them, and that this charge has resulted in their som etimes not reque sting needed m edical attention. As a consequence, prisoners rem ain contagious in their housing units, thereby placing the entire prisoner population at unnecessary risk of infection and disease.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 20 of 26
82. It is particularly unconscionable to charge prisoners a fee to obtain m edical care for illnesses and in fections caused by the jail' s own f ailure to pro vide a saf e and healthy environment. The jail is m aking people sick and then charging them a fee to get well. Scores of prisoners have been trea ted for colds, skin infections, headaches, backaches, and other ailm ents they contracted only because of squalid conditions in the jail and have been charged by the jail for tr eatment. Among the priso ners impacted in this manner are named plaintiffs Troy Fenster, Alisha Baker, and Parnell Williams. Inadequate training and supervision
83. Defendants have a duty to adequately train jail personnel and supervise their behavior. It is clear that this is not o ccurring. Exam ples are legion of guards m aking rude and inappropriate comments to prisone rs and engaging in the sam e misconduct repeatedly.
84. For instance, guards of ten use profanity while sp eaking to or criticizing prisoners. Recently, w hen one prisoner m entioned that the ACLU would be condu cting interviews, a guard replied: "Jus t because the ACLU is here doesn' t mean shit to us." Class prisoner McGinnes was told by one deputy that prisoners are "animals."
85. Named plaintiff Troy Fenster w atched while one guard sl ammed a prisoner's head into a glass wall and th en announced to all the other prisoners that the sam e thing will happen to them if they don't follow his orders.
86. Class plaintiff Jamie Neider watched as one deputy in the kitchen deliberately poured boiling water on a prisoner' s foot, telling him that this was the way to clean his shoes on which some jello had fallen.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 20

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 21 of 26
87. Additio nally, guards have sugg ested that a link ex ists between a p risoner's loss of a privilege and h is or her having com plained about deplorable conditions in the jail. Named Plaintiff Desiree Com ingo was told by a guard on March 2, 2009 that she might have lost her inmate worker position because she had filed grievances complaining about jail conditions.
88. Guards have also so ught to discourage prisoners from submitting grievances. Recently, when named plaintiff Amanda Davis and other fem ale prisoners requ ested grievance forms to complain about the cold temperatures in their housing unit, guards initially refused to provide the form s and asked the women if these were being requested because of the ACLU lawsuit. When named plaintiff Alisha Baker requested a grievance form, a gua rd asked her if she had "joine d the ACLU bandwagon." One officer, Sgt. Moore, told a prisoner who had complained about conditions in the jail: "If you don't like the way this jail is run, bond out."
89. Na med plaintiff Parnell W illiams suffers from sleep apnea, and s ometimes snores loudly. On one such occasion, a guard placed his radio next to Mr. Williams' face and broadcast his snoring throughout the housin g unit. Num erous prisoners complained about this and later ridiculed Mr. Williams. When Mr. Williams grieved this misconduct, guards denied it had occurred. A n adequate investigation was not conducted and the incident was covered up by administrative staff.
90. Recently when na med plaintiff Baker left her cell for an interv iew with her attorneys in this litigation, two guards im mediately entered her cell and, as other prisoners later told Ms. Baker, began exam ining her legal m ail. When Ms. Baker returned to her cell, her correspondence was displaced and disheveled.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 21

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 22 of 26
Sex discrimination against female workers 91. Defendants provide an opportunity fo r prisoners, both m ale and fem ale, to
earn special privileges by working. There ar e two such program s. The first is "Work Release," in which prisoners leave the jail a nd work at another location. The second is "Inmate Worker," in which prisoners work at locations within the jail.
92. In both of these program s, Defendants invidiously discrim inate against female prisoners.
93. For instance, male prisoners on Work Release live in the relatively new Work Release Center and enjoy numerous privileges and benefits, whereas female prisoners on Work Release live in the Annex and have alm ost none of those privileges. The m en, for instance, have access to a TV, radio, DVDs, have regular access to a pay phone, more comfortable clothing, and are allowed to wear tennis shoes. W omen on work release have none of these privileges. Moreover, on Sundays, the men are allowed to go hom e for a period of time, but the women are not.
94. Male Inm ate Workers are permitted to live in the W ork Release Center and participate in extra benefits and privileges that are denied female Inmate Workers.
95. Plaintiff Desiree Com ingo was an Inm ate Worker for nearly two months. While her m ale counterparts were enjoying numerous privileges at the W ork Release Center, Ms. Comingo was forced to live in her usual housing unit and enjoyed none of those privileges. Defendants' deliberate indifference
96. Each defendant has m ade statements acknowledging that the Canyon County Jail is overcrowded and is beset with health and safety problems. It is well known that
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 22

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 23 of 26
human beings confined in a so rdid environment like the one that exists in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center will suffer predicta ble physical and m ental illness over tim e, including disease, aches, pains, depression, listlessness, apathy, sleeplessness, anxiety, and tension, and will be at unnecessary ri sk of violent assaul t from persons whose existing problems are exacerbated by conditions of confinement of this nature.
97. Defendants have it within their powe r--and they have it within their duty--to take all reasonable steps to prevent the suffering that they know is occurring on a daily basis in the Dale G. Haile De tention Center. Their f ailure to tak e those steps reflects deliberate indifference to the health and sa fety of the prisoner class and subject the plaintiff class to cruel and unusual punishm ent. Unless and until th is Court interv enes and orders the cessation of these intolerable and dangero us condition, plaintiffs will continue to suffer unnecessary harm. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Very recent improvements to the Jail
98. During the past several m onths, there have been num erous letters and telephone calls between prisoners of the Canyon County Jail and the Am erican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). On November 13, 2008, the Idaho Press-Tribune reported that the ACLU was considering filing suit ag ainst Canyon C ounty in order to im prove conditions in the county jail. Within the past 120 days, defendants have suddenly made a concerted effort to improve a few conditions in the Dale G. Haile Detention Center. For instance, some (but not all) of the housing units were painted, and work commenced on a new fire alarm system.
99. These efforts are commendable, but they are too little and too late to avoid the need for judicial intervention. In the fi rst place, most of the inadeq uacies described
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 23

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 24 of 26
above will rem ain unabated. Seco nd, based on past histo ry, it m ust be presum ed that defendants' remedial efforts are tem porary and transitory. As the Supreme Court stated in a related context, "[i]t is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and re form, especially when abandonm ent seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is a proba bility of recurrence." United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). See also Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523, 1538 (10 th Cir. 1983) (holding that a federal court must issue injunctive relief against prison officials, desp ite their recent remedial efforts, "until it can say with assurance that the unconstitutional practices have been discontinued and that there is no reasonable expectation that the unconstitutional practices will recur."
100. On October 20, 2008, Sheriff Sm ith sent a letter to the Canyon County Commissioners that stated: "All present fact ors such as the econom y, political agendas and county planning indicate that the Dale G. Haile Detention Facility is going to be open for several more years as the m ain Canyon County inmate detention facility. W ith this being the case, it is necessary that a large scale renovation of the f acility be put into action. The approach can not be just to get by, which appears to be the past standard of operation as evidenced by the condition of the facility." No such "large scale renovation" is taking place.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 101. Some prisoners incarcerated at the Canyon County Jail are pretrial detainees, that is, they have not been convict ed of any offense and the only reason they are incarcerated is be cause they are unable to post bond. For reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs allege that the actions of defe ndants, separately and in combination, acting
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 24

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 25 of 26
under color of state law, has ca used members of the plaintif f class not yet convicted of any crime to suffer punis hment without due process of law in viola tion of rights secured to them under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Relief is sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 102. In addition to pretrial detainees, so me members of the plaintiff class have been convicted of a crim e and are incarcerated as a result, either as a county prisoner or as a state prisoner. For reas ons set forth above, the actions of defendants, separately and in combination, in incarcerating m embers of the plaintiff class who have been convicted of crimes under the conditions described herein, subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and F ourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Relief is sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 103. For r easons set forth above, fe male prisoners are being denied equal opportunity and benefits in Defendants' Work Release and Inm ate Worker program s solely on the basis of their sex. Such discri mination violates rights secured to fem ale prisoners by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu tion of the United States. Relief is sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray to this Court as follows: 1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to R ule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), F.R.Civ.P.;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 25

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 26 of 26

3. Issue a declaratory judgm ent that defendants’ actions violate rights secured to plaintiffs under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 4. Issue injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 F.R.Civ.P., enjoining def endants and all persons in concert with them, and their successors in office, from incarcerating plaintiffs in the Canyon County Jail in a manner that violates their federal rights; and 5. Grant p laintiffs their costs and atto rneys’ fees in this m atter, and such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2009.

Stephen

//s// Dean J. Miller
L. Pevar Lea C. Cooper
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 26

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1-1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1-1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1-1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 1-1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 4 of 4

Davis et al vs Canyon County, Idaho, et al, Docket No. 1:09-cv-00107 (D. Idaho Mar 11, 2009), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name Docket Number Court Nature of Suit

Davis et al vs Canyon County, Idaho, et al 1:09-cv-00107 United States District Court for the District of Idaho Prisoner Petitions: Habeus Corpus - Civil Rights

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L4FSLUO2?documentName=1.xml

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 27 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, et al,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:09-cv-00107BLW

vs.

CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, et al,

Defendants.

ORDER (1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CONSENT DECREE, (2) CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, (3) DIRECTING
NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, AND (4) SCHEDULING A FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
Plaintiffs and Defendants have jointly applied for an Order pur suant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thr ough which the Court would (1) preliminarily approve a Consent Decree negotiated by the parties, attached hereto as Exhibit A; (2) conditionally certify this case as a class action; (3) direct that notice be given to the Plaintiff Class of the proposed Consent Decree; and (4) schedule a final fairness hearing to determine whether the terms of the proposed Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Plaintiff Class.
After consideration of the proposed Consent Decree and after due deliberation, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Court prelim inarily approves the Consent Decree negotiated by the parties, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on the grounds that it appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable;

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 27 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 4
2. The Court conditionally certif ies this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and ( b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the Plaintif f Class consisting of all prisoners currently incar cerated, or who in the f uture will becom e incarcerated, in the Canyon County Dale G. Ha ile Detention Center or in the Annex to that facility (together referred to herein as "the Jail");
3. The Court schedules a hearing (the "Hearing") to be held on Novem ber 9, 2009 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. to determine whether the proposed Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court, and to rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate; and
4. The Court directs the Defendants, at their sole expense, to provide notice to the Plaintiff Class by posting a copy of the a pproved Notice in a conspicuous location in each housing unit in the Jail and by ensuring that it rem ains posted. The form and substance of the Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, advises Class Mem bers of their right to object to the Consent Decree, the deadline for filing objections, and the date of the final settlement hearing. The notice shall be posted on or before August 24, 2009, and remain posted for at least thirty days. De fendants shall, during or shortly before the Hearing, submit an affidavit from an administrator of the Canyon County Jail confirm ing compliance with these notice requirements.
5. The Court finds tha t the method of notice specified herein is the best notice practicable and shall constitute due and suf ficient notice of the Hearing to all persons entitled to receive such notice.
6. The Court reserves the right to a pprove the Consent Decree with or without modification (subject to the parties’ written approval of any m odification) and with or
2

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 27 Filed 08/21/09 Page 3 of 4
without further notice to the Cl ass, and the Court reserves the right to adjourn the Hearing without further notice.
7. Any member of the Class who objects to the proposed Consent Decree or who otherwise wishes to be heard concerning its adoption by the Court must mail notice of his or her objections or com ments to the Clerk of Court. The inform ation provided must include the person's name and current address together with a detailed description of the person's objections and/or com ments and the reasons for the m, as well as all docum ents which such person m ay desire the Court to consider. Such objection m ust be mailed to the following address, postmarked on or before October 8, 2009: Office of the Clerk of Court Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse 550 W. Fort Street, Boise, ID 83724
8. Unless the Court directs otherwise, no member of the Class shall be entitled to object to the approval of the proposed Consen t Decree or otherwise be heard except by serving and filing a written statem ent as described a bove. Any person who receives notice and who fails to object in the m anner prescribed above shall be deem ed to have waived such objection and shall forever be barred from raising such object ion in this or in any other proceeding.
9. If the proposed Consent Decree is not approved by the Court or sha ll not become effective for any reason, the proposed Consent Decree and any actions taken or anticipated to be taken in connection therewith (including this Order) shall be terminated, canceled, and shall become void and have no further force and effect.
3

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 27 Filed 08/21/09 Page 4 of 4
DATED: August 21, 2009 Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge
4

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 44 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, et al, Plaintiffs,
vs. CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-CV-107-BLW
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT

The parties hereto, by and through their counsel of record, do hereby stipulate (Docket

No. 43) and agree that the Consent Decree, Order and Judgment that was approved by the United

States District Court, District of Idaho, on November 12, 2009, shall be amended to include new

paragraph 20.a. which shall read as follows:

20. a. The County has determ ined that it is now beneficial to house its work

release prisoners in Pod 4, Unit N of th e DCHC. As a unit for wo rk release

prisoners, it has a functional capacity of 40 prisoners according to the Idaho Jail

Standards. Accordingly, paragraph 20 of the Consent Decree shall be amended to

allow a functional capacity in Unit N of 40 prisoners on the following conditions:

1. The functional capacity of Unit N in its present configur ation shall be 40

prisoners as long as it is utilized as a work release housing unit.

2. Only work release prisoners will be housed in Unit N, with no exceptions. The

parties agree that the issues identified above relate to alleged deficien t conditions

of confinement in the Canyon County Jail a nd the resolution of those issues. The

SECOND AMENDMENT, CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00107-BLW

8-8194

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 44 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2

parties stipulate that the terms of this Second Amendm ent to the Consent Decree, Order and Judgment extend no further than necessary to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1)(A).
The Court hereby approves and a dopts the Am endment to Consent Decree, Order, and Judgment.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2011.

HONOR U.S.

ABLE B. LYNN WINMILL District Court for the District of Idaho

SECOND AMENDMENT, CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00107-BLW

8-8194

Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMANDA DAVIS, et al, Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:09-cv-00107-BLW

vs. CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, et al,

THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Defendants.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Stipulation and Motion for Order

Approving Modification of Consent Decree, Order and Judgment entered into by the

parties and is of the opinion that it represents a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues

pending between them. Based thereon, the Court hereby approves and adopts this Third

Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment.

Defendant’s Motion for Order Approving Third Amendment to Consent Decree,

Order, and Judgment (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The parties to this agreement stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter of this action.

2. This class action was initiated by six named Plaintiffs: Amanda Davis, Alisha

Baker, Troy Fenster, Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, and Pedro Martin on their own

behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and was brought against

Canyon County, Idaho, the Board of County Commissioners of Canyon County, Idaho (the

"Board"), and Chris Smith, the Sherriff of Canyon County, Idaho (the "Sheriff"). These

Defendants shall be collectively referred to herein as "the County."

Page 1 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 2 of 10
3. This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief relating to conditions of confinement for prisoners held in the Canyon County Jail.
4. The agreement of the parties and these provisions are not to be construed as establishing or modifying any standard of civil or criminal liability of any official, employee, agent or representative of the County, other than for the sole and limited purpose of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment.
5. The parties hereto agree that with the exception of the issue of attorney fees and costs, which the parties have resolved by separate agreement, this Third Amended Consent Decree, Order and Judgment fully resolves all issues raised in the Complaint by the named Plaintiffs and the class they represent. The parties further agree that this action may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 23(e) and 41 (a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the agreements set forth herein.
6. Unless otherwise agreed herein, all terms, conditions, and agreements set forth in this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment that do not obligate the County to physically alter, construct, or make installations in the existing facility are to be implemented within thirty (30) days from the date on which the Court enters final approval of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. Unless otherwise agreed to herein, all terms, conditions or agreements set forth herein that obligate the Defendants to physically alter, construct, or make installations in any part of the existing facility, such as improvements to and/or maintenance of the ventilation system, shall be initiated with all deliberate speed. Moreover, they shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date on which the Court preliminarily approves this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment unless the contractor is unable to complete the process within that period of time and the County notifies counsel
Page 2 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 3 of 10
for Plaintiffs at least 10 days prior to the deadline and sets forth legitimate reasons for the delay.
7. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment shall be ongoing in nature and shall continue in full force and effect. All parties to this agreement recognize and submit to the continuing jurisdiction of this Court for the limited purpose of carrying out the intent of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment.
8. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment shall remain in effect for a minimum of one year from the date of approval hereof by the Court. Thereafter, this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is susceptible to being terminated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
9. The following sections of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment address specific issues raised by Plaintiffs in this action relating to alleged deficient conditions of confinement in the Canyon County Jail and the resolution of these issues. The parties stipulate that the terms of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment extend no further than necessary to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
10. Neither the fact of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment or any statements contained herein may be used in any other case or administrative proceeding, except that the County and its employees may use this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment to assert issue and/or claim preclusion and to preserve the jurisdiction of this Court in other litigation.
11. Plaintiffs currently allege unconstitutional conditions in the jail relating to (1) inadequate ventilation, (2) sanitation (with respect to laundry and mattress sanitization), (3) plumbing (with respect to water temperature control at delivery points), (4) provision of
Page 3 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 4 of 10
outdoor recreation, and (5) staffing and arbitrary rule enforcement. As originally signed by the Court in 2009, the Consent Decree covered many other conditions of confinement, including overcrowding, sanitation, bedding, and temperature control. The parties have stipulated that the County has substantially complied with those provisions of the 2009 Decree and that those sections may be terminated from the Court's supervision. The only sections of the original Decree still subject to the Court's jurisdiction are the ones contained in this amended Decree.
II. VENTILATION 12. The County agrees to obtain an air quality engineering report regarding airflow and ventilation rates within the Canyon County Jail once every six months. The report will be generated by an independent air quality engineering professional. The independent professional will determine whether the HVAC system is operating sufficiently to provide adequate heating, air conditioning, and ventilation to prevent the accumulation of humidity, odors, smoke, dust, carbon dioxide and other contaminants. The inspection shall include a check for mold in the ducts, vents, and the overhead ceiling grates. 13. In the event that such inspection reveals material deficiencies that inhibit the proper operation of the ventilation system, the County will have the deficiencies promptly corrected by competently trained personnel or professionals. Upon recommendation of the independent air quality engineering professionals, such corrective measures may include non-routine duct cleaning. 14. The County shall have the HVAC system in the DHDC and Annex inspected by HVAC professionals on a quarterly basis. The quarterly inspection shall be
Page 4 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 5 of 10
supplemented by an annual cooling mode system inspection. The County shall perform such maintenance as necessary to maintain the HVAC system in proper functioning order.
15. The County shall maintain a log/file of all inspections and work performed on the HVAC system, including the changes of filters in the system, and work related to maintaining a temperature range of 65 and 80 degrees F in each living unit.
III. SANITATION 16. The County shall implement procedures to ensure that washing machines are operated consistent with manufacturer’s instructions and are not overloaded with clothing and bedding, thereby preventing these items from being properly cleaned and dried. All prisoner laundry workers will be trained in the proper operation of the laundry scale, washers, and dryers. 17. The County will sanitize each mattress between each use by a different prisoner. Cracked mattresses in which the inner stuffing is visible and cannot be repaired shall be discarded.
IV. PLUMBING 18. The County will perform weekly checks of the faucets, sinks, toilets and showers to determine whether they are functioning properly and report to maintenance any apparent problems. There shall be one functioning sink with hot and cold water for every 15 prisoners or fraction thereof in each living unit. See Idaho Jail Standards 18.50. 19. Reported problems with plumbing fixtures must be addressed and fixed within 48 hours, unless the repair requires parts or services that have been ordered but not yet
Page 5 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 6 of 10
available or unless there is at least one shower or sink for every 15 prisoners in that living unit. See Idaho Jail Standards 18.50.
20. Defendants will ensure that the temperature of the hot water leaving shower heads and sink faucets is within the range of 100 to 115 degrees F. At least one shower and one sink per housing unit will be tested each day at approximately 0700, 1400, and 2100 hours, and the results documented in a separate log. Whenever such testing indicates that the hot water temperature at any sink or shower falls outside the range of 100 to 115 degrees F, a request for maintenance will be generated and responded to within 24 hours. In addition, if a prisoner reports that the water temperature is too hot or too cold in a particular shower or sink, the temperature will be tested in that shower or sink as soon as reasonably possible and the results memorialized. If that temperature falls outside the range of 100 to 115 degrees F, a request for maintenance will be generated and responded to within 24 hours. Shower curtains will be cleaned periodically and kept free of mold. These curtains shall be long enough to restrict the spray of water outside of the showers.
V. OUTDOOR RECREATION 21. The County shall make outdoor recreation available to each prisoner, except as noted below, for one hour each day. The County will allow prisoners to run, jog or engage in calisthenics in the outdoor recreation area. The scheduled outdoor recreation times will be posted in each living unit. During colder weather, the County will make available a sufficient number of clean and usable coats so that all prisoners who choose to go outdoors will have one. 22. Prisoners may be refused access to outdoor recreation if the Jail Commander determines that inclement weather (such as excessive rain or snow) prohibits the use of
Page 6 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 7 of 10
outdoor facilities or a natural disaster or jail lockdown or other emergency occurs. Whenever a prisoner or a housing unit is denied recreation to which he, she, or they
are otherwise entitled under this Decree, the County will document in a separate log the reasons why. If, for instance, recreation is not offered to the entire jail because of snow, it will be sufficient to state: "Recreation for the entire Jail canceled due to snow."
23. The County will maintain outdoor recreation logs sufficient to memorialize the time such recreation was offered and the name of prisoners who participated. Whenever each inmate of any living unit declines the opportunity for outdoor recreation, Jail staff must document such circumstances. Outdoor recreation must be scheduled such that no one housing unit is scheduled to go outdoors during the same portion of the day every day; to illustrate, G-Unit will be offered recreation in the morning on some days of the week and in the afternoon on other days of the same week. Inmate workers may have to be offered recreation at the same time each day due to the nature of their work.
VI. STAFFING AND RULE ENFORCEMENT 24. The County agrees that it will maintain staff levels to accommodate all terms of this Consent Decree. 25. The County agrees to train and instruct detention officers to provide equitable and consistent application of policies and procedures in the Canyon County Jail. 26. The County agrees to physically post the Inmate Handbook, including grievance procedures, in each living unit so that it is accessible for prisoners to review. Staff will enforce these rules fairly and appropriately.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Page 7 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 8 of 10
27. This Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is binding upon the parties hereto and, in the event that any provision causes a result unintended by the parties, or causes an ambiguous interpretation, the aggrieved party shall notify the other party in writing of the unintended result or ambiguous interpretation. Such written notification shall include a statement of facts sufficient to identify the unintended result or ambiguous interpretation. Upon receipt of said written notice, the parties shall have 20 days to make a good faith effort to negotiate a settlement of the problem. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement within 20 days, the issue may then be submitted to the Court.
28. The parties agree that in the event of a dispute between them regarding the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree, they will provide written notice to the other of the alleged dispute, including a statement of facts sufficient to identify their dispute and make it possible for them to attempt to resolve the matter through negotiation. In the event that they are unable to resolve the matter within 20 days, each party has the option of seeking the Court's assistance to resolve the issue.
29. No action may be brought by either party to enforce this Consent Decree until 20 days after written notification of recognition of an unintended result, an ambiguous interpretation, or a dispute regarding the terms, conditions of or compliance with this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. The parties agree to exhaust these administrative remedies prior to requesting assistance from the Court and the parties expressly agree that neither shall be entitled to attorney fees or costs if they fail to negotiate and/or exhaust these administrative remedies prior to seeking the Court's assistance. The sole exception to the 20-day notice provision is that in cases of emergency involving immediate health and safety issues, the 20-day provision is reduced to 5 days after notice is sent to the other
Page 8 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 9 of 10
party and a good faith effort is made by the party sending notice to resolve the issue during that time.
30. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the object of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is to obtain compliance herewith, and the County expressly agrees to provide adequate funding to assure compliance with the provisions set forth herein.
31. In the event that the County learns that any portion of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment is totally impossible to implement or impossible to implement within the time allowed, the County shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel as soon as the County becomes aware of such impossibility and shall include in such notification the following:
a. The precise provision of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment that it cannot fulfill.
b. The reason why said fulfillment cannot take place or cannot take place on time.
c. A statement of an alternative plan to satisfy the requirements of the provision, if possible.
d. An estimate of the time necessary to fully satisfy the requirements of the referenced provision.
e. If it is contended that any such provision cannot, under any circumstances, be fully satisfied, an explanation of the reason why full satisfaction is impossible.
f. Upon receipt of such notification, the parties will attempt to resolve such issues in accordance with the negotiation process set forth previously herein. In the
Page 9 of 10

Case 1:09-cv-00107-BLW Document 47 Filed 01/08/13 Page 10 of 10
event they are unable to resolve the issue within 20 days, the issue may be submitted to the Court for resolution. 32. The parties agree they are obligated to attempt to resolve issues involving proposed modifications of this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment through use of the dispute resolution procedure set forth in this "Implementation and Enforcement" provision.
VIII. VERIFICATION AND INSPECTIONS 33. In the event that either of the parties desires verification of any information pertinent to this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment, counsel for the parties agree to attempt to develop the necessary information, and if necessary, to select an expert or other qualified individual who shall be permitted to make the necessary inspections and provide the parties and the Court with information necessary to resolve any questions relevant to this Consent Decree, Order and Judgment. It is understood by the County that counsel for the Plaintiff class have a need to conduct reasonable monitoring of this Consent Decree to ensure continued compliance. Therefore, Defendants must timely produce such records and answer such questions as reasonably requested by Plaintiffs' counsel, at no cost to Plaintiffs. (If at any time Defendants believe that Plaintiffs' requests are unreasonable or unnecessary, Defendants will follow the process outlined above in an effort to resolve the dispute.)
DATED: January 8, 2013
_________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court
Page 10 of 10

 
 Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 9
CLASS,LC4,RFSETL,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 5.1.1 (Boise − Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00107−BLW

Davis et al vs Canyon County, Idaho, et al Assigned to: Judge B. Lynn Winmill Referred to: Judge Candy W Dale (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Amanda Davis

Date Filed: 03/11/2009 Date Terminated: 11/12/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Dean J Miller MCDEVITT and MILLER PO Box 2564 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 343−7500 Fax: 1−208−336−6912 Email: joe@mcdevitt−miller.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lea Candy Cooper ACLU of Idaho P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 344−9750 Fax: (208) 433−9271 Email: lcooper@acluidaho.org TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nusrat Jahan Choudhury American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−519−7876 Email: nchoudhury@aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Alan Eppink American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701 208−344−9750 ext. 206 Fax: 208−344−7201 Email: reppink@acluidaho.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 330 Main St., First Floor Hartford, CT 06106 860−570−9830 Fax: 860−570−9840 Email: Pevaraclu@aol.com

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 9

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alisha Baker

represented by Dean J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lea Candy Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Troy Fenster

represented by Dean J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lea Candy Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 9

Plaintiff Desiree Comingo
Plaintiff Parnell Williams
Plaintiff Pedro Martin

represented by Dean J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lea Candy Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dean J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lea Candy Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 9
Dean J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lea Candy Cooper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Canyon County, Idaho by and through the members of its Board of County Commissioners
Defendant Kathy Alder
Defendant David Ferdinand

represented by Carlton R Ericson Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney's 1115 Albany St. Caldwell, ID 83605 (208) 454−7391 Fax: 1−208−454−7474 Email: cericson@canyonco.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Bedell Laugheed CANYON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1115 Albany St Caldwell, ID 83605 208−454−7383 Email: slaugheed@canyonco.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carlton R Ericson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carlton R Ericson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 9

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Steven Rule

represented by Carlton R Ericson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Chris Smith

represented by Carlton R Ericson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/11/2009
03/11/2009 03/13/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 04/02/2009
04/02/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 09760000000000451604.), filed by Amanda Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A; 4 pages)(Miller, Dean)
2 Civil Cover Sheet re 1 Complaint filed by Amanda Davis. (Miller, Dean)
3 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE for Amanda Davis ( Filing fee $ 200 receipt number 09760000000000451642.)Dean J Miller, Stephen L Pevar appearing for Plaintiffs Amanda Davis, Amanda Davis. Responses due by 4/6/2009 (Miller, Dean)
DOCKET ENTRY ORDER approving 3 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Stephen L Pevar for Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker and Troy Fenster. Per General Order 206, out−of−state counsel shall immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
Summons Issued as to Canyon County, Idaho. (jm)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Amanda Davis. Canyon County, Idaho waiver sent on 3/12/2009, answer due 5/11/2009. (Miller, Dean)
5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Lea Cooper, Dean J. Miller Stephen L Pevar appearing for Plaintiffs Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Prisoner Grievances, # 2 Affidavit Declarations)(Pevar, Stephen)
6 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiffs Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Lea Cooper, Dean J. Miller. (Pevar, Stephen)
7 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 5 shall be heard on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The hearing shall be conducted at the James A. McClure Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. The hearing shall be conducted by The Honorable Tena Campbell, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Utah. Additionally, as a preliminary matter, the Court will ask counsel for the parties to give a time estimate for the length of an evidentiary hearing. In the event the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, time will be set aside for a continuation of the hearing on Friday, May 8, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Lea Cooper, Dean J. Miller. Motion Hearing set for 5/7/2009 09:30 AM in Boise Chambers before Judge Tena Campbell. Motion Hearing set for 5/8/2009 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Tena Campbell. (jm)

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 9

04/09/2009
04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009
04/16/2009 04/16/2009
04/17/2009 04/20/2009
04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/22/2009
04/27/2009

8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery and Motion to Expedite Review of Said Motion. Stephen L Pevar appearing for Plaintiffs Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster. Responses due by 5/4/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pevar, Stephen) Modified on 4/10/2009 to edit text (jm).
9 ORDER re 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery. Defendants are to file a response to Docket No. 8 by close of business on April 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery. Responses due by 4/15/2009 (jm)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Carlton R Ericson on behalf of all defendants (Ericson, Carlton)
11 RESPONSE to Motion re 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by Canyon County, Idaho, Kathy Alder, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. Replies due by 5/4/2009.(Ericson, Carlton)
12 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Canyon County, Idaho, Amanda Davis, Kathy Alder, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster re 1 Complaint, 10 Notice of Appearance Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 6/17/2009. (jm)
13 REPLY re 11 Response to Motion, 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster. (Pevar, Stephen)
14 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a telephonic hearing shall be conducted in this matter on Monday, April 20, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. with The Honorable Tena Campbell. The Court will address Plaintffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery 8 . Plaintiffs' counsel shall place the call to (801) 524−6170, with opposing counsel on the line using a conference operator. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell. (shb)
Set Deadlines as to 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery. Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 4/20/2009 02:00 PM before Judge Tena Campbell. (jlg)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tena Campbell: Motion Hearing held on 4/20/2009 re 8 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by Troy Fenster, Desiree Comingo, Pedro Martin, Alisha Baker, Amanda Davis, Parnell Williams. (Court Reporter Ray Fenlon.) (dks) Modified on 5/13/2009 to correct name of Court Reporter(so). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
15 ORDER granting 8 Motion for expedited discovery. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
17 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE for Amanda Davis ( Filing fee $ 200 receipt number 09760000000000467710.)Dean J Miller, Nusrat Jahan Choudhury appearing for Plaintiffs Amanda Davis, Amanda Davis. Responses due by 5/15/2009 (Miller, Dean)
18 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 17 Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorney Nusrat Jahan Choudhury for Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker and Troy Fenster Per General Order 206, out−of−state counsel shall immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
19 RESPONSE to Motion re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Lea Cooper, Dean J. Miller filed by Canyon County, Idaho, Kathy Alder, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. Replies due by 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement of Facts)(Ericson, Carlton)

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 9

05/01/2009 05/04/2009
06/18/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009
08/04/2009 08/04/2009
08/13/2009 08/13/2009 08/21/2009

20 MOTION to Vacate Dean J Miller appearing for Plaintiff Amanda Davis. Responses due by 5/26/2009 (Miller, Dean)
21 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − Based on the Plaintiffs' representation that the parties have entered into settlement negotiations with a high likelihood of settlement, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate 20 the hearing scheduled for their Motion for Preliminary Injunction is HEREBY GRANTED. The deadline for the settlement papers to be filed is 90 days from today. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 is deemed moot without prejudice. Additionally, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT if the settlement falls through for any reason, the Court will immediately grant a motion to reinstate the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and re−schedule the hearing. The hearings scheduled for May 7, 2009, and May 8, 2009, are hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by sbh)
The 60 day deadline has expired. Case will remain with District Judge. No more notice of availability or assignment will be sent out. (jm)
22 EXHIBIT to 23 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment Stephen L Pevar appearing for Plaintiffs Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster. Responses due by 8/28/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pevar, Stephen) Modified on 8/4/2009 to link and edit text (jm).
23 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Stephen L Pevar appearing for Plaintiffs Desiree Comingo, Parnell Williams, Pedro Martin, Amanda Davis, Alisha Baker, Troy Fenster. Responses due by 8/28/2009 (Pevar, Stephen)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 22 was inadvertently filed without the PDF image of the motion attached. The motion has been re−filed at dkt 23 and dkt 22 is the exhibit to the motion.(jm)
24 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The parties have filed a Joint Motion 23 for a final fairness hearing at which time the Court will consider whether to approve and enter the Consent Decree submitted by the parties for the Court's consideration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a Final Fairness Hearing shall be held on August 21, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. at the James A. McClure Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing is to determine whether the proposed Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved and adopted by the Court, and to rule on such other matters in this litigation as the Court may deem appropriate. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh)
Set/Reset Hearings:Final Fairness Hearing set for 8/21/2009 04:00 PM in Boise, ID before Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (jm)
25 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The previously filed Order 24 is hereby amended as follows. The parties have filed a Joint Motion for an initial fairness hearing at which time the Court will consider whether to preliminarily approve the Consent Decree submitted by the parties for the Court's consideration. The Court having reviewed the motion and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT an initial fairness hearing will be held on August 21, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. at the James A. McClure Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. The hearing will be to determine whether the proposed Consent Decree should be preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether the Court should order that Notice be sent to the Plaintiff Class. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh) Modified on 8/5/2009 to link to dkt nos. 23 &24 (jm).
26 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT a final Fairness Hearing shall be conducted in this matter on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. at the James A. McClure Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Final Fairness Hearing set for 11/9/2009 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (jm)
27 ORDER (1) Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, (2) Conditionally Certifying the Plaintiff Class, (3) Directing Notice to the Plaintiff Class, and (4) Scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 8 of 9

08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 09/15/2009 09/16/2009 10/19/2009 10/22/2009
10/22/2009 11/05/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009
04/15/2010 05/03/2010 05/03/2010

non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
Set/Reset Hearings: In Court Hearing set for 11/9/2009 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (jm)
28 NOTICE of Proposed Settlement of Canyon County Jail Lawsuit re 27 Order (jm)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge B. Lynn Winmill: Initial Fairness Hearing held on 8/21/2009. (Court Reporter/ESR SO'Larey.) (td) Modified on 9/15/2009 (td). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge B. Lynn Winmill: AMENDING MINUTES: 30 . (Court Reporter/ESR SO'Larey.) (td) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
29 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE RESCHEDULING Hearing:Please be advised that due to conflict with the Courts calendar the Final Fairness hearing scheduled for 11/9/2009 is VACATED and RESCHEDULED for Final Fairness hearing on 11/12/2009 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (so)
31 NOTICE by Amanda Davis of Withdrawal of Counsel (Miller, Dean)
33 AFFIDAVIT of Craig Hanson filed by Kathy Alder, Canyon County, Idaho, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. (Ericson, Carlton)
34 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The parties have agreed to a Settlement Conference to be conducted by the Honorable Candy Wagahoff Dale, Chief Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, for the District of Idaho, on the issue of attorneys' fees, and costs, if necessary. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this matter is referred to Judge Dale for the purposes of conducting a Settlement Conference on November 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at the James A. McClure Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise, Idaho. The parties shall contact Susie Headlee, the Court's ADR Coordinator to determine a briefing schedule on both the motion for attorneys' fees, timelines of the mediation questionnaire. Ms. Headlee can be reached at (208) 334−9067. and Local Rule 16.4. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (sbh)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 11/12/2009 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Candy W Dale. (jm) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
35 AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG HANSON by Kathy Alder, Canyon County, Idaho, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. Amended Affidavit of Craig Hanson. (Ericson, Carlton) Modified on 11/6/2009 to link to dkt 33 (jm).
36 CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge B. Lynn Winmill: Fairness Hearing held on 11/12/2009. (Court Reporter/ESR Tammy Hohenleitner.) (jlg)
38 Docket Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Candy W Dale: Settlement Conference held on 11/12/2009. Court, counsel and parties met to discuss reasonableness of pending attorney fee petition. Counsel for Plaintiff to advise Judge Dale's Chambers by 11/20/2009 regarding whether a settlement has been reached. (Hearing not recorded.) (ah) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
40 MOTION to Amend/Correct 36 Consent Decree, Judgment, Order Carlton R Ericson appearing for Defendants Kathy Alder, Canyon County, Idaho, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. Responses due by 5/10/2010 (Ericson, Carlton)
41 ORDER approving 40 Motion for amendment to consent decree, order and judgment. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
42 AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses

Case 1:09-cv-107 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 9 of 9

12/28/2010 12/30/2010
01/03/2011 05/25/2012 11/19/2012 01/08/2013

listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
43 STIPULATION and Motion for Order Approving Second Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment by Kathy Alder, Canyon County, Idaho, David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Chris Smith. (Ericson, Carlton)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry document number 43 Stipulation filed by David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Canyon County, Idaho, Chris Smith, Kathy Alder in regards to the proposed order, was filed incorrectly in this case. Pursuant to the ECF Procedures, section 12B, all proposed orders are to be submitted by email to the appropriate Judges proposed order email box. The filing party shall re−submit their proposed order.(cjm)
44 SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE,ORDER AND JUDGMENT re 43 Stipulation filed by David Ferdinand, Steven Rule, Canyon County, Idaho, Chris Smith, Kathy Alder. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
45 NOTICE of Substitution − Attorney Richard Alan Eppink for Alisha Baker,Richard Alan Eppink for Desiree Comingo,Richard Alan Eppink for Amanda Davis,Richard Alan Eppink for Troy Fenster,Richard Alan Eppink for Pedro Martin,Richard Alan Eppink for Parnell Williams added. Attorney Lea Candy Cooper terminated. (Eppink, Richard)
46 MOTION to Amend/Correct 36 Consent Decree, Judgment, Order Motion for Order Approving Third Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment Samuel Bedell Laugheed appearing for Defendant Canyon County, Idaho. Responses due by 12/13/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulated Proposed Third Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment)(Laugheed, Samuel)
47 THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT granting 46 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)