Paula D. Pearlman (State Bar No. 109038) Paula.Pearlman(d.lls.edu
2 Shawna L. Parks (State Bar No. 20830 I)
Shawna.Parks dIls.edu 3 1 any . reentate Bar No. 243573)
4 TiffanV.Green(UJls.edu DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
5 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, California 90015
6 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

II PETERJOHNSON,DONALD PETERSON and MICHAEL
12 CURFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 16 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a Imblic
entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of 17 the County of Los AngelesLand
COUNTY OF LOS ANGE ES, a 18 public enti!y, MICHAEL D.
ANTONOVICH YVONNE B. BURKE DON KNABE GLORIA 19 MOLINA, ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, as 20 Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

Case No.: CV
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 1. Americans with Disabilities Act
(42 U.S.c. § 12131 et seq.) 2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.c. § 794 et seq.) 3. California Government Code Section
11135, et seq. 4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil
Code §51, et seq.) 5. Blind and Other Physically Disabled
Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code § 54, et seq.) 6. California Government Code § 4450, et seq. 7. Eighth Amendment (42 U.S.c. § 1983) 8. Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.c. § 1983)
CLASS ACTION

27

28

I
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Mark Rosenbaum (State Bar No. 59940)

2

mrosenbaum(daclu-sc.org

M.eli~da tl.lrd

(State Bar No. 102236)

mbmi(aJacl u-sc.or..,g

3 ACLO FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1616 Beverly Boulevard

4 Los Angeles California 90026

5 Tel: (21]) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 250-3980

6 Dan Stonner

(State Bar No. 101967)

dstormerr(L.hskrr.com

7 C. VlrgmJa Keeny (State Bar No. 139568)

vkeeny(ahskrr.com

8 Lauren Teukolsky (State Bar No. 211381)

Lauren(dhskrr.com

9 Cornelia Dm

(State Bar No. 207435)

cdai(dhskrr.com

10 Hadsell~ Stonner, Keeny, Richardson & Renick, LLP

128 N.l'airOaks Avenue" Suite 204

II Pasadena California 911 v3

Tel: (626) 585-9600; Fax: (626) 577-7079
12

13

John C. Ulin

(State Bar No. 165524)

i9hn.ulin(a.hellerehm1an.com

Helen clio Eckert (State Bar No. 240531)

14 Helen.Eckert(ahellerehrman.com

15 Amanda N. Walker (State Bar No. 252380)

Amanda. WalkeAdhellerehrman.com

16 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

333 South Hope Street

17 39th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406

18 Tel: (21]) 689-0200

Fax: (213) 614-1868

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 1. The first two claims alleged herein arise under the Americans with Disabilities

3 Act (42 U.S.c. §§ 12131 et seq.) ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

4 1973 (29 U.S.c. §794 et seq.) ("Section 504"), such that the jurisdiction of this Court is

5 invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1343. Through the same actions and

6 omissions that form the basis of Plaintiffs' federal claims, Defendants have also violated

7 Plaintiffs' rights under state law, over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1367. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for

9 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 65 of

10 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I I 2. Venue over Plaintiffs' claims is proper in the Central District of California

12 because Defendants reside in the Central District of California within the meaning of28

13 U.S.c. § 1391, and because the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs'

14 claims occurred in the Central District of California.

15

INTRODUCTION

16 3. This lawsuit is brought to address systemic and pervasive discrimination against

17 people with disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jail system. Despite the acute need

18 for accommodations and physical access within the jail environment, the County of Los

19 Angeles and Los Angeles Sheriff s Department currently fail to provide any legally

20 acceptable level of access, services or accommodations for people with disabilities in the

21 jails.

22 4. Instead, people with disabilities in the Los Angeles County jails are denied

23 accommodations or provided inadequate accommodations, inappropriately segregated,

24 excluded from jail programs and services, and subjected to multiple and pervasive

25 physical access barriers throughout the facilities. The result is a system that imposes

26 some of the worst conditions on people with disabilities while at the same time excluding

27 them from the most beneficial of programs within the jail. These conditions have dire

28 consequences for people with disabilities.

3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

5. From the time they are processed at the jail, people with disabilities face myriad 2 discriminatory conditions. For example, at the Inmate Reception Center nRC") people 3 with disabilities sit in their own feces for hours or days because there is no accessible 4 bathroom available. Even though everyone entering the jail system passes through the 5 IRC, and many remain there for days, there is not a single accessible toilet at this facility. 6 6. Once they are housed, the discriminatory conditions continue. People with 7 disabilities are housed in windowless, decaying facilities that are among the worst in the 8 jail system. Most people with disabilities are kept in their cells 24 hours per day, other 9 than occasional trips to the shower. Inmates with disabilities are regularly denied outdoor 10 exercise, or any exercise at all, for months on end. Physical therapy is not provided to II people with disabilities at the jail, no matter how great the need. 12 7. People with disabilities are also explicitly denied the opportunity to be trustees, 13 a valued position within the jail. They are also prohibited from participating in most jail 14 programs, including vocational programs, because people with disabilities are housed in 15 segregated settings that do not provide these services. 16 8. Even when housed in units purportedly designated for people with disabilities, 17 inmates face pervasive architectural barriers. Many of these units lack required access 18 features, such as grab bars in showers or toilets. As a result, many people with 19 disabilities have fallen and injured themselves while simply trying to take a shower or 20 use the toilet. 21 9. Others have had their wheelchairs taken away or are denied the use of a 22 wheelchair despite their obvious or documented need for one. At best, these inmates use 23 dangerously inadequate alternatives, such as walkers, in an attempt to move around. At 24 worst, inmates must deal with excruciating pain when attempting to walk, crawl on the 25 floor, or simply stay in bed for days, weeks or even months while they are incarcerated. 26 10. Those who do receive wheelchairs or other equipment are often given 27 equipment that is in a dangerous state of disrepair. For example, many of the wheelchairs 28 provided within Los Angeles County Jails lack footrests. As a result, inmates' feet drag
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

on the ground, causing them to bruise and making it extremely difficult and dangerous to 2 move to or from the wheelchair. In an attempt to avoid this dangerous situation, those 3 who use these wheelchairs often tie plastic bags across the bottom as a makeshift footrest 4 in an effort to gain leverage and balance. 5 II. People with disabilities are also subjected to dangerous and difficult conditions 6 when they are transported by the Sheriffs Department to and from the jails. People with 7 disabilities often have their mobility aids taken away when boarding buses and must 8 attempt to steady themselves for fear of falling. Inmates who use wheelchairs are often 9 placed on buses with insufficient space for their wheelchairs. As a result, they must 10 attempt to transfer on to benches without assistance, where they are neither restrained nor II secured. In many ofthese situations, inmates with disabilities fall or nearly fall simply 12 attempting to ride the jail's buses. 13 12. People with disabilities who rely on medication or other medical supplies, such 14 as catheters, to address their disability needs find that provision of such supplies within 15 the jails is inconsistent at best and nonexistent at worst. Similarly, requested 16 accommodations, such as an extra set of sheets for someone whose disability causes 17 bladder control problems or a bottom bunk assignment for someone with a seizure 18 disorder, are routinely denied. The result is that inmates' conditions become dangerously 19 out of control or exacerbated by lack of necessary supplies and accommodations. 20 13. These, and many other conditions, result in a system that violates the 21 fundamental rights of people with disabilities within the Los Angeles County Jail system. 22 Plaintiffs thus initiate this suit under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 23 U.S.c. 12131, et seq. (the "ADA"), Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.c. § 24 794 (the "Rehabilitation Act"), as well as analogous state statutes alleging that 25 Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their disabilities, and that Defendants 26 maintain, operate, and control the Los Angeles County Jail System in a manner that 27 violates the rights of people with disabilities under state and federal nondiscrimination 28 statutes.
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14. The County's actions and inactions also clearly demonstrate a deliberate

2 indifference to the needs and rights of people with disabilities within the Los Angeles

3 County jails in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs

4 thus also seek relief under 42 U.S.c. § 1983.

5 15. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the above statutes, as

6 well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs under applicable law.

7

PARTIES

8 16. Plaintiffs are people with disabilities who are housed within Los Angeles

9 County Jail facilities. They bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all present and

10 future inmates and detainees who are or will be housed in the Los Angeles County Jail

11 system, and who, because of their disabilities, have been or will be discriminated against.

12

17. Plaintiff Peter Johnson is paraplegic. Plaintiff Johnson is a "qualified person

13 with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.c.

14 §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926.

15

18. Plaintiff Donald Peterson has diabetes and a significant mobility disability,

16 stemming from the loss offeeling in his right leg and severe pain and substantial

17 mobility limitations in his right arm. Plaintiff Peterson is a "qualified person with a

18 disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.c. §12131 (2),

19 29 U.S.c. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926.

20

19. Plaintiff Michael Curfman has partial paralysis and traumatic brain injury that

21 causes, among other things, a substantial mobility limitation. Plaintiff Curfman is a

22 "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes

23 including 42 U.S.c. § 12131 (2),29 U.S.c. §705(20)(B), and California Government

24 Code § 12926.

25 20. The Plaintiff class consists of all detainees and inmates with physical

26 disabilities and disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need

27 appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in

28 accordance with federal and state disability laws.

6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21. Hereafter, references to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include the named 2 Plaintiffs and each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated. 3 22. Defendant County of Los Angeles ("County") is a local government entity 4 within the meaning of the Title II of the ADA, and receives federal funding within the 5 meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. The County is responsible for providing the jail 6 facilities and for funding the construction and operations of the Los Angeles jail 7 facilities, including funding to and oversight of Defendant Los Angeles Sheriffs 8 Department ("LASD"). The County also promulgates policies and procedures at these 9 facilities. 10 23. Defendant LASD is a local government entity created under the laws of the state II of California, and an agency of Defendant County. The LASD is responsible for 12 operating the Los Angeles County Jail facilities, including promulgating policies and 13 procedures at those facilities. 14 24. Defendants LASD and County are "persons" subject to suit within the meaning 15 of 42 U.S.c. § 1983 under Monell v. New York Department a/Social Services, 436 U.S. 16 658, 691 (1978). Under California Government Code § 815(a), these Defendants are 17 liable for any and all wrongful acts in violation of state law hereinafter complained of 18 and committed by any of these Defendants' employees acting within the course and scope 19 of their employment. 20 25. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants County and 21 LASD have been public entities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and have 22 received federal financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, and 23 state financial assistance within the meaning of Government Code Section 11135. 24 26. Defendant Leroy Baca is the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. He is an elected 25 official of the County and responsible for oversight of Defendant LASD and 26 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Baca in his official capacity 27 only. 28 27. Defendant Michael D. Antonovich is a Supervisor of Los Angeles County. He is
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIE~'

an elected official of the County and responsible for oversight of the County and

2 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Antonovich in his official

3 capacity only.

4

28. Defendant Yvonne B. Burke is a Supervisor of Los Angeles County. She is an

5 elected official of the County and responsible for oversight of the County and

6 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Burke in her official capacity

7 only.

8 29. Defendant Don Knabe is a Supervisor of Los Angeles County. He is an elected

9 official of the County and responsible for oversight of the County and implementation of

10 its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Knabe in his official capacity only.

11

30. Defendant Gloria Molina is a Supervisor of Los Angeles County. She is an

12 elected official of the County and responsible for oversight of the County and

13 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Molina in her official capacity

14 only.

15 31. Defendant Zev Yaroslavsky is a Supervisor of Los Angeles County. He is an

16 elected official of the County and responsible for oversight of the County and

17 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Yaroslavsky in his official

18 capacity only.

19 32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant was

20 the agent and employee of every other defendant and was at all times acting within the

21 scope of such agency.

22 33. Hereafter, references to Defendants shall be deemed to include all named

23 Defendants, unless otherwise indicated.

24

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

25

34. The Los Angeles County Jail sy~tem is the largest in the nation, processing

26 more than 180,000 people per year. The system is comprised of a number of facilities,

27 including Men's Central Jail, Twin Towers and the Inmate Reception Center which are

28 located in downtown Los Angeles, the North County Correctional Facility and Pitchess

8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Detention Center both located in Northern Los Angeles County, and the Central

2 Regional Detention Facility, located in Lynwood. The entire County jail system houses

3 approximately 19,000 people at any given time.

4 35. Throughout the Los Angeles County Jail system there are significant problems

5 for people with disabilities with respect to classification, housing, access to programs

6 and services, and physical access barriers. Defendants systemically fail to effectively

7 evaluate the needs of people with disabilities within the jails, and to meet those needs

8 through appropriate accommodations and physical access.

9 36. Systemic issues include, but are not limited to, failure to appropriately identify

10 people with disabilities in need of accommodations and services, resulting in

II inappropriate placement and/or classification of people with disabilities; failure to

12 provide appropriate mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, walkers and crutches; failure to

13 accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, including by failing to establish

14 reliable methods for medication, medical supplies and other disability accommodations;

15 failure to modify policies and procedures for people with disabilities; failure to remove

16 multiple and pervasive architectural barriers throughout the jails; failure to allow people

17 with disabilities access to vocational, educational and other programs and services;

18 failure to provide safe and accessible transportation for people with disabilities; failure to

19 have an emergency and/or evacuation policy for people with disabilities; and failure to

20 provide an effective complaint procedure for disability related complaints.

21

37. These violations result from a number of pervasive problems, including, but not

22 limited to the following:

23

a. There is no comprehensive set of policies or procedures for identifying

24

inmates with disabilities and determining appropriate accommodations,

25

modifications or services for these individuals;

26

b. Housing and classification decisions are made based on stereotypes and

27

misconceptions, and in an extremely cursory manner, relying mainly on the

28

simplest and quickest observations by staff;

9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

c. This classification system results in, among other things, a failure to

2

recognize that persons who do not rely exclusively on wheelchairs may have

3

significant physical restrictions requiring accommodations;

4

d. People who are identified as having disabilities are housed in segregated

5

facilities that provide no access to the programs and services available in the

6

L.A. County Jail system;

7

e. People who are not identified as having disabilities, but who nevertheless

8

have disabilities, are placed in units and are subject to procedures that fail to

9

provide necessary accommodations and services;

10

f. These facilities in which people identified as having disabilities are housed

II

are often those with the poorest conditions, including broken plumbing, lack

12

of any natural light and limited access to outdoor recreation, and are replete

13

with myriad architectural barriers;

14

g. Architectural barriers are also pervasive throughout the rest of the jail

15

system. This includes a failure to make housing and programming accessible

16

to people with disabilities, as well as a failure to provide emergency

17

evacuation plans for people with disabilities.

18 38. The above failings, in combination with erroneous assumptions about the

19 capabilities and legal rights of people with disabilities, ensure that the entire population

20 of people with disabilities has little to no access to the vast majority of programs and

21 services of the L.A. County Jail System.

22 39. This discrimination has a dramatic impact on people with disabilities within the

23 jails as represented by the experiences of the named Plaintiffs in this matter.

24 40. Plaintiff Peter Johnson has paraplegia. He has been in Los Angeles County jail

25 since October of 2007. Plaintiff Johnson has had a number of disability related

26 problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access,

27 mobility aids and access to programs at the jail.

28 41. Upon entry into the jail system Plaintiff Johnson was brought into the IRC.

10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Johnson, who uses a wheelchair, was left in the IRC for approximately 8-10 2 hours despite the fact that there is no accessible bathroom in the IRe. As a result, he 3 soiled himself, and was left sitting in his own feces for approximately 6-8 hours. 4 42. Plaintiff Johnson also could not use the drinking fountains or phones in the IRC 5 because they are not accessible. Plaintiff Johnson tried to use an inaccessible phone to 6 make a phone call by attempting to transfer to a bench next to the phone. However, he 7 fell off the bench and onto the floor in that attempt. 8 43. At the IRC Plaintiff Johnson's wheelchair was taken away and replaced with a 9 jail issued chair. The jail wheelchair he was given had numerous problems. The 10 wheelchair made it difficult for Plaintiff Johnson to transfer to the toilet, and also lacked 11 footrests. As a result, Plaintiff Johnson's feet dragged on the floor. The wheelchair would 12 also flip forward if Plaintiff Johnson did not carefully maintain his balance. 13 44. Approximately three weeks later the jail returned Plaintiff Johnson's original 14 chair to him but insisted on replacing the wheels with jail issued wheels. However, these 15 new wheels did not fit his wheelchair. As a result, on Plaintiff Johnson's next court trip 16 one of the wheels fell off and he fell out of the chair injuring himself. 17 45. Since being assigned housing, Plaintiff Johnson has been housed in what is 18 referred to as the 8100 block at Men's Central Jail, which is the unit allegedly designated 19 for wheelchair users. This unit receives little, if any, outdoor exercise. In the nearly seven 20 months that Plaintiff Johnson has been in this unit, he has only been allowed outside for 21 exercise on two occasions that he can remember. 22 46. Other than those two times that he went to the rooffor exercise, the only time 23 that Plaintiff Johnson has been let outside is to go to court. Other than those events, and 24 Sunday visits to the jail chapel, Plaintiff Johnson remains in his jail cell twenty-four 25 hours per day seven days per week. 26 47. Even though he is housed in the unit allegedly designated for wheelchair access, 27 Plaintiff Johnson faces a number of architectural barriers. In one cell, there was a lip at 28 the shower intended to keep water in the shower area. However, this lip also keeps
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

wheelchairs out. In attempting to maneuver over this barrier, Plaintifl Johnson fell and 2 hurt himself In another cell, the grab bar at the toilet was broken, and Plaintiff Johnson 3 fell on multiple occasions attempting to use the toilet. 4 48. Plaintiff Johnson also is not allowed to shower when he soils himselt~ which on 5 occasion happens when the jail food disagrees with his stomach. Even though he is 6 supposed to be allowed to shower more frequently, he often goes many days at a time 7 without a shower. Even after he has an accident deputies will not allow him to shower. 8 As a result, he must often sit in his own feces for many days at a time. 9 49. Plaintiff Donald Peterson, a veteran of the United States military, has diabetes 10 and a significant mobility limitation. Plaintiff Peterson has no feeling in his right leg II going all the way up to his mid-torso. He also has chronic pain in his right arm such that 12 he cannot make a fist with his hand. The loss of mobility in his right side makes it 13 difficult for him to walk and balance unaided. He needs either crutches or a wheelchair 14 for mobility. Plaintiff Peterson has had a number of disability related problems, including 15 but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access, mobility aids and 16 medication for his disability. 17 50. Plaintiff Peterson has been in Los Angeles County jail for approximately four 18 months. When he first arrived at the jail he was provided a wheelchair and placed in the 19 8100 block. While on that floor, other than church on Sunday, he spent nearly all of his 20 time in his cell. He was never allowed to the roof for exercise, and never participated in 21 any vocational or educational programs. 22 51. Approximately three months after his arrival, a deputy moved Plaintiff Peterson 23 to the 6050 unit, which is the unit at Men's Central Jail allegedly designated for people 24 with walkers or crutches. At that time his wheelchair was taken away and he was given a 25 walker. He had never used a walker before. As a result, he fell over when he tried to use 26 the walker. 27 52. Despite his disability, Plaintiff Peterson was given a top bunk in the 6050 unit. 28 It was very difficult for him to get up and down from the top bunk. The deputies also
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

took away his catheter bag which Plaintiff Peterson used to urinate at night without

2 getting out of bed. Without the catheter bag Plaintiff Peterson had either to get out of his

3 top bunk or wet the bed. Plaintiff Peterson has fallen a number of times trying to get out

4 of his top bunk when needing to go to the bathroom.

5 53. After a few days in 6050 Plaintiff Peterson was moved again, this time to the

6 general population. At that time the deputies took away his walker and he was not

7 provided any other mobility aid. In general population he fell down three times and had

8 to drag himself around and hold onto the walls when he attempted to move. After three

9 days he was finally provided with a pair of crutches. After receiving the crutches he was

10 moved back to 6050.

11

54. Plaintiff Peterson also has no teeth, in part due to his diabetes, and does not

12 have his dentures in the jail. He is supposed to be on a soft diet, meaning his food is

13 mashed up, but he is only provided regular food. Plaintiff Peterson tries to make food

14 soft enough by swishing it around with water in his mouth.

15 55. Plaintiff Peterson takes medication to control his blood sugar levels as a result

16 of his diabetes. This medication is not provided regularly at the jail, and has gone as

17 many as three days without his medication. His blood sugar is also not regularly

18 screened. In the approximately four months he has been in jail his blood sugar has been

19 screened only approximately twelve times.

20 56. Plaintiff Michael Curfman has partial paralysis and traumatic brain injury. He

21 has significant difficulty with walking, balance and stability due to his disability. He has

22 been in Los Angeles County jail since January of2007, and has been at Men's Central

23 Jail for approximately the last nine or ten months. Plaintiff Curfman has had a number of

24 disability related problems, including but not limited to, denial of accommodations and

25 mobility aids for his disability, and pervasive architectural barriers.

26 57. Prior to residing at Men's Central, Plaintiff Curfman was at Twin Towers in the

27 medical unit where he was provided a wheelchair for mobility. When he was moved to

28 Men's Central Plaintiff Curfman's wheelchair was taken away despite his partial

13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

paralysis and traumatic brain injury. 2 58. Upon moving to Men's Central Plaintiff Curfman was initially denied the use of 3 any mobility aid, including a walker. This made standing or walking extremely difficult 4 for him. Even when he was eventually provided a walker, the walker had a broken tip 5 causing it to be extremely unsteady. 6 59. The toilet in Plaintiff Curfman's unit has no grab bars for accessibility. As a 7 result, Plaintiff Curfman must attempt to steady himselfby attempting to hold on to the 8 wall or the sink. Similarly, Plaintiff Curfman's shower has no grab bars. As a result, it is 9 very difficult for him to steady himself while taking a shower. On at least one occasion 10 he has fallen while showering. 11 60. Plaintiff Curfman has asked for a wheelchair to assist in his mobility but has 12 been told that because he can stand he cannot have a wheelchair. Plaintiff Curfman, who 13 developed his disabilities shortly before being admitted to the jail, and who has now been 14 injail for more than sixteen months, receives no physical therapy to improve his mobility 15 or his speech. As a result, he has attempted to learn how to walk and speak again on his 16 own. 17 61. As a result of his disability Plaintiff Curfman has a hard time controlling his 18 bladder. Because of his bladder control problems, he has accidents in his bed but is not 19 allowed to replace his soiled sheets or soiled clothes. He is not allowed to shower if it is 20 not his tum. Ifhe has an accident and soils himself he is still required to wait for his tum 21 to shower. As a result, he may wait for more than a day in his soiled clothes. He also 22 cannot get new sheets when his sheets are soiled. When he asks a deputy for a fresh set 23 of sheets to replace the soiled set he is told he cannot have any. He sometimes has to use 24 soiled sheets for almost a week before they are replaced. 25 62. Plaintiff Curfman is only allowed out of his cell to shower. He has rarely been 26 permitted to go outside for exercise. The only program he has access to is a Friday visit 27 by a chaplain. Otherwise, he does not have any access to programs at the jail. 28 63. The above examples demonstrate the pain, fear, humiliation and isolation that
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR L"IJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 people with disabilities experience within the Los Angeles County jail system. Indeed,

2 many people with disabilities find the conditions so intolerable that they are willing to

3 agree to a plea bargain, one that they otherwise may not have accepted, simply to leave

4 these conditions.

5 64. Plaintiffs have filed administrative complaints with the Los Angeles County jail

6 and have exhausted procedures for such administrative complaints. Defendants have

7 been on notice about these conditions for a considerable amount of time, and have been

8 specifically on notice about the issues raised in this lawsuit for at least a year.

9 65. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to ensure

10 compliance with the ADA and other laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals

11 with disabilities.

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13 66. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all inmates who are or

14 will be held within any and all Los Angeles County Jail facilities, as a class action under

15 Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

16 67. The class consists of all detainees and inmates with physical disabilities and

17 disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate

18 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

19 federal and state disability laws.

20 68. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

21 that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to comply with the ADA and with the

22 Rehabilitation Act and analogous state statutes.

23 69. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

24 that Defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and procedures

25 to ensure that LASD is in compliance with these statutes to ensure nondiscrimination

26 against persons with disabilities and equal access to programs, services and activities for

27 persons with disabilities.

28 70. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide LASD officers and employees

2 with appropriate training regarding their legal obligations under relevant federal and

3 state statutes.

4 71. The violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and related federal and

5 California State statues set forth in detail have injured all members of the proposed class

6 and violated their rights.

7 72. The requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met

8 with regard to the proposed class in that:

9

a. The class is so numerous that it would be impractical to bring all class

10

members before the Court;

11

b. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the class;

12

c. The named Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are typical

13

of the claims of the class;

14

d. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent common class

15

interests and are represented by counsel who are extremely experienced in

16

law reform class actions and the disability rights issues in this case;

17

e. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to

18

the class;

19

f. The questions of law and fact which are common to the class predominate

20

over individual questions; and

21

g. A class action is superior to other available means ofresolving this

22

controversy.

23 73. The common questions of law and fact, shared by the named Plaintiffs and all

24 class members, include:

25

a. Whether Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. sections

26

12131, et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities

27

accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise

28

discriminating against persons with disabilities, as set forth above;

16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

b. Whether Defendants are violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29

2

U.S.c. § 794 et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and

3

activities accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and

4

otherwise discriminating against people with disabilities, as set forth above.

5

c. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code Section

6

11135 (a), which prohibits denial of benefits to persons with disabilities of

7

any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any

8

financial assistance from the state.

9

d. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §51 et seq., by

10

failing to provide full and equal access to people with disabilities.

1 1

e. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §54 et seq., by

12

failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

13

f. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code §4450, et

14

seq., by failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

15

g. Whether Defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

16

Constitution as a result of the conditions of confinement.

17

h. Whether Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

18

Constitution as a result of the conditions of confinement.

19 74. The class is believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is

20 impracticable. On information and belief, more than one thousand individuals with

21 physical disabilities or disabling medical conditions are currently detained or confined in

22 the Los Angeles County Jail System. The inmate population within the Los Angeles Jail

23 System changes constantly and therefore not all class members can be specifically

24 identified.

25 75. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed class

26 members that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. Defendants'

27 records may be used for assistance in the preparation of such notices. To the extent that

28 any further notices may be required, Plaintiffs contemplate the use of additional media

17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

and/or mailings.

2

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

The Americans with Disabilities Act

4

42 U.S.c. §12101 et seq.

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

6 foregoing paragraphs.

7 77. Congress enacted the ADA upon finding, among other things, that "society has

8 tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities" and that such forms of

9 discrimination continue to be a "serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U.s.C.

10 § 12101(a) (2).

11

78. In response to these findings, Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the

12 ADA is to provide "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

13 discrimination against individuals with disabilities" and "clear, strong, consistent,

14 enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42

15 U.S.c. § 12101(b) (1)-(2).

16 79. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: "[N]o qualified individual with a

17 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

18 denied the benetits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

19 subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.c. § 12132.

20 80. The ADA requires public entries to ensure that their programs, services and

21 activities are accessible to and useable by detainees and inmates with disabilities.

22 81. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were each a "public entity"

23 within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provided a program, service or activity to

24 the general public.

25 82. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals within the

26 meaning of Title II ofthe ADA and met the essential eligibility requirements for the

27 receipt of the services, programs, or activities ofthe defendants. 42 U.S.c. § 12131.

28 83. Title II ofthe ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a

18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

qualified individual with a disability on the basis of a disability. 42 U.S.c. § 12132.

2 84. Defendants have excluded plaintiffs from participation in the services, programs

3 and activities ofthe Los Angeles County Jail facilities, and have denied them the rights and

4 benefits accorded to other inmates, solely by reason oftheir disabilities in violation of the

5 ADA. In addition, the defendants have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide

6 plaintiffs with reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities.

7 See generally 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

8 85. Defendants are mandated to operate each program, service, or activity "so that,

9 when viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with

10 disabilities." 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§35.l49 & 35.151. Defendants

II continue to violate the ADA by maintaining inaccessible facilities that deny people with

12 disabilities access to programs, services and activities.

13 86. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their

14 agents and employees have failed and continue to fail to:

15

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications, services and/or physical

16

access necessary to enable inmates with disabilities to participate on an equal

17

basis in programs, services and activities.

18

b. Develop and enforce procedures for the Los Angeles Sheriff Department to

19

ensure provision of necessary accommodations, modifications, services

20

and/or physical access necessary to enable inmates with disabilities to

21

participate on an equal basis in programs, services and activities.

22

c. Train and supervise the jail personnel to provide necessary accommodations,

23

modifications, services and/or physical access necessary to enable inmates

24

with disabilities to participate on an equal basis in programs, services and

25

activities.

26 87. Pursuant to the ADA's implementing regulations, specifically 38 C.F.R.

27 l50(d)( 1), Defendants were required to develop a written plan setting forth the steps

28 necessary to ensure that the Los Angeles County Jail facilities are in compliance with the

19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ADA's mandates. On information and belief, Defendants have not prepared a self-

2 evaluation and a transition plan that is compliant with the ADA.

3 88. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

4 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

5 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address

6 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

7 89. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

8 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions,

9 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

10 90. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 12133, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and

11 injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this

12 action.

13

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

15

29 U.S.c. § 794 et seq.

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

17 foregoing paragraphs.

18 92. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: "[N]o

19 otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his

20 disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

21 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial

22 assistance ..." 29 U.S.C. § 794.

23

93. Each Plaintiff is at all times relevant herein a qualified individual with a

24 disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act because they have a physical

25 impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities. 29 U.S.C.

26 § 705(20) (B).

27 94. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or

28 activities that are provided to inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail facilities. See 29

20 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

U.S.C. § 794 (b).

2 95. At all times relevant to this action Defendants were recipients of federal funding

3 within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. As recipients offederal funds, they are

4 required to reasonably accommodate inmates with disabilities in their facilities, program

5 activities, and services. It further requires the Defendants to modify their facilities,

6 services, and programs as necessary to accomplish this purpose.

7 96. Through their acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated

8 the Rehabilitation Act by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs

9 the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination in the benefits and services

10 Defendants provides to the detainees and inmates without disabilities.

II

97. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based thereon allege that Defendants

12 committed the acts and omissions alleged herein with intent and/or reckless disregard of

13 the rights of Plaintiffs. It is also alleged that the defendants have violated the Act by

14 providing substandard accommodations or refusing to provide plaintiffs with reasonable

15 accommodations for their disabilities.

16 98. Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act's implementing regulations, specifically, 28

17 C.F.R. 42.521, the Defendants were required to make any structural changes necessary to

18 render the programs and activities in existing Los Angeles County Jail facilities accessible

19 to persons with disabilities as expeditiously as possible. As part of that process, the

20 Defendants were required to develop a written plan setting forth the steps necessary to

21 complete such changes. Defendants have failed to develop a written plan and failed to

22 abide by the implementing regulations under the Rehabilitation Act.

23 99. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs suffered

24 and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship, anxiety as well as deteriorating physical

25 conditions due to Defendants failures to address accommodations, modifications,

26 services and access required for their disabilities.

27

100. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

28 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

2

101. Pursuant to 29 U.S.c. § 794(a) Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and

3 injunctive relief and to recover from Defendants the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

4 incurred in bringing this action.

5

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

California Government Code § 11135

7

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

8 foregoing paragraphs.

9 103. Section 11135(a) ofthe California Government Code provides in pertinent part:

10 "No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of ... disability, be unlawfully

11 denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program

12 or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the

13 state."

14

104. At all times relevant to this action, LASD was an agency of Defendant County.

15 At all times relevant to this action, the LASD and County, received financial assistance

16 from the State of California.

17

105. Through their acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated

18 and continue to violate California Government Code § 11135 by unlawfully denying

19 Plaintiffs the benefits of, and unlawfully sUbjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination under,

20 Defendants' programs and activities.

21

106. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

22 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

23 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address

24 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

25

107. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

26 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

27 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

28 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in tIling this action.

22 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Unruh Civil Rights Act

3

California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

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

5 foregoing paragraphs.

6 109. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated

7 California Civil Code § 51 (b) which provides in pertinent part that "All persons within

8 the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their. ..disability or

9 medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,

10 facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind

II whatsoever."

12 110. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 51 (f), a violation of the ADA also

13 constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq.

14 111. The Los Angeles County Jail system is a "business establishment" within the

15 meaning of California Civil Code §51 et seq.

16 112. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants are violating 17 California Civil Code § 51 et seq. by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to its

18 program comparable to the access that it offers to others.

19 113. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

20 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

21 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address

22 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

23 114. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

24 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

25 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

26 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

27 / / /

28 / / /

23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons Act

3

California Civil Code § 54 et seq.

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

5 foregoing paragraphs. 6 116. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants are violating

7 California Civil Code § 54 which states that "[i]ndividuals with disabilities or medical

8 conditions have the same rights as the general public to the full and free use of public

9 services." 10 117. Under California Civil Code § 54(c), a violation of the ADA also constitutes a

11 violation of California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.

12

118. Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities within the meaning of California Civil

13 Code § 54(b) (I) and California Government Code § 12926.

14 119. The County and the LASD provide public services, within the meaning of

15 California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.

16 120. By failing to provide accommodations, modifications, services and physical

17 access to the detainees and inmates with disabilities, Defendants are violating California

18 Civil Code § 54, by denying detainees and inmates full access to the jail programs,

19 services and activities.

20 121. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

21 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

22 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address 23 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

24 122. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

25 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

26 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

27 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

28

24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

California Government Code § 4450, et seq.

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

4 foregoing paragraphs.

5 124. Defendants' facilities are publicly funded and intended for use by the public

6 within the meaning of California Government Code § 4450, et seq. Defendants have

7 constructed, altered, installed, maintained and/or operated its facilities in violation of

8 disability access requirements under California Government Code § 4450, et seq., and

9 regulations implemented pursuant thereto. The aforementioned acts and omissions of the

10 Defendants constitute a denial of equal access to and use of Defendants' facilities.

11

125. Defendants' failure to provide full and equal access to their facilities has caused

12 Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights.

13

126. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

14 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

15 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address

16 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

17 127. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

18 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

19 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

20 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

21

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

23

42 U.S.c. § 1983

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

25 foregoing paragraphs.

26 129. 42 U.S.c. § 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional violations and violations of

27 federal statutes, where the violations are committed under color of State law.

28

130. Defendants are also liable for its failure to train its employees, creating § 1983

25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

liability where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of

2 inmates with whom those employees are likely to come into contact.

3 131. The Defendants have acted in reckless disregard for the serious needs of the

4 inmates, constituting willful violations of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the

5 United States, by imposing cruel and unusual punishments on the inmates.

6 132. All Defendants have engaged in discriminatory acts and practices constituting

7 willful violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities

8 Act.

9 133. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

iO suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

ii deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address

i2 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

i3

134. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

i4 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

i5 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

i6 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

i7

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

i8

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

i9

42 U.S.c. § 1983

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

2i foregoing paragraphs.

22 136. Detainees' rights arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

23 Amendment.

24 137. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that

25 Defendants shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

26 laws.

27 138. Defendants' failure to provide for sufficient training regarding detainees with

28 disabilities, as well as its failure to implement other procedures to safeguard the disability

26 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

rights of the detainees, amounts to deliberate indifference to their rights. 2 139. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have 3 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as 4 deteriorating physical conditions due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations, 5 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities. 6 140. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and 7 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions 8 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. 9 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 10 I I I 11 I I I 12 I I I 13 I I I 14 I I I 15 I I I 16 I I I 17 I I I 18 I I I 19 I I I 20 I I I 21 I I I 22 I I I 23 I I I 24 I I I 25 I I I 26 I I I 27 I I I 28 I I I
27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

3

1. A declaration that Defendants' conduct as alleged herein has violated, and

4

continues to violate, Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of

5

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; California Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450;

6

California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54; and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

7

to the U.S. Constitution;

8 2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from violating the Americans with

9

Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; California

10

Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450; California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54; and

11

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;

12 3. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

13

orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will

14

continue to comply in the future, absent continuing jurisdiction;

15 4. Award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, as provided by statute; and

16 5. Such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.

17
18 DATED: May 29, 2008

Respectfully Submitted,

19

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

20

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

21

CALIFORNIA

22

HADSELL, STORMER, KEENY, RICHARDSON

23

&RENICKLLP

24

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

25

~

~"

26

B r y: ,C ~···'),tF,-Cq t,.'N"'c#

I),
C'ly/(G

~/r"l CE'

Shawna L. Parks

27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 27

1 Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. #101967] dstormer@hskrr.com
2 Virginia Keeny, Esq. [S.B. #139568] vkeeny@hskrr.com
3 Lauren Teukolsky, Esq. [S.B. #211381] lauren@hskrr.com
4 HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP
5 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103-3645
6 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
7 Mark Rosenbaum, Esq. [S.B. #59940]
8 mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org Melinda Bird, Esq. [S.B. #102236]
9 mbird@aclu-sc.org ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
10 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90026
11 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 250-3980
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) 13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, and MICHAEL CURFMAN, on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated,

and

) ) ) ) )

Plaintiffs,

) )

vs.

) )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH, YVONNE B. BURKE, DON KNABE, GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, as supervisors of the County of Los Angeles,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

27

Defendants.

)

28

Case No.: CV 08-03515 DDP (JTLx) PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Date: June 30, 2008 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Dean Pregerson

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 27

1 (continued from previous page) Paula D. Pearlman, Esq. [S.B. #109038]
2 paula.pearlman@lls.edu Shawna L. Parks, Esq. [S.B. #208301]
3 shawna.parks@lls.edu Tiffany A. Green, Esq. [S.B. #243573]
4 tiffany.green@lls.edu DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
5 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, California 90015
6 Telephone: (213) 736-1031 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428
7 John C. Ulin, Esq. [S.B. #165524]
8 john.ulin@hellerehrman.com Helen Cho Eckert. Esq. [S.B. #240531]
9 helen.eckert@hellerherman.com Amanda N. Walker [S.B. #252380]
10 amanda.walker@hellerehrman.com HELLER EHRMAN LLP
11 333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1406
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 3 of 27

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 30, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., before the

2 Honorable Dean Pregerson, in Courtroom 3 of the courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street,

3 Los Angeles, plaintiffs will move for an order certifying the following class for purposes

4 of injunctive and declaratory relief: “All detainees and inmates with physical disabilities

5 and disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate

6 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

7 federal and state disability laws.” Plaintiffs have met the numerosity, commonality,

8 typicality and adequacy of representation requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In

9 addition, this class is appropriate for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because

10 defendants have acted or refused to act on a basis applicable to the whole class.

11

This motion is based upon this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of Points

12 and Authorities; the Declarations of Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Michael Curfman,

13 Shawna Parks, Dan Stormer, Mark Rosenbaum, John Ulin, and Logan Hopper, and all

14 exhibits thereto; the concurrently-filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and documents

15 filed in support thereof; all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon any

16 argument or evidence which may be presented at the hearing of this matter.

17

In accordance with Local Rule 7-3, plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with

18 defense counsel on May 22, 2008 and June 2, 2008 regarding this motion for class

19 certification. The parties were unable to resolve the matter informally.

20 DATED: June 9, 2008 21 22 23 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted, HADSELL STORMER KEENY
RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER HELLER EHRMAN LLP

27

By

/S/ – Lauren Teukolsky

28

Lauren Teukolsky Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 4 of 27

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page(s)

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

4 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

5 II. FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

6

A. The L.A. County Jails House Thousands of Detainees

With Disabilities Every Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

7

B. The Los Angeles County Jails Offer a Wide Array of

8

Programs, Services and Activities to Detainees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

9

C. Detainees With Disabilities Face Pervasive Discrimination

Within the L.A. County Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10

D. The Discrimination Faced By Detainees With Disabilities

11

is Caused By the L.A. County Jails’ Policies and Procedures

(or the Lack Thereof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 12

E. The Named Plaintiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 13

1. Peter Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 14

2. Donald Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 15

3. Michael Curfman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 16

III. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17

A. Legal Standards Governing Motions for Class

18

Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

19

B. Plaintiffs Have Met the Requirements of Rule 23(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

20

1. Numerosity is Satisfied Because There are Far

Too Many Class Members to Make Joinder

21

Practicable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

22

2. Commonality is Met Because the Lawsuit

23

Challenges Systemwide Practices and Policies That Affect All Detainees with Disabilities

24

Within the L.A. County Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

25

3. The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Those of the Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

26

4. The Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Will

27

Adequately Protect the Interests of the Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

28

-i-

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 5 of 27

1

C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) Because

They Challenge a Systemwide Practice of Discriminating

2

Against Detainees With Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3

D. Pre-Certification Class Notice is Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-ii-

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 6 of 27

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

FEDERAL CASES

Page(s)

3

Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. Group, Ltd.

4

97 F.R.D. 522 (S.D. Fla. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5 Armstrong v. Davis

75 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 15

6

Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.

7

158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8 Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey

43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 15

9

Blackie v. Barrack

10

524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 12

11 Califano v. Yamasaki

442 U.S. 682 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp.

13

917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

14 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Californians Department of Transport

2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19766 (N.D. Cal. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14 15

Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

16

509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

17 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

417 U.S. 156 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 18

Elliott v. Weinberger

19

564 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir.1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

20 General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon 457 U.S. 147 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
21

Jordan v. Los Angeles County

22

669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds,

23

459 U.S. 810 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

24

Lovely H. v. Eggleston 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

25 Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp.

26

220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D. Cal. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

27

Neff v. VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority 179 F.R.D. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

28

-iii-

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 7 of 27

1 In re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Products Liability

Litigation

2

693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey

524 U.S. 206 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4

Pierce v. County of Orange

5

—F.3d —, 2008 U.S.App. LEXIS 10454 (9th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 14

6 Raymond v. Rowland

220 F.R.D. 173 (D. Conn. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7

Stolz v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 971,

8

620 F.Supp. 396 (D. Nev. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

9 In re United Energy Corp. 122 F.R.D. 251 (C.D. Cal. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10

11

12

FEDERAL STATUTES

13 42 U.S.C.

§ 12131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

14

§ 12132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

15 29 U.S.C.

§ 794 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 15 16

F.R.C.P.

17

23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 15

23(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

18

23(a)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

23(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 12, 18

19

23(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

23(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18

20

23(c)(2)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

23(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

21

23(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-iv-

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 8 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Michael Curfman bring this case on

3 behalf of a class of all current and future detainees and inmates in the Los Angeles

4 County Jails with physical disabilities and disabling medical conditions who because of

5 those disabilities need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or

6 physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws. The complaint in

7 this action seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative class,

8 and is therefore brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

9

As alleged in the complaint, persons with disabilities in the Los Angeles County

10 Jails face pervasive discrimination in the conditions of their confinement. Persons with

11 disabilities are housed in the worst and oldest facilities within the jail system, in

12 windowless cells with broken plumbing and no natural light. Detainees with disabilities

13 are segregated from other detainees, and given no access to the more than one hundred

14 programs offered to detainees who are not disabled. The L.A. County Jails have no

15 comprehensive policies or procedures regarding the classification or treatment of persons

16 with disabilities. The jails have failed to perform an appropriate self-evaluation for

17 compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and have failed to

18 implement the transition plans that are required by the ADA.

19

Because the L.A. County Jails lack appropriate policies and procedures, the

20 deputies who staff the jails are unaware of what is required by the ADA. Yet, these

21 deputies make decisions about where persons with disabilities are housed, how many

22 catheters they are given, what kind of bedding they receive, what accommodations and

23 medical services they receive, what mobility aids they receive, and numerous other

24 crucial decisions that implicate the health and safety of persons with disabilities. As

25 described in the concurrently-filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the named

26 plaintiffs and several other putative class members have suffered needless harm and

27 indignities as a result of these practices.

28

By this motion, plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “all current and future detainees

- 1 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 9 of 27

1 and inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails with physical disabilities and disabling

2 medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate accommodations,

3 modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state

4 disability laws.” Plaintiffs easily meet the four requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a):

5 numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. In addition,

6 plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief, and the case is appropriate for

7 certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) because defendants have acted or refused to act

8 on grounds applicable to the class as a whole.

9

Actions to enforce the civil rights of persons with disabilities are precisely the type

10 of actions that are appropriate for class treatment. This case challenges systemwide

11 practices of discrimination against and mistreatment of inmates and detainees with

12 disabilities. Plaintiffs seek to have defendants make systemwide changes, and

13 implement policies and procedures applicable to the class as a whole. For these reasons,

14 plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for class certification.

15

II. FACTS

16

The following facts are taken from the class action complaint, and from the

17 declarations and exhibits filed in support of this motion. For purposes of a class 18 certification motion, the Court should take the allegations of the complaint as true. 19 Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901, n.17 (9th Cir. 1975).

20 A. The L.A. County Jails House Thousands of Detainees With Disabilities Every

21

Year

22

The Los Angeles County Jail system is the largest in the nation, processing more

23 than 180,000 people per year. The system is comprised of a number of facilities,

24 including Men’s Central Jail, Twin Towers and the Inmate Reception Center which are

25 located in downtown Los Angeles; the North County Correctional Facility and Pitchess

26 Detention Center, both located in Northern Los Angeles County; and the Central

27 Regional Detention Facility, located in Lynwood. The entire County Jail system houses

28 approximately 19,000 people at any given time. Complaint ¶ 34; Declaration of Logan

- 2 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 10 of 27

1 Hopper (“Hopper Decl.”) ¶ 15 & Exh. D.

2

Based on available census and other demographic data, plaintiffs’ expert Logan

3 Hopper estimates that there are between 500 and 1000 persons with disabilities

4 incarcerated in the L.A. County Jails at any given time. He further estimates that

5 between 5,000 and 12,000 persons with disabilities are processed by the jails in any

6 given year. Hopper Decl. ¶¶ 16-18.

7 B. The Los Angeles County Jails Offer a Wide Array of Programs, Services and

8

Activities to Detainees

9

The L.A. County Jails offer a wide variety of “programs, services and activities” to

10 detainees, as those terms are used in Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the

11 Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C.S. § 794. As explained by

12 Mr. Hopper, the word “services” is often misunderstood in the correctional context.

13 Even though detainees are incarcerated, they are still provided with “services.” These

14 “services” generally include all of the daily activities that are required to assure humane

15 treatment of detainees, including sanitary needs and hygiene, food service, recreation,

16 necessary medical care, religious services, visitation, and other similar and necessary

17 activities. Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 7.1 See also Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v.

18 Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 211 (1998) (holding that Title II of the ADA applies to

19 correctional facilities, and explaining that “prisons provide inmates with many

20 recreational ‘activities,’ medical ‘services,’ and educational and vocational ‘programs,’”

21 as those terms are used in the ADA”); Pierce v. County of Orange, — F.3d —, 2008

22 U.S. App. LEXIS 10454, *91 n.44 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Providing inmates with appropriate

23 and adequate bedding and bathroom facilities are ‘services’ of the jail.”).

24

“Programs” generally refer to more specialized activities that are provided for

25

26

27

1Mr. Hopper inspected the L.A. County Jails in November and December

2007. Hopper Decl. ¶ 12. His findings are encompassed in a report, which is

28

authenticated in his declaration at paragraph 11, and which is attached to his

declaration as Exhibit B.

- 3 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 11 of 27

1 effective incarceration and potential rehabilitation, including regular and vocational

2 education, drug and alcohol counseling, and work experience programs. Hopper Decl.

3 Exh. B at 7.

4

The LASD provides many programs and services to detainees. One reference

5 document provided by the Jails entitled “Inmate Programs” was 13 pages long and

6 included almost 100 programs and services. Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 7.2 In addition,

7 many detainees are given the opportunity to serve as “trustees.” Trustees assist the

8 deputies with tasks within the jails, and are given privileges and benefits in return.

9 Serving as a trustee also constitutes a “program” offered by the L.A. County Jails. Id.

10 C. Detainees With Disabilities Face Pervasive Discrimination Within the L.A.

11

County Jails

12

As documented in Mr. Hopper’s report, and as alleged in the complaint, detainees

13 with disabilities throughout the L.A. County Jails face significant problems with respect

14 to classification, housing, access to programs and services, and physical access barriers.

15 Defendants systemically fail to effectively evaluate the needs of people with disabilities

16 within the jails, and to meet those needs through appropriate accommodations and

17 physical access. Complaint ¶ 35; Hopper Decl. Exh. B.

18

Some of the most significant issues are: (1) the failure to appropriately identify

19 people with disabilities in need of accommodations and services, resulting in

20 inappropriate placement of people with disabilities; (2) the failure to provide appropriate

21 mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, walkers and crutches; (3) the failure to accommodate

22 the needs of people with disabilities, including by failing to establish reliable methods

23 for administration of medication, medical supplies and other disability accommodations;

24 (4) the failure to modify policies and procedures for people with disabilities; (5) the

25

26

2On August 6, 2007, the Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”)

27

submitted a California Public Records Act Request regarding the L.A. County

Jails’ treatment of detainees with disabilities. The DRLC received about 250

28

pages in response to the request, which DRLC then provided to Mr. Hopper.

Declaration of Shawna Parks (“Parks Decl.”) ¶¶ 19-20, 24; Hopper Decl. ¶ 14.

- 4 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 12 of 27

1 failure to remove multiple and pervasive architectural barriers throughout the jails; (6)

2 the failure to allow people with disabilities access to vocational, educational and other

3 programs and services; (7) the failure to provide safe and accessible transportation for

4 people with disabilities; (8) the failure to have an emergency and/or evacuation policy

5 for people with disabilities; and (9) the failure to provide an effective complaint

6 procedure for disability related complaints. Complaint ¶ 36.

7

The complete segregation of detainees with disabilities into the worst facilities in

8 the L.A. County jail system is a fundamental problem in itself. According to Mr.

9 Hopper, due in part to this segregation, “[i]nmates with disabilities have no access at all

10 to the vast majority of programs and services of the L.A. County jail system.” Hopper

11 Decl. Exh. B at 8. He further opines:

12

The degree of segregation of persons with disabilities that I observed

13

throughout the L.A. County Jail system is unparalleled in my experience. I

14

have never visited any facility, correctional or otherwise, that segregates

15

residents with disabilities to the degree I observed in the LA County Jail. And

16

nowhere were the segregation policies more profound than in the context of

17

extreme disparity of program and service availability between disabled and

18

non-disabled inmates. The poor conditions in Men’s Central Jail, including

19

broken plumbing, lack of any natural light and limited access to outdoor

20

recreation, also contribute to the disparity in service access.

21 Id. at 9.

22 D. The Discrimination Faced By Detainees With Disabilities is Caused By the

23

L.A. County Jails’ Policies and Procedures (or the Lack Thereof)

24

The problems faced by detainees with disabilities are caused by the L.A. County

25 Jails’ policies and procedures, or lack thereof. Significantly, there is no comprehensive

26 set of policies or procedures for identifying detainees with disabilities and determining

27 appropriate accommodations, modifications or services for them. Complaint ¶ 37;

28 Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 6 (“In the documents produced by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s

- 5 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 13 of 27

1 Department, I did not see a comprehensive manual or set of policies and procedures for

2 identifying inmates with disabilities and determining appropriate accommodations for

3 these individuals.”); see also Parks Decl. ¶¶ 19-21 (in response to Public Records Act

4 request seeking documents related to policies and procedures for accommodating

5 detainees with disabilities, the Disability Rights Legal Center received very limited

6 documentation of policies and procedures related to the ADA issues in this case).

7

The staff within the L.A. County Jails are not appropriately trained to make

8 decisions about housing and classification of detainees with disabilities. Housing and

9 classification decisions are made based on stereotypes and misconceptions, and in an

10 extremely cursory manner, relying mainly on the simplest and quickest observations by

11 staff. Complaint ¶ 37. This classification system results in, among other things, a failure

12 to recognize that persons who do not rely exclusively on wheelchairs may have

13 significant physical restrictions requiring accommodation. Id.; Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 6

14 (“[M]ost staff did not appear to have a working knowledge of the broad range of

15 disabilities that are covered by the ADA or the range of accommodations that may be

16 appropriate. For example, there did not appear to be an awareness that many persons

17 with physical disabilities do not require wheelchairs, but have equally critical disability-

18 related needs for accommodation, which the ADA requires be provided to them.”).

19

E. The Named Plaintiffs

20

1. Peter Johnson

21

Peter Johnson is 38 years old, and is paralyzed from the lower chest down. Mr.

22 Johnson has no feeling or mobility in his legs, and uses a wheelchair. Declaration of

23 Peter Johnson Decl. ¶ 2 (Compendium Exh. A).3 Mr. Johnson has been in jail since

24 October 16, 2007, when he was brought to the Inmate Reception Center (“IRC”), where

25 the jail processes new detainees. The bathroom in the IRC is not wheelchair accessible,

26

27

3All of the detainee declarations are attached to the Compendium of

28

Detainee Declarations in Support of Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class

Certification.

- 6 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 14 of 27

1 but Mr. Johnson was left in the IRC for approximately 8-10 hours. Mr. Johnson was left

2 sitting in his own feces for around 6-8 hours, even though he notified the staff that he

3 needed help. Id. ¶ 3. Mr. Johnson was unable to use the drinking fountain or phones in

4 the IRC because they are not accessible to people in wheelchairs. When Mr. Johnson

5 tried to use the phone, he transferred from his wheelchair onto a metal bench, but fell off

6 the bench because it was too slippery. Id. ¶ 4.

7

The deputies in the IRC took away Mr. Johnson’s wheelchair and replaced it with

8 a jail-issued chair, which had numerous problems. The wheelchair made it difficult for

9 Mr. Johnson to transfer to the toilet, and also lacked footrests. As a result, Mr. Johnson’s

10 feet dragged on the floor. The wheelchair would also flip forward if Mr. Johnson did not

11 carefully maintain his balance. Id. ¶ 5. Approximately three weeks later, the jail

12 returned Mr. Johnson’s original chair to him but insisted on replacing the wheels with

13 jail-issued wheels. However, these new wheels did not fit his wheelchair. As a result,

14 on Mr. Johnson’s next court trip, one of the wheels fell off and he fell out of the chair,

15 injuring himself. Id. ¶ 6.

16

Since being assigned housing, Mr. Johnson has been housed in the 8100 block at

17 Men’s Central Jail, which is the unit designated for wheelchair users. Detainees housed 18 in this unit receive little, if any, outdoor exercise. In the nearly seven months that Mr. 19 Johnson has been in this unit, he has only been allowed outside for exercise on two

20 occasions that he can remember. Other than those two times that he went to the roof for

21 exercise, the only time that Mr. Johnson has been let outside is to go to court. Other than

22 those events, and Sunday visits to the jail chapel, Mr. Johnson remains in his jail cell

23 twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. Id. ¶ 8-9. Mr. Johnson also has not had

24 any physical therapy during the entire time he has been in jail, even though he regularly

25 did physical therapy to improve his movement before he became incarcerated. Id. ¶ 10.

26

Although the bathroom in Mr. Johnson’s cell was designed to be wheelchair

27 accessible, there is a barrier to the shower area, which Mr. Johnson cannot get over in his

28 wheelchair. One time, in maneuvering himself over the barrier, Mr. Johnson fell and

- 7 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 15 of 27

1 hurt his hip. Id. ¶ 11.

2

In early 2008, Mr. Johnson was disciplined and moved to the 8000 floor for about

3 a month. There were few accommodations in the cell to which Mr. Johnson was

4 transferred. Although the cell was supposed to be handicap accessible, the rail on the

5 side of the toilet was broken and Mr. Johnson fell several times when he attempted to

6 transfer from his wheelchair to the toilet. In addition, the handicap rail in the cell was

7 too high for Mr. Johnson to reach in his wheelchair, and was meant for someone

8 standing. Id. ¶ 12.

9

Mr. Johnson was supposed to be able to shower every other day, but many times,

10 he was not allowed to shower for days at a time. This was a problem because the food

11 often did not agree with his stomach and he had accidents. Mr. Johnson would have to

12 sit in his feces for days at a time, and the deputies refused to give him access to showers

13 or clean clothes when he told them that he’d had an accident. Id. ¶ 13. Moreover,

14 detainees housed on the 8000 floor were not allowed to buy any food and drinks from the

15 store, reportedly because a diabetic had died after buying food from the store. Detainees

16 on other floors are allowed to buy many food and drink items, like tuna and coffee, to

17 supplement their jail food. Mr. Johnson could not substitute store food for the jail food

18 that did not agree with him and he had more accidents. Id. ¶ 14.

19

In February 2008, Mr. Johnson was moved back to the 8100 floor. He still does

20 not have access to outdoor exercise or the roof, and he basically spends all of his time in

21 his cell. Mr. Johnson has no access to vocational or educational programs of any kind.

22 Id. ¶ 15. Moreover, because Mr. Johnson is in a wheelchair, he is not permitted to be a

23 jail trustee and is therefore deprived of the benefits and privileges that accompany being

24 a trustee. Id. ¶ 16.

25

2. Donald Peterson

26

Plaintiff Donald Peterson, a veteran of the United States military. Mr. Peterson

27 was diagnosed with diabetes when he was 13 years old, and continues to suffer from

28 diabetes to this day. Mr. Peterson also has a significant mobility limitation. He has no

- 8 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 16 of 27

1 feeling in his right leg going all the way up to his mid-torso. He also has chronic pain in

2 his right arm such that he cannot make a fist with his hand. The loss of mobility in his

3 right side makes it difficult for him to walk and balance unaided. He needs either

4 crutches or a wheelchair for mobility. Declaration of Donald Peterson ¶¶ 2-3

5 (Compendium Exh. B).

6

Mr. Peterson has been in the Men’s Central Jail for approximately four months.

7 When he first arrived at the jail, he was provided a wheelchair and placed in the 8100

8 block. While on that floor, other than church on Sunday, he spent nearly all of his time in

9 his cell. He was never allowed access to the roof for exercise, and never participated in

10 any vocational or educational programs. Id. ¶ 4.

11

About three months after his arrival, a deputy moved Mr. Peterson to the 6050

12 unit, which is the unit at Men’s Central Jail designated for people with walkers or

13 crutches. When Mr. Peterson was moved, the deputies took away his wheelchair and he

14 was given a walker. Mr. Peterson had never used a walker before and he fell over when

15 he tried to use it. Id. ¶ 5.

16

Despite his disability, Mr. Peterson was given a top bunk in the 6050 unit. It was

17 very difficult for him to get up and down from the top bunk. The deputies also took 18 away his catheter bag, which Mr. Peterson used to urinate at night without getting out of 19 bed. Without the catheter bag, Mr. Peterson either had to get out of his top bunk or wet

20 the bed. Mr. Peterson has fallen a number of times trying to get out of his top bunk when

21 needing to go to the bathroom. Id. ¶¶ 6-8.

22

After a few days in 6050, Mr. Peterson was moved again, this time to the general

23 population. The deputies took away his walker and he was not provided any other

24 mobility aid. In the general population, he fell down three times and had to drag himself

25 around and hold onto the walls when he attempted to move. After three days, he was

26 finally provided with a pair of crutches. After receiving the crutches, he was moved

27 back to 6050. Id. ¶¶ 9-11.

28

Mr. Peterson also has no teeth, in part due to his diabetes, and does not have his

- 9 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 17 of 27

1 dentures in the jail. He is supposed to be on a soft diet, meaning his food is mashed up,

2 but he is only provided regular food. Mr. Peterson tries to make food soft enough by

3 swishing it around with water in his mouth. He has sores all over his mouth because he

4 cannot chew his food. Id. ¶ 12.

5

Mr. Peterson takes medication to control his blood sugar levels as a result of his

6 diabetes. This medication is not provided regularly at the jail, and has gone as many as

7 three days without his medication. His blood sugar is also not regularly screened, even

8 though Mr. Peterson screens his own blood sugar level three times a day when he is not

9 in jail. In the approximately four months he has been in jail, his blood sugar has been

10 screened only approximately twelve times. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

11

3. Michael Curfman

12

Plaintiff Michael Curfman has partial paralysis and traumatic brain injury,

13 disabilities he developed shortly before being arrested. Declaration of Michael Curfman

14 Decl. ¶ 2 (Compendium Exh. C). He has significant difficulty with walking, balance and

15 stability due to his disability. He has been in Los Angeles County jail since January

16 2007, and has been at Men’s Central Jail for approximately the last nine or ten months.

17 Id. ¶ 3. Mr. Curfman has had a number of disability-related problems, including but not 18 limited to, denial of accommodations and mobility aids for his disability, and pervasive 19 architectural barriers.

20

Before residing at Men’s Central, Mr. Curfman was at Twin Towers in the medical

21 unit where he was provided a wheelchair for mobility. When he was moved to Men’s

22 Central, Mr. Curfman’s wheelchair was taken away despite his partial paralysis and

23 traumatic brain injury. Mr. Curfman was also initially denied the use of any mobility

24 aid, including a walker. This made standing or walking extremely difficult for him.

25 Even when he was eventually provided a walker, the walker had a broken tip causing it

26 to be extremely unsteady. Id. ¶ 9-11.

27

The toilet in Mr. Curfman’s unit has no grab bars for accessibility. Mr. Curfman

28 must attempt to steady himself by attempting to hold on to the wall or the sink.

- 10 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 18 of 27

1 Similarly, Mr. Curfman’s shower has no grab bars, which makes it very difficult for him

2 to steady himself while taking a shower. On at least one occasion, he has fallen while

3 showering. Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Curfman has asked for a wheelchair to assist in his mobility

4 but has been told that because he can stand he cannot have a wheelchair.

5

Mr. Curfman, who developed his disabilities shortly before being admitted to the

6 jail, and who has now been in jail for more than sixteen months, receives no physical

7 therapy to improve his mobility or his speech. He has attempted to learn how to walk

8 and speak again on his own. Mr. Curfman has asked to see a doctor many times, but was

9 told that he could only see the doctor if he’s “bleeding or dying.” Id. ¶¶ 13, 16.

10

As a result of his disability, Mr. Curfman has a hard time controlling his bladder.

11 Because of his bladder control problems, he has accidents in his bed but is not allowed to

12 replace his soiled sheets or clothes. He is not allowed to shower if it is not his turn. He

13 sometimes has to use soiled sheets for almost a week before they are replaced. Id. ¶¶ 17-

14 20.

15

Mr. Curfman is only allowed out of his cell to shower. He has rarely been

16 permitted to go outside for exercise. The only program he has access to is a Friday visit

17 by a chaplain. Otherwise, he does not have any access to programs at the jail. Id. ¶¶ 22-

18 23.

19

III. ARGUMENT

20

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on May 29, 2008. As alleged in the

21 complaint, plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: “All detainees and inmates with

22 physical disabilities and disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities

23 need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in

24 accordance with federal and state disability laws.” Because this proposed class meets the

25 requirements of Rule 23, the Court should grant plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

26 A. Legal Standards Governing Motions for Class Certification

27

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for class

28 certification. Under Rule 23(a), a party seeking class certification must show: (1) the

- 11 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 19 of 27

1 class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions

2 of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative

3 parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties

4 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a);

5 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must also meet one of the

7 requirements of Rule 23(b), which imposes different requirements depending on the type

8 of class action a party seeks to certify. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1176

9 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiffs seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory

10 relief only, and do not seek to certify a damages class. Accordingly, plaintiffs must meet

11 the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), which requires plaintiffs to show that “the party

12 opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the

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

14 respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868.

15

The decision whether to certify a class is committed to the district court’s

16 discretion. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 871 n.28. In deciding whether to certify a class,

17 “[t]he court is bound to take the substantive allegations of the complaint as true . . . .” 18 Blackie, 524 F.2d at 901 n.17. While the court must determine that plaintiffs have 19 alleged facts sufficient to meet the Rule 23 requirements, the court does not consider

20 whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on their claims. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,

21 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (citation omitted); Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d

22 1311, 1321 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982).

23 B. Plaintiffs Have Met the Requirements of Rule 23(a)

24

1. Numerosity is Satisfied Because There are Far Too Many Class

25

Members to Make Joinder Praciticable

26

Under the numerosity requirement, plaintiffs must show that the class is so

27 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs may meet this

28 requirement even if the exact number of potential class members is unknown, and the

- 12 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 20 of 27

1 class members cannot be identified individually. Neff v. VIA Metro. Transit Auth., 179

2 F.R.D. 185, 193 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (certifying class of persons with disabilities who used

3 public transit) (citation omitted). “While there is no bright-line rule as to how many

4 class members are required to be sufficiently numerous, various courts have found that

5 the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and have

6 found it not satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer.” Californians for Disability

7 Rights, Inc. v. Californians Dep't of Transp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19766, *41 (N.D.

8 Cal. 2008) (citation omitted). Courts may appropriately consider statistical and census

9 data in determining whether the numerosity requirement has been met. Id., at *42-46

10 (citing Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal.

11 1994); Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604, 608 (N.D. Cal. 2004)).

12

In this case, based on available census and other demographic data, plaintiffs’

13 expert Logan Hopper estimates that there are between 500 and 1000 detainees with

14 disabilities in the L.A. County Jails at any given time. He further estimates that between

15 5,000 and 12,000 detainees with disabilities are processed by the jails in any given year.

16 Hopper Decl. ¶¶ 16-18. These estimates are sufficient to meet the numerosity

17 requirement. It would not be practicable to join 500 or more plaintiffs in this action, and

18 the class action mechanism is therefore appropriate.

19

2. Commonality is Met Because the Lawsuit Challenges Systemwide

20

Practices and Policies That Affect All Detainees with Disabilities Within

21

the L.A. County Jails

22

Rule 23(a)(2) requires plaintiffs to show that there is “at least one question of fact

23 or law” that is common to the class. Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56

24 (3d Cir. 1994). In the context of civil rights lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit has held that

25 “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy

26 that affects all of the putative class members. . . . In such circumstance, individual factual

27 differences among the individual litigants or groups of litigants will not preclude a

28 finding of commonality.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868 (affirming district court’s

- 13 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 21 of 27

1 certification of a class of present and future California state prisoners and parolees with

2 mobility, sight, hearing, learning and developmental disabilities) (citations omitted).

3

See also L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 662463, *11-12 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

4 (commonality satisfied where a broad class of juvenile parolees with disabilities

5 challenged systemwide discriminatory practices); Californians for Disability Rights,

6 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19766, at *38-39 (“Cases challenging an entity’s policies and

7 practices regarding access for the disabled represent the mine run of disability rights

8 class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2)”); Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248,

9 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (certifying a broad class of public assistance recipients “who have a

10 physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of [state law]” whose cases

11 were transferred to various sites).

12

Here, plaintiffs easily meet the commonality requirement because they are

13 challenging a systemwide failure by the L.A. County Jails to provide programs, services

14 and activities to detainees with disabilities. This legal challenge will require the Court to

15 address a number of factual and legal questions that are common to the class. As the

16 Ninth Circuit recently held in a similar class action lawsuit on behalf of detainees with

17 disabilities in the Orange County jails, “Any type of educational, vocational, 18 rehabilitative, or recreational program, service, or activity offered to nondisabled 19 detainees should, when viewed in its entirety, be similarly available to disabled detainees

20 who, with or without reasonable accommodations, meet the essential eligibility

21 requirements to participate.” Pierce, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10454 at *84. Here, the

22 Court will be required to make both factual and legal findings about whether programs,

23 services or activities offered to non-disabled detainees in the L.A. County Jails are being

24 offered on a similar bases to detainees with disabilities.

25

Other examples of system-wide practices challenged in this lawsuit include: the

26 failure to provide accessible facilities throughout the jail; the failure to provide detainees

27 with adequate bedding, bathroom facilities and other “services” related to health and

28 hygiene; the failure to provide appropriate mobility aids; the failure to establish reliable

- 14 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 22 of 27

1 methods for providing medication and medical supplies; the failure to remove

2 architectural barriers; and the failure to provide physical therapy and other necessary

3 medical care required by detainees with disabilities so that they can participate in

4 programs and services on a similar basis as non-disabled detainees.

5

The Court will need to make common factual findings on these issues, as well as

6 common legal determinations whether the L.A. County Jails are violating Title II of the

7 Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

8 Act (29 U.S.C. § 794), the United States Constitution, and California disability laws.

9 Because the putative class members share a number of legal and factual issues,

10 commonality is easily met.

11

3. The Named Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Those of the Class

12

Under Rule 23(a)(3), plaintiffs must show that the claims of the representative

13 parties are typical of the claims of the class. To satisfy the requirement of typicality, “a

14 class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the

15 same injury as the class members.” General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457

16 U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To satisfy

17 typicality, the Ninth Circuit “do[es] not insist that the named plaintiffs’ injuries be 18 identical with those of the other class members, only that the unnamed class members 19 have injuries similar to those of the named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the

20 same, injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 869 (citation omitted); see 21 also Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58 (“Where an action challenges a policy or practice, the 22 named plaintiffs suffering one specific injury from the practice can represent a class 23 suffering other injuries, so long as all the injuries are shown to result from the 24 practice.”); California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp., 917 F.2d 25 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 23 “does not require the named plaintiffs to be 26 identically situated with all other class members,” only that their situations are 27 “sufficiently parallel to insure a vigorous and full presentation of all claims for relief”) 28 (citations omitted).

- 15 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 23 of 27

1

Here, the named plaintiffs – Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Michael Curfman

2 – are all persons with disabilities detained in the L.A. County Jails. They each allege

3 that defendants have failed to make the programs, services and activities offered by the

4 L.A. County Jails accessible to persons with disabilities, and have failed to adopt

5 appropriate policies and procedures for housing, accommodating and caring for persons

6 with disabilities. Between the three of them, they have suffered injuries similar to the

7 injuries suffered by the class, including segregation into the worst facilities in the jails;

8 the denial of access to programs and services; inadequate medical care; inappropriate

9 classification and declassification; inappropriate mobility aids; and the failure to

10 accommodate their disabilities is various ways. Plaintiffs challenge the same course of

11 conduct on the same legal grounds as would be challenged by the class. Therefore, the

12 typicality requirement is met.

13

4. The Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Will Adequately Protect

14

the Interests of the Class

15

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative parties will fairly and

16 adequately protect the interests of the class. “Adequacy of representation depends on the

17 qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a sharing of 18 interests between the representatives and the absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit 19 is collusive.” In re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Prods. Liab.

20 Litig., 693 F.2d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also In re United

21 Energy Corp., 122 F.R.D. 251, 257 (C.D. Cal. 1988).

22

As set forth above in the discussion of the commonality and typicality

23 requirements, plaintiffs share the same interests of declaratory and injunctive relief as the

24 proposed class members. None of the plaintiffs is currently seeking damages as a result

25 of defendants’ unlawful conduct, and there is no basis on which to argue that their

26 interests are antagonistic to those of the class.

27

The putative class is represented by the highly experienced legal team of the

28 Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”), the American Civil Liberties Union of

- 16 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 24 of 27

1 Southern California (“ACLU”), Heller Ehrman, and Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson

2 & Renick (“Hadsell Stormer”). The list of counsels’ qualifications are too long to recite

3 here, but are fully set forth in counsel’s declarations accompanying this motion.

4

Briefly, the DRLC has been counsel in numerous class action lawsuits involving

5 persons with disabilities, and has obtained settlements that have benefitted large groups

6 of persons with disabilities. See Parks Decl. ¶¶ 2-16; Exhs. A-C. Mark Rosenbaum and

7 Melinda Bird of the ACLU have substantial experience in civil rights class action

8 lawsuits, and the ACLU is one of the most storied civil rights organizations in the

9 country. See Declaration of Mark Rosenbaum. Hadsell Stormer is a private civil rights

10 firm whose attorneys have successfully litigated numerous class action public interest

11 cases, including a case on behalf of detainees with disabilities in the Orange County

12 jails. See Declaration of Dan Stormer. Heller Ehrman’s attorneys, John Ulin, Helen

13 Eckert and Amanda Walker, have extensive litigation experience. Mr. Ulin, a

14 shareholder, has served as pro bono counsel on numerous cases focusing on civil rights

15 issues, voting rights and political reform. See Declaration of John Ulin. Given the

16 extensive experience of plaintiffs’ counsel, the “adequacy of representation” prong of

17 Rule 23(a) is easily met.

18

Plaintiffs’ counsel not only meet the “adequacy” prong of Rule 23(a), but they also

19 meet the requirements of Rule 23(g), and should therefore be appointed class counsel.4

20 Under Rule 23(g), in appointing class counsel, a court must consider: “(i) the work

21 counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii)

22 counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of

23 claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the

24 resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.”

25

As demonstrated by this motion and the concurrently-filed Motion for Preliminary

26 Injunction, counsel have done extensive work in identifying and investigating the claims 27

28

4Rule 23(c) requires that an order certifying a class action “must appoint

class counsel under Rule 23(g).”

- 17 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 25 of 27

1 in this action. Counsel’s declarations establish that they have substantial experience in

2 handling class actions and complex litigation, including with respect to jail conditions

3 and persons with disabilities. Counsel are well-versed in disability and constitutional

4 law, which will apply in this case, and they have more than sufficient resources to

5 vigorously prosecute this case. See generally Stormer Decl.; Rosenbaum Decl.; Parks

6 Decl. & Ulin Decl. For these reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that, pursuant to

7 Rule 23(c), the Court issue an order that plaintiffs’ counsel be appointed class counsel.

8 C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) Because They Challenge a

9

Systemwide Practice of Discriminating Against Detainees With Disabilities

10

In addition to the four requirements of Rule 23(a), plaintiffs must also satisfy at

11 least one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, plaintiffs seek to certify a class

12 for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), which means that plaintiffs must show that

13 defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so

14 that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting

15 the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

16

As set forth in the concurrently-filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, plaintiffs

17 seek an injunction that would require defendants to bring the L.A. County Jails into 18 compliance with federal and state disability laws and the U.S. Constitution. The basis 19 for plaintiffs’ motion is that the County has violated these laws by failing to make the

20 programs, services and activities offered by the L.A. County Jails accessible to persons

21 with disabilities, and has failed to adopt appropriate policies and procedures for housing,

22 accommodating and caring for persons with disabilities. Because plaintiffs’ central

23 claim is that the County has “acted or refused to act on grounds that generally apply to

24 the class” of detainees with disabilities in the L.A. County Jails, plaintiffs have satisfied

25 the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).

26

Suits brought to vindicate civil rights are precisely the type of suits for which Rule

27 23(b)(2) was designed. See Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. Group, Ltd.,

28 197 F.R.D. 522, 524 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (listing disability rights class action cases

- 18 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 26 of 27

1 certified under Rule 23(b)(2)); see also Raymond v. Rowland, 220 F.R.D. 173, 181 (D.

2 Conn. 2004) (certifying broad class of persons with disabilities and stating that “[c]ases

3 of this nature, alleging systemic failure of governmental bodies to properly fulfill

4 statutory requirements, have been held to be appropriate for class certification under

5 Rule 23(b)(2)”). For these reasons, the Court should certify the proposed class under

6 Rule 23(b)(2).

7

D. Pre-Certification Class Notice is Not Required

8

Rule 23(c)(2)(A) gives the Court discretionary power to direct appropriate notice

9 to the class. Rule 23(d) gives the Court discretion to order that notice be given to class

10 members in the interest of protecting the rights of the members and to ensure fair

11 conduct in the action. Such notice is not generally necessary in a Rule 23(b)(2) class

12 action where named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives with experienced

13 counsel. See Elliott v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir.1977), aff’d in relevant part,

14 rev’d in part sub nom. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979); Stolz v. United

15 Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 971, 620 F. Supp. 396, 408 (D. Nev.

16 1985) (notice unnecessary for injunctive relief class where named plaintiffs are adequate

17 representatives).

18

Because plaintiffs are adequate class representatives represented by experienced

19 counsel, there is no need for notice to be given before the proposed class is certified.

20 Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court exercise its discretion to

21 certify the class without requiring any notice to absent class members, at least at this

22 stage of the litigation.

23

IV. CONCLUSION

24

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

25 certify the following class: “All detainees and inmates with physical disabilities and

26 disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate

27 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

28

- 19 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-JTL Document 8 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 27 of 27

1 federal and state disability laws.” Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed order

2 concurrently herewith.

3 DATED: June 9, 2008
4 5

Respectfully submitted, HADSELL STORMER KEENY
RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP

6

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

7

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

8

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

9

10

By

/S/ – Lauren Teukolsky

11

Lauren Teukolsky

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 20 -

MTN FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

 
 1 JOHN C. ULIN (State Bar No. 165524)

2

john.ulin@hellerehrman.com HELEN C. ECKERT (State Bar No. 240531)

3 helen.eckert@hellerehrman.com

4

AMANDA N. WALKER (State Bar No. 252380) amanda.walker@hellerehrman.com

5 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

6

333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

7 Tel: (213) 689-0200

8 Fax: (213) 614-1868

9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)
10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
PETER JOHNSON, DONALD 14 PETERSON and MICHAEL

CASE NO.: CV-08-03515-DDP

15 CURFMAN, on behalf of themselves and 16 all others similarly situated,

17

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR

18

vs.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

19

20

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY

DATE: TIME:

June 30, 2008 10:00 a.m.

21 BACA, as Sheriff of the County of Los COURT RM: 3 – Spring Street

22

Angeles, and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, MICHAEL

JUDGE:

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson

23 D. ANTONOVICH, YVONNE B.

24

BURKE, DON KNABE, GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, as

25 Supervisors of the County of Los

26 Angeles,

27

Defendants.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 MARK ROSENBAUM (State Bar No. 59940)

2

mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org MELINDA BIRD (State Bar No. 102236)

3 mbird@aclu-sc.org

4

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Boulevard

5 Los Angeles, California 90026

6

Tel: (213) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 250-3980

7

8 PAULA D. PEARLMAN (State Bar No. 109038) Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu
9 SHAWNA L. PARKS (State Bar No. 208301) 10 Shawna.Parks@lls.edu
TIFFANY A. GREEN (State Bar No. 243573) 11 Tiffany.Green@lls.edu 12 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
919 Albany Street 13 Los Angeles, California 90015 14 Tel: (213) 736-1031
Fax: (213) 736-1428
15

16 DAN STORMER (State Bar No. 101967) dstormer@hskrr.com
17 C. VIRGINIA KEENY (State Bar No. 139568) 18 vkeeny@hskrr.com
LAUREN TEUKOLSKY (State Bar No. 211381) 19 Lauren@hskrr.com 20 CORNELIA DAI (State Bar No. 207435)
cdai@hskrr.com 21 HADSELL, STORMER, KEENY, RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP 22 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, California 91103 23 Tel: (626) 585-9600 24 Fax: (626) 577-7079

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, June 30, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., or

3 as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Court Room 3, United States

4 District Court for the Central District of California, located at 312 North Spring

5 Street, Los Angeles, California, Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, and

6 Michael Curfman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, will

7 move the Court for an order granting a preliminary injunction in a form to be lodged

8 with the Court. The requested preliminary injunction would enjoin Defendants, the

9 Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department; County Sheriff, Leroy Baca; the County

10 of Los Angeles; and Los Angeles County Supervisors, Michael D. Antonovich,

11 Yvone B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, and Zev Yaroslavsky, and their

12 respective successors in office, agents, servants, employees, and all others acting in

13 concert therewith from, inter alia, holding booking or housing any person with

14 disabilities: (a) in any facility that in which the detainee does not have access on the

15 same basis as the general population to a toilet, sink, drinking fountain, and telephone

16 that meet applicable standards; (b) without providing appropriate accommodations

17 for detainees with disabilities; (c) without permitting them to participate on an equal

18 basis with other detainees in programs and activities; or (d) without commissioning a

19 comprehensive evaluation of current ADA compliance and developing a

20 comprehensive plan for achieving full compliance.

21

A preliminary injunction is warranted because: (1) Plaintiffs demonstrate a

22 likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under the Americans with

23 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.

24 § 794; Cal. Govt. Code § 11135 et seq.; Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.; Cal. Civ. Code

25 § 54 et seq.; and Cal. Govt. Code § 4450 et. seq.; (2) Plaintiffs will continue to suffer

26 irreparable injury without the requested preliminary injunction; (3) although

27 balancing is not required, the balance of hardships favor Plaintiffs; (4) the

28 preliminary injunction advances the public interest; and (5) the preliminary

1
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 injunction complies with the Prison Reform Litigation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626.

2

This motion is based on this notice of motion, the accompanying memorandum

3 of points and authorities, the concurrently filed Compendium of Detainee

4 Declarations, Declarations of Logan Hopper, Dr. Brie Williams, and Helen Eckert,

5 and all exhibits thereto, the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith,

6 other pleadings, records, and papers on file with the Court, and such additional

7 evidence and argument as may be submitted in responsive briefing or at oral

8 argument.

9

10 Dated: June 9, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

11

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

12

13

By: /s/ John C. Ulin

14

JOHN C. ULIN

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 
 1 JOHN C. ULIN (Bar No. 165524)

2

john.ulin@hellerehrman.com HELEN C. ECKERT (Bar No. 240531)

3 helen.eckert@hellerehrman.com

4

AMANDA N. WALKER (Bar No. 252380) amanda.walker@hellerehrman.com

5 Heller Ehrman LLP

333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor

6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043

7

Telephone: 213.689.0200 Facsimile: 213.614.1868

8

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, CASE NO.: CV-08-3515-DDP

14 and MICHAEL CURFMAN, on behalf of

15 themselves and all others similarly situated,

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

16

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

17

v.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

18 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S

19

DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, Sheriff of the County of Los

20 Angeles, and COUNTY OF LOS

21

ANGELES, a public entity, MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH, YVONNE B. BURKE,

22 DON KNABE, GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV

23

YAROSLAVSKY, as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles,

24

DATE: TIME: DEPT.: JUDGE:

June 30, 2008 10:00 a.m. 3 Hon. Dean D. Pregerson

25

Defendants.

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 MARK ROSENBAUM (State Bar No. 59940)

2

mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org MELINDA BIRD (State Bar No. 102236)

3 mbird@aclu-sc.org

4 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Boulevard
5 Los Angeles, California 90026

6 Tel: (213) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 250-3980
7

8 PAULA D. PEARLMAN (State Bar No. 109038) Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu
9 SHAWNA L. PARKS (State Bar No. 208301) 10 Shawna.Parks@lls.edu
TIFFANY A. GREEN (State Bar No. 243573) 11 Tiffany.Green@lls.edu 12 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
919 Albany Street 13 Los Angeles, California 90015 14 Tel: (213) 736-1031
Fax: (213) 736-1428
15

16 DAN STORMER (State Bar No. 101967) dstormer@hskrr.com
17 C. VIRGINIA KEENY (State Bar No. 139568) 18 vkeeny@hskrr.com
LAUREN TEUKOLSKY (State Bar No. 211381) 19 Lauren@hskrr.com 20 CORNELIA DAI (State Bar No. 207435)
cdai@hskrr.com 21 HADSELL, STORMER, KEENY, RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP 22 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
Pasadena, California 91103 23 Tel: (626) 585-9600 24 Fax: (626) 577-7079

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 2
3 I. 4 II.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 III.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 6

A. Architectural Barriers Deny Detainees With Disabilities Equal Access To The Most Basic Facilities – Including Toilets, Showers and Drinking Fountains ............................................ 6

B. The County Routinely Fails To Provide Detainees With Disabilities Necessary Accommodations And Services....................... 7

C. Detainees With Disabilities Are Completely Excluded From Many Programs Available To The General Jail Population............................................................................................. 9

D. Defendants Still Have Not Completed A Comprehensive Evaluation And Transition Plan As Required By The ADA.................................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 12

A. Standard Pursuant To Which The Court Should Issue A Preliminary Injunction........................................................................ 12

B. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their ADA And Rehabilitation Act Claims ....................................... 12

1. Elements Of Plaintiffs’ Title II and Rehabilitation Act Claims................................................................................ 13

2. Plaintiffs Are Qualified Individuals With Disabilities................................................................................ 13

3. The Los Angeles County Jails Are A Public Entity Subject To The Title II Of The ADA And The Rehabilitation Act .................................................................... 14

4. Plaintiffs Are Being Excluded From Participation In, And Denied The Benefits Of, Jail Services And Programs, And Are Suffering Discrimination, Because Of Their Disabilities .................................................. 15

i
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 IV.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5. Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act Similarly Prohibits Discrimination Against Inmates With Disabilities................................................................................ 20
C. Plaintiffs Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Injury Without A Preliminary Injunction...................................................... 20
D. The Balance of Hardships Plainly Favors Plaintiffs .......................... 22
E. A Preliminary Injunction Would Advance The Public Interest ................................................................................................ 24
F. The Preliminary Injunction Complies With the Prison Reform Litigation Act ........................................................................ 25
CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 25

ii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3 FEDERAL CASES

4 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001)................................................................................... 15, 25
5 Armstrong v. Wilson,

6

124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997)....................................................................................... 13 Associated General Contractors of Cal. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity,

7 950 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991)....................................................................................... 21

8

Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002)....................................................................................... 16

9 Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.1999).......................................................................................... 13
10 Block v. Rutherford,

11

468 U.S. 576 (1984) ...................................................................................................... 24 Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board,

12 348 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003)................................................................................. 17, 18

13

Clarkson v. Coughlin, 898 F.Supp. 1019 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) .............................................................................. 19

14 Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 12, 21
15 Collings v. Longview Fibre Co.,

16

63 F.3d 828, 832 n.3 (9th Cir. 1995)....................................................................... 14, 20 Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections,

17 115 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 1997)................................................................................. 24

Crowder v. Kitagawa, 18 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... 15

19 Cummings v. Roberts, 628 F.2d 1065 (8th Cir. 1980)....................................................................................... 21
20 Cupulo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit,

21

5 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ............................................................................ 21 Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Ct,

22 739 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984)......................................................................................... 21

Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, Los Angeles, 23 366 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2004)........................................................................................ 24

24 Kiman v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Corr., 451 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 18

25 Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

26

245 F.3d 916, 924 (7th Cir. 2001)................................................................................. 14 Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff,

27 891 F.2d 1241 (6th Cir. 1989)....................................................................................... 21

28

iii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 Lopez v. Heckler,

2

713 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1983)....................................................................................... 24 Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr.,

3 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... 19

McDonald v. Penn. Dept. of Public Welfare, 4 62 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................. 20

5 Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 22

6 Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith,

7

541 F.Supp. 351, 386 n. 42 (C.D. Cal. 1982)................................................................ 25 Palmer v. Johnson,

8 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999)......................................................................................... 22 Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico,
9 225 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 16

10

Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) ........................................................................................ 14, 18

11 People ex rel Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

12

766 F.2d 1319, 1325-26 (9th Cir.1985)............................................................................. 25 Pierce v. County of Orange,

13 --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 2052408, *19 (9th Cir. May 15, 2008) ....................... 14, 16, 18, 19 Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp.,
14 463 U.S. 239 (1983) ...................................................................................................... 21

15

Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff’s Dept., 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007).................................................................................... 14

16 Rodde v. Bonta,

17

357 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 12 Ruiz v. Estelle,

18 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982)....................................................................................... 22 Rutherford v. Pitchess,
19 457 F.Supp. 104 (C.D. Cal. 1978)................................................................................. 24

20

Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dept. of Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Wash. 1999) ....................................................................... 21

21 Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist.,

22

5 F. Supp. 947 (E.D. Cal. 1990) .................................................................................... 21 Tyler v. City of Manhattan,

23 857 F. Supp. 800 (D. Kansas 1994) .............................................................................. 14 U.S. v. Georgia,
24 546 U.S. 151 (2006) ...................................................................................................... 18

25

Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999)......................................................................................... 12

26 Warshak v. U.S.,

27

490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2007)........................................................................................ 24 Weeks v. Chaboudy,

28 984 F.2d 185 (6th Cir. 1993)......................................................................................... 21

iv
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority,

2

114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 13 Zukle v. Regents of University of California,

3 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999)....................................................................................... 13

4 STATUTES

5

28 § 35.130(b)(4)(i) ........................................................................................................... 15 28 § 35.130(b)(7) ......................................................................................................... 15, 17

6 28 §§ 35.130(b)(1)(ii)-(iii)................................................................................................. 15

7

28 §§ 35.149-150 ............................................................................................................... 15 28 C.F.R § 35.150(a) ......................................................................................................... 16

8 28 C.F.R. § 35.130........................................................................................... 15, 17, 18, 19 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)................................................................................................ 15
9 28 C.F.R. § 35.149............................................................................................................. 16

10

28 C.F.R. § 35.150....................................................................................................... 16, 19 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) ....................................................................................................... 13, 20

11 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)............................................................................................................. 20

12

42 U.S.C. § 12101........................................................................................................ 13, 24 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 13

13 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2)......................................................................................................... 14 42 U.S.C. § 12132.............................................................................................................. 13
14 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a) ......................................................................................................... 15

15

42 U.S.C. §12102(2).......................................................................................................... 14 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) ...................................................................................................... 25

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs bring this motion for preliminary injunction to provide interim relief

3 to the thousands of men and women with disabilities who are held for days, months

4 or even years, in the Los Angeles County Jail system (the “Jail”). In their daily

5 operation of the Jail, the County Defendants violate federal and state statutes

6 prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities, including Title II of the

7 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., Section 504 of

8 the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and California disability rights laws,

9 Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq; Cal. Civil Code § 54 et seq.; Cal. Gov. Code § 11135 et

10 seq. They do so by their: (1) failure to remedy architectural barriers such as

11 inaccessible toilets, sinks, drinking fountains, and telephones that prevent detainees

12 with disabilities from participating in the programs, services and activities to the

13 general jail population; (2) failure to make reasonable modifications to policies,

14 practices and procedures that are necessary to prevent discrimination against

15 detainees with disabilities, including, e.g., by providing fully functioning

16 wheelchairs, physical therapy, necessary medication and supplies (such as catheters),

17 clean sheets and clothing as needed, and lower bunk assignments for detainees who

18 need them; and (3) exclusion of people with disabilities from programs available to

19 the general population, including exercise and recreation, vocational and educational

20 programs, and library services, and housing them in facilities Defendants know

21 cannot provide access to such programs.

22

Relief is needed for the named plaintiffs and for others similarly situated,1

23 such as Christian Reyes, a 19 year old who is awaiting trial. Earlier this year a bullet

24 left him paralyzed from the waist down. In March, shortly after being released from

25 the hospital, Christian was arrested and incarcerated in the Jail. Although he has not

26 been convicted of any crime, Christian has been punished severely – but not for the

27

28

1 Plaintiffs are filing concurrently a motion for class certification.

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 charges against him. From the moment he first arrived at the Inmate Reception

2 Center (IRC) for processing, Christian has been subjected to the unconscionable

3 treatment accorded individuals with disabilities in the Jail. In Christian’s own words:

4

When I was in the IRC, I wasn’t given a catheter so I couldn’t empty

5

my bladder. My bladder leaked urine because I couldn’t empty it. Although there is a bathroom in the IRC, it is not wheelchair-

6

accessible. . . .I was forced to go to the bathroom in a diaper while

7

sitting in the wheelchair. . . . I sat in my own feces for two days in the IRC before a nurse changed my diaper . . . .

8

Declaration (“Decl.”) of Christian Reyes, ¶ 6.2

9

While in jail, Christian has repeatedly been denied both medication and

10 supplies necessary to manage his disabilities and access to facilities and programs

11 that are available to the general detainee population. For example, although Christian

12 was taking a number of prescribed medications when he was arrested, he has been

13 denied those medications in jail. Id. ¶ 10; Declaration of Luz Reyes (Christian’s

14 aunt) ¶ 11-12. Similarly, while at the time of his arrest, Christian was in physical

15 therapy to restore mobility in his legs, but he has had no physical therapy while in

16 jail. Id. ¶ 10. Christian also has had no access to the roof, where detainees are

17 allowed outdoor recreational time, or to “any other form of exercise or recreational

18 activity.” Id. ¶ 12. After three months in Jail, Christina has suffered what may be

19 irreversible deterioration of his condition. L. Reyes Decl. ¶ 18-20.

20

Unfortunately, Christian’s story is not unique. A noted national expert and

21 architect with years of experience in correctional settings -- Logan Hopper -- has

22 toured the Jail and prepared a 30-page report with his preliminary findings. Decl. of

23 Logan Hopper, Exh. B. Mr. Hopper concluded that individuals with disabilities face

24 myriad discriminatory conditions in the Jail. Dozens of detainees who were

25 interviewed during the investigation that led to the filing of this lawsuit confirm his

26 findings of systemic discrimination against people with disabilities:

27

28

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

· Peter Johnson, a 39 year-old detainee who was paralyzed by a gunshot

2

when he was 15, was left “sitting in my own feces for around 6-8 hours” at

IRC because there is no wheelchair accessible toilet. Decl. of Peter

3

Johnson ¶ 3. He also could not get a drink of water because the drinking

4

fountain is not accessible, and fell off a slippery bench, while trying to use

a non-accessible phone, because there are no accessible ones. Id. ¶ 4.

5

· Except for court appearances, Peter has only been outside twice during four

6

months in jail: “I basically stay in my cell 24 hours a day, every day, except

7

for Sunday, when I attend chapel.” Id. ¶ 9.

8

· Peter has been denied access to showers or required to use shower facilities that have dams or barriers on the floor over which he has fallen while

9

trying to bathe. Id. ¶¶ 11 & 13. He has also fallen while trying to use

10

toilets that have broken grab bars. Id. ¶ 12.

11

· Peter reports that detainees with disabilities are routinely denied access to outdoor exercise, vocational or educational programs, and the ability to

12

become a “trustee” – a coveted position that allows detainees time and

13

activities outside their cells. Id. ¶¶ 15 & 17.

14

· Francis Tribble, who uses a wheelchair, had to “lower myself out of my wheelchair at the entrance to the toilet and crawl and drag myself along the

15

ground to the toilet, the[n] pull myself up to the seat,” to use the bathroom

16

in the IRC because the entrance to the toilets is too narrow to accommodate a wheelchair. Decl. of Francis Tribble ¶ 4.

17

· Francis likewise reports that detainees with disabilities are denied access to

18

outdoor recreation on the roof, to the commissary, and even to the library.

19

Tribble Decl. ¶¶ 17-19.

20

· Michael Curfman, a 25 year old detainee, who is partially paralyzed and has a traumatic brain injury, Decl. of Michael Curfman ¶ 3, has been denied

21

a wheelchair, despite his inability to walk unaided, id. ¶¶ 9 & 15.

22

· Michael has difficulty using the toilet at Men’s Central Jail because there is

23

no grab bar. He must steady himself “by holding to the wall or on the sink.” Id. ¶ 12. Michael also has trouble using the showers because they

24

have no grab bars. As a result, he has fallen and injured himself. Id. ¶ 21.

25

· Because of his disability, Michael suffers bladder control problems. Even

26

when he has an accident, however, Michael must often “wait for more than a day in my soiled clothes” before he is allowed to shower, id. ¶ 17, and

27

“use my soiled sheets for almost a week before they are replaced,” id. ¶ 18.

28

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

· Like other detainees with disabilities, Michael stays in his cell most days,

2

id. ¶ 22, and has no access to exercise, physical therapy or programs and

activities that are available to other detainees, id. ¶¶ 16 & 23.

3
· Giovanni Ceballos has a fractured disk as a result of a work injury.

4

Although Giovanni Ceballos has periodic bouts of paralyzing pain, he

5

could walk normally when he arrived at IRC in January 2008. After his

arrival, however, he had to sleep on the floor for 4 nights, which aggravated

6

his injury, causing him to lose feeling in his right leg and to have difficulty

7

walking. Decl. of Giovanni Ceballos ¶ 2. Giovanni’s problems worsened

when he was repeatedly assigned to sleep in top bunks, even though getting

8

into them caused severe pain. Id. ¶ 4. Ultimately, he was confined to a

9

wheelchair for over a month. Id. ¶ 6.

10

· Although a doctor at County USC Hospital issued a report saying that

Giovanni “should be in a wheelchair at all times,” id., he was declassified

11

from the wheelchair unit at Men’s Central Jail because others had seen him

12

stand to use the toilet or shower, id. ¶ 7. Upon his declassification, two

guards “picked [Giovanni] up out of the wheelchair . . . and dropped me

13

onto the floor so I landed on my buttocks and back[, which] caused me

14

extreme pain . . . .” The guards then “lifted me onto a blanket and dragged

me back to the cell and threw me in.” Id. ¶ 8.

15

· Giovanni was subsequently denied pain medication because he was in too

16

much pain to walk to pill call. When Giovanni told a guard that he was

17

unable to walk, the guard “told me to drag myself on the floor as some

others had done.” Id. ¶¶ 9-10.

18

19

None of this is news to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

20 (“LASD”). Over the past decade, LASD has prepared at least three reports (in 1998,

21 2000, and 2005) about the architectural, programmatic and policy modifications

22 required to bring its facilities and programs into ADA compliance. Notwithstanding

23 the appalling conditions outlined above, years later, LASD has yet to implement

24 many of its own recommendations. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel brought the

25 problems identified in this motion to LASD’s attention over a year ago. Although

26 the Department promised to take corrective action, nothing has been done. LASD has

27 not even seen fit to install a single wheelchair accessible toilet in IRC. Defendants

28 simply do not prioritize, fund or ultimately even focus on their need to provide

4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 physical access, accommodations and programs and services to people with

2 disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jails.

3

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit because federal and state law, the Constitution, and

4 good conscience require different priorities. They require the County to assure that

5 people with disabilities are not subjected to discrimination in the jails. Plaintiffs seek

6 a preliminary injunction because the unspeakable conditions for people with

7 disabilities that result from Defendants’ refusal to comply with their statutory and

8 constitutional obligations cannot be allowed to persist while this case is litigated.

9

The facts outlined above, and discussed more fully below, plainly justify a

10 preliminary injunction. There can be no dispute that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on

11 the merits of their nondiscrimination claims and will continue to suffer irreparable

12 injuries, if conditions for detainees with disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jails

13 do not improve immediately. Defendants, for their part, would only be required to

14 comply with legal standards with which they should have complied years ago.

15

For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a

16 preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from holding, booking or housing any

17 person with disabilities: (a) in any facility in which the detainee does not have access

18 on the same basis as the general population to a toilet, sink, drinking fountain, and

19 telephone that meet applicable standards; (b) without providing appropriate

20 accommodations for detainees with disabilities; (c) without permitting them to

21 participate on an equal basis with other detainees in programs and activities; or (d)

22 without commissioning a comprehensive evaluation of current ADA compliance and

23 developing a comprehensive plan for achieving full compliance.

24

These remedial measures can be achieved in timed stages, with the first being

25 the elimination of the most obvious architectural barriers within 30 to 60 days. The

26 next stage – implementing appropriate accommodations and integrating people with

27 disabilities into jail programs and activities – requires development of new protocols

28 and policies and a system to evaluate effectiveness and compliance. Plaintiffs have

5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 already proposed that the County bring in three national experts3 on ADA

2 compliance in correctional settings to carry out this task within the next 90 days.

3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4

A. Architectural Barriers Deny Detainees With Disabilities Equal

5

Access To The Most Basic Facilities – Including Toilets, Showers and Drinking Fountains

6

Detainees with disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jails are denied the most

7 basic human necessities, including accessible toilets, showers and drinking fountains.

8 Toilets lack grab bars required by ADA regulations, which are necessary for inmates

9 with disabilities to be able to support themselves or transfer between their

10 wheelchairs and the toilet. Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 18, 20. Plaintiff Michael

11 Curfman has a difficult time using the bathrooms at Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”)

12 because they are not accessible. Curfman Decl. ¶ 12. Francis Tribble risks falling

13 down every time he transfers from the toilet to his wheelchair. Tribble Decl. ¶ 7.

14 Francisco Gomez cannot use the toilet unless he finds someone to help him. Decl. of

15 Francisco Gomez ¶ 3. Bathroom sinks lack necessary knee clearance to

16 accommodate people in wheelchairs, Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 18, and there are no

17 accessible bathrooms in common areas such as the visiting area, classrooms, and law

18 libraries. Id. at 21.

19

Showers have built-in six inch high curbs, no grab bars, and no fixed wall

20 seats. Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 18. These deficiencies make the showers “unusable

21 by the vast majority of inmates with disabilities. Id.; see, e.g., Decl. of Terry Stuart

22 ¶ 4 (cannot use the shower unless someone helps him). They pose an especially

23 difficult hardship to inmates confined in wheelchairs. Castro Tranquilino has fallen a

24 few times while trying to use the shower, and although there is an accessible shower

25 on his floor, jail staff have told him that inmates cannot use that shower. Decl. of

26

27

3 These experts are Logan Hopper, who has already conducted a preliminary review of the County Jails, Dr. Brie Williams and Dr. Robert Greifinger. See Decl.

28 of Dr. Brie Williams (discussing her experience and Dr. Greifinger’s).

6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 Castro Tranquilino ¶ 4-5. Robert Johnson has been unable to take a shower for three

2 weeks because of the curb and lack of a shower seat. Decl. of R. Johnson ¶ 4.

3

The Inmate Reception Center (“IRC”), where all inmates are first processed,

4 has some of the worst conditions for inmates with disabilities. It lacks a single

5 accessible bathroom, shower, or drinking fountain in the entire facility. Hopper

6 Decl., Exh. B at 25; Decl. of Edward Turner ¶ 6; P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 3, 4; Tribble

7 Decl. ¶ 4. Detainees with disabilities are forced to crawl and drag themselves to the

8 toilet, Tribble Decl. ¶ 4, or sit in their own feces for hours on end while they wait to

9 be processed at the Inmate Reception Center. P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 3; C. Reyes Dec.

10 ¶¶ 5-7. Problems are also common in court line holding cells and in transporting

11 detainees to and from court. Reyes Decl., ¶¶ 15, 16; Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 22.

12

B. The County Routinely Fails To Provide Detainees With Disabilities

13

Necessary Accommodations And Services

Defendants also routinely deny detainees with disabilities accommodations,
14

modifications and services necessary to enable them to manage their disabilities –
15

including appropriate sleeping assignments, mobility aids, medication, medical
16

supplies, and physical therapy. Defendants’ practices, at best, reflect a complete
17

disregard for the needs of people with disabilities. For example, people with mobility
18

impairments and disabling medical conditions are not ensured access to a bottom
19

bunk, so that they are forced either to sleep on the concrete floor or risk injury by
20

attempting to climb to the top of a two or three-decker bunk. Hopper Decl., Exh. B
21

at 19; see e.g., Ceballos Decl. ¶ 4, 13, 15 (no bottom bunk despite doctor’s note that
22

he required one due to a fractured disk); Decl. of Bernard Ward ¶ 3, 6, 9 (forced to
23

sleep on the cement floor on several occasions because he could not climb up to top
24

bunk); Decl. of Donald Driver ¶ 11, 16 (seizures, but has not had a bottom bunk);
25

Decl. of Tyrone White ¶ 2 (injured by a fall from a top bunk during a seizure).
26

LASD staff also denies wheelchairs, prostheses and other mobility aids to
27

people with disabilities, subjecting them to pain and risk of injury. Turner Decl. ¶ 3,
28

7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 7 (amputee, forced to crawl when deputies took away his wheelchair); Peterson Decl.

2 ¶ 3, 5 & 9; Decl. of Smitty Williams ¶ 2, 3, 7 (inmate with pin in his back, bone

3 degeneration and pinched nerves forced to crawl to shower when deputies took his

4 walker); Ceballos Decl. ¶ 2, 7 & 8. Others are provided with jail-issued wheelchairs

5 that are grossly inadequate, with missing footplates and ill-fitting seats. Tribble Decl,

6 ¶ 6. By reducing their mobility and function, these defective wheelchairs further

7 contribute to their exclusion from jail programs and services. LASD’s policies

8 regarding this medical equipment seems to be entirely ad hoc. Without any rhyme or

9 reason, LASD staff allow some people to keep their own wheelchairs while

10 confiscating others’ personal chairs and providing defective, jail-issued chairs.

11 People are often “declassed” out of their wheelchairs and given walkers or crutches

12 with no physical therapy or acclimation, and then “declassed” again into the general

13 population. For example, Donald Peterson’s wheelchair was confiscated and,

14 although he had no feeling in one leg, he was instead given a walker, causing him to

15 fall. Peterson Decl. ¶ 3, 5. A few days later, even his walker was taken and he was

16 given nothing to help him walk for three days. He fell three times and had to drag

17 himself and hold onto walls to move. Id. at 9-10.

18

Detainees also suffer serious harm resulting from LASD’s failure to provide

19 consistent and reliable medication and medical supplies for disabling medical

20 conditions. Francis Tribble experienced seizures at three times the rate he did before

21 being in custody because the doctors at jail took him off his medication, prescribed

22 him something different, and only checked his blood every month instead of every

23 two weeks. Tribble Decl. ¶ 12. John Finn suffered complications from his diabetes

24 because Jail employees repeatedly denied him the proper combination of prescribed

25 diabetes medications. Decl. of John Finn ¶ 9. Despite notifying deputies and

26 supervisors at IRC of his medical conditions and needs, Finn was not given any

27 medication for more than 30 hours after his arrival at the jails, and was denied food

28 for 12 hours. Id. at ¶ 13, 15. Even though his blood sugar reading soared to 350,

8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 compared to his normal range of 100 to 125, Finn was still denied medication. Id. at ¶

2 14.

3

Other detainees suffered even more severe consequences. Jason Burt Taylor

4 became completely blind after nurses failed to give him medication for glaucoma that

5 doctors told him he needed three times a day to avoid losing his sight. Decl. of Jason

6 Burt Taylor ¶¶ 2-5. Christopher Bingley was denied seizure medication for two days

7 and, on the second night, had a severe seizure and was injured. Decl. of Christopher

8 Bingley ¶¶ 4-5.

9

Defendants also deny detainees with disabilities medical supplies and physical

10 therapy that are essential to managing their conditions. Christian Reyes and Donald

11 Peterson have been denied clean catheters they need to empty their bladders. C.

12 Reyes Decl. ¶ 11; Peterson Decl. ¶ 8. As a result, they either risk infection from re-

13 use of used catheters or suffer the indignity of fouling themselves. C. Reyes Decl.

14 ¶ 11. Michael Curfman’s disabilities often cause loss of bladder control at night, yet

15 deputies refuse to allow him clean sheets and clothing when this occurs. Curfman

16 Decl. ¶ 17-18.

17

The lack of any physical therapy in the jail likewise results in multiple

18 problems. Michael Curfman and Christian Reyes have been denied critical physical

19 therapy, which has led to the deterioration of their physical conditions. See Curfman

20 Decl. ¶ 23; C. Reyes Decl., ¶ 10; Luz Reyes Decl., ¶ 20. In addition, without the

21 assistance of a physical therapist who can help them exercise, many people with

22 disabilities are effectively excluded from participation in the Jail's recreation

23 program, even assuming they are allowed “roof time.”

24

C. Detainees With Disabilities Are Completely Excluded From Many

25

Programs Available To The General Jail Population.

Those whom the Sheriff’s Department recognizes as people with disabilities
26

are almost exclusively segregated in certain sections of MCJ, away from the rest of
27

the inmate population. Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 8. Not only are detainees with
28

9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 disabilities thus forced into “some of the worst [facilities] in the entire L.A. County

2 Jail system,” id. at 19-20, their segregation in MCJ results in their exclusion from the

3 far superior educational , vocational training, work/study, and treatment programs

4 available at other jail facilities. Id. at 9; see Peterson Decl. ¶ 4; Ceballos Decl. ¶ 18;

5 Curfman Decl. ¶ 23; C. Reyes Decl. ¶ 12. This occurs in part because the LASD has

6 made no effort to make these other facilities accessible. Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 6

7 (“it appears that the . . . need to provide equal access to programs for those

8 individuals is almost entirely unknown”).

9

Perhaps most notably, although regular physical exercise obviously “is crucial

10 for the health and stabilizing health of many persons with disabilities, usually to a

11 greater extent than would be required for the non-disabled population,” id. at 21,

12 people with disabilities are given little or no opportunity for exercise, either indoor or

13 outside on the roof of MCJ. See P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 8 (in almost seven months, only

14 allowed to exercise on two occasions); Decl. of Jerry Anthony ¶ 12 (only allowed on

15 the roof twice in six months); R. Johnson Decl. ¶ 5 (no exercise in almost two months

16 at MCJ); C. Reyes Decl. ¶ 12 (no roof access his entire time in jail). They also are

17 denied access to the commissary to buy food and drinks to supplement their jail food,

18 as other detainees are allowed to do, P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 14; Tribble Decl. ¶ 18;

19 Gomez Decl. ¶ 5. Detainees with disabilities frequently spend 24 hours a day, 7 days

20 a week confined to their cells, leaving only for court appearances, religious services,

21 or pill call. See P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 9 (spends 24 hours a day in his cell, except to

22 attend chapel on Sundays); Gomez Decl. ¶ 5 (only leaves his cell for medication.);

23 Welch Decl. ¶ 2 (spends the entire day in his cell, except to get medications).

24

“[N]owhere were the segregation policies [of the Los Angeles County Jails]

25 more profound than in the context of the extreme disparity of program and service

26 availability between disabled and non-disabled [detainees],” Hopper Decl., Exh. B at

27 9 – a result that is particularly unforgivable given that “minor, cost-effective, and

28 well-placed physical improvements” could allow detainees with disabilities to

10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 participate in these programs on the same basis as the general population. Id. at 30.

2

D. Defendants Still Have Not Completed A Comprehensive Evaluation

3

And Transition Plan As Required By The ADA.

The ADA requires Defendants to complete a self-evaluation and transition plan
4

that evaluate the Los Angeles County Jails’ facilities, services, policies, and practices
5

for ADA compliance, to recommend necessary modifications, and to proceed with
6

such modifications. 28 C.F.R. §35.150(d). Defendants’ first effort at a transition
7

plan was published in 1998 and an apparent attempt at a self-evaluation followed two
8

years later. Both documents are dated and deficient. See Logan Decl., Exh. C at 217
9

(“The TP [transition plan] developed by the Sheriff’s Department is lacking in its
10

thoroughness and is not in compliance with the implementation goals of removing
11

identified barriers by 1995, as required by the ADA.”). The transition plan, dated
12

July 30, 1998, “contains information only for public areas, and does not consider
13

inmate areas,” Hopper Decl., Exh. B at 30, which obviously must also be compliant.
14

What appears to be the self-evaluation, dated 2000, “is not as comprehensive as one
15

would normally expect, given the size and complexity of the county jail system.” Id.
16

at 9. Moreover, “the majority of the barrier removal items” proposed in these
17

documents still have not been completed – ten years later. Id. at 31. At MCJ, for
18

example, only 7 of the 19 originally identified barriers have been removed, not to
19

mention the additional barriers not even included in the original transition plan. Id.
20

More recently, Gordon Anthony of the County’s ADA Compliance Section,
21

prepared an “ADA Compliance Review” for the County jails in October 2005 that
22

identified numerous non-compliant conditions at Men’s Central Jail, although it did
23

not include an evaluation of the detention facilities. Mr. Anthony did conclude, as
24

suggested above, that the County lacked a mechanism “to ensure the modification of
25

policy, practice or procedures to ensure program access.” Id. at 212.
26

Less than two years after Mr. Anthony issued his report, Plaintiffs’ counsel
27

contacted LASD to identify the ADA compliance issues raised in this motion and to
28

11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 demand that the Department take appropriate corrective measures. Decl. of Shawna

2 Parks ¶ 18, Exhs. D and E. While the County expressed willingness to take action,

3 over a year later nothing has been done. Even after plaintiffs’ counsel shared the

4 comprehensive report of Logan Hopper who concluded that the Los Angeles County

5 Jails have some of the most egregious ADA compliance problems in the country, the

6 County’s inaction continued. Id.at ¶ 25, Exh. I. Even in the face of this lawsuit,

7 Defendants have yet to install an accessible toilet in IRC or to provide for adapted

8 exercise and physical therapy for detainees with disabilities. Plaintiffs went so far as

9 to offer the County the chance to take corrective measures and avoid the filing of this

10 motion, so long as it was secured by an enforceable court order that would assure

11 compliance. Id., Exh. J. At this point, however, after over a year of fruitless

12 discussions, Plaintiffs are left with no choice but to seek preliminary injunctive relief

13 to safeguard the rights of detainees with disabilities.

14 III. ARGUMENT

15

A. Standard Pursuant To Which The Court Should Issue A

16

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is appropriate where plaintiffs demonstrate “‘either:
17

(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or
18

(2) that serious questions going to the merits [are] raised and the balance of hardships
19

tips sharply in [their] favor.’” Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
20

340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d
21

725 (9th Cir. 1999)). “These two alternatives represent extremes of a single
22

continuum, rather than two separate tests. . . .” Id. In cases where the public interest
23

is involved, the district court must also consider whether the public interest favors
24

issuance of the injunction. Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2004).
25

B. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their ADA And

26

Rehabilitation Act Claims

27

Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “to provide a

28

12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination

2 against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Title II of the ADA

3 states in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of

4 such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

5 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination 6 by such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.4

7

1. Elements Of Plaintiffs’ Title II and Rehabilitation Act Claims

8

Plaintiffs asserting a claim of discrimination by a public entity must establish

9

(1) That they are qualified individuals with disabilities;

10

(2) That they were either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits

of some public entity's services, programs, or activities or otherwise

11

discriminated against;

12

(3) That such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of

13

their disability; and

14

(4) The entity receives federal financial assistance (for the Rehab Act claim), or is a public entity (for the ADA claim).

15 See 42 U.S.C. §12132; Zukle v. Regents of University of California, 166 F.3d 1041

16 (9th Cir. 1999); Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority,

17 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997).

18
2. Plaintiffs Are Qualified Individuals With Disabilities

19

The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual with a

20 disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or

21

22

4 Similarly Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehab Act”) provides: “No

23

otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

24 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

25

assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Ninth Circuit's “interpretation of Title II of the ADA applies equally to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” Bay Area Addiction

26 Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999).

27

The language of the two statutes is “similarly expansive” and “Congress has directed that the ADA and RA [Rehabilitation Act] be construed consistently.” Armstrong v.

28 Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or

2 the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility

3 requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities 4 provided by a public entity.5 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). Each of the named plaintiffs

5 meets this definition. Peter Johnson is paralyzed from the waist down and requires a

6 wheelchair for mobility. Johnson Decl. ¶ 2. Michael Curfman requires mobility

7 assistance as a result of paralysis on his left side and has suffered a traumatic brain

8 injury. Curfman Decl. ¶ 3. Donald Peterson requires crutches or a wheelchair to get

9 around because he has lost the use of his right leg, and also has diabetes. Peterson

10 Decl. ¶¶ 3. See Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 857 F. Supp. 800, 803-04, 812 (D.

11 Kansas 1994) (person using wheelchair due to partial paralysis is a qualified

12 individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA); Lawson v. CSX Transp.,

13 Inc., 245 F.3d 916, 924 (7th Cir. 2001) (same for person with diabetes). Other class

14 members with similar disabilities are likewise qualified individuals under the ADA.

15

3. The Los Angeles County Jails Are A Public Entity Subject To

The Title II Of The ADA And The Rehabilitation Act

16

It is also beyond dispute that the Los Angeles County Jails are a “public entity”

17

whose facilities, services, and programs are subject to the mandates of the ADA and

18

the Rehabilitation Act. See Pierce v. County of Orange, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL

19

2052408, *19 (9th Cir. May 15, 2008) (ADA applies to Orange County Jail system);

20

Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff’s Dept., 500 F.3d 1185, 1193 (10th Cir.

21

2007); Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (ADA

22

applies to state prisons).

23

24

25

5 Disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially

26 limits a major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as

27

having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). The definition under the Rehabilitation Act is the same. Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832 n. 3

28 (9th Cir. 1995).

14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

4. Plaintiffs Are Being Excluded From Participation In, And

Denied The Benefits Of, Jail Services And Programs, And Are

2

Suffering Discrimination, Because Of Their Disabilities

3

“The ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as enforced through the Attorney General's

4 regulations promulgated under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), require more than

5 compliance with due process requirements: they require that a disabled individual be

6 provided with “meaningful access” to state provided services and set forth a number

7 of detailed requirements that must be met.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th

8 Cir. 2001); see also Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996).

9

Under the broad mandates of the ADA, Defendants have obligations to

10 Plaintiffs to ensure that they do not deny them services and benefits on the basis of

11 their disabilities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i), or provide services or benefits that are

12 not equal to those afforded detainees without disabilities, id. §§ 35.130(b)(1)(ii)-(iii).

13 In addition, Defendants may not select a site or location for housing Plaintiffs that

14 has “the effect of excluding [them] from, denying them the benefits of, [public

15 services or facilities] or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination.” Id.

16 § 35.130(b)(4)(i). They must also “make [such] reasonable modifications in policies,

17 practices, or procedures . . . [as] are necessary to avoid discrimination [against

18 Plaintiffs] on the basis of disability.” Id. § 35.130(b)(7), and ensure that physical

19 barriers do not deny people with disabilities access to programs and services. Id.

20 §§ 35.149-150. Defendants are failing in all of these obligations.

21

a. Defendants Failure To Remove Architectural Barriers

At The County Jails Violates The ADA

22

Under the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a

23 public entity's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with

24 disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the

25 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination

26 by any public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.149. A public entity must operate each service

27 so it “is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,” 28 C.F.R

28

15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 § 35.150(a), including by removing barriers to access as necessary. See also Barden

2 v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002); Parker v. Universidad de

3 Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000).

4

The ADA plainly requires the most basic facilities or services in jails, such as

5 toilets, sinks, showers, and drinking fountains to be safely accessible to detainees

6 with disabilities. See Pierce, 2008 WL 2052408 at *21 & *30 n.44 (adequate

7 bathroom facilities are “services” of the jail within the meaning of the ADA).

8 Moreover, barriers must be removed when necessary to avoid unlawful

9 discrimination. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.

10

The architectural barriers identified in Plaintiffs’ expert’s ADA Compliance

11 Report on the Los Angeles County Jails include, without limitation: (1) toilets

12 without grab bars necessary for inmates with mobility disabilities, Hopper Decl.,

13 Exh. B at 18; (2) showers with a six inch curb that preclude entry, and no grab bars or

14 fixed wall seats, which make them “unusable by the vast majority of inmates with

15 disabilities” id.; (3) bathroom sinks without the necessary knee clearance for people

16 in wheelchairs, id.; (4) inaccessible bathroom facilities in common areas such as the

17 rooftop, classrooms, and law libraries, id. at 21; and (5) the lack of a single accessible

18 bathroom, shower or water fountain in the Inmate Reception Center, which processes

19 600-1200 inmates at any given time, id. at 25.

20

Each of these structural violations individually leads to daily struggles for

21 detainees with disabilities, including rendering them unable to use the toilet without

22 help, Gomez Decl. ¶ 3; causing them to fall while trying to maneuver over the

23 shower curb, P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 11; and leaving them with no access to drinking

24 water because drinking fountains are not accessible, id. ¶ 4. They also lead to even

25 more inhumane consequences, such as inmates with disabilities having to crawl and

26 drag themselves on the ground to reach the toilet, Tribble Decl. ¶ 4, or being left

27 sitting in their own urine or feces for hours, or even days, because of inaccessible

28 bathrooms. P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 3; C. Reyes Decl. ¶ 6.

16
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

Collectively, these violations combine with Defendants’ denial of basic

2 accommodations and services necessary for Plaintiffs to manage their disabilities

3 (like bottom bunk sleeping assignments, medication and medical equipment, physical

4 therapy and proper medical treatment and safe transportation), and access to

5 programs that are available to other detainees (like roof time, exercise, recreational,

6 educational and vocational programs) to “add up to a wholesale exclusion” of

7 individuals with disabilities from the programs and services of the Los Angeles

8 County Jails. See Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board, 348 F.3d 850, 861 (10th Cir.

9 2003). Any way you slice it, these structural barriers violate the ADA.

10

b. Defendants’ Failure To Make Reasonable Modifications

11

To Policies And Procedures To Avoid Discrimination Against People With Disabilities Violates The ADA

12

Defendants are also violating the ADA by failing to modify procedures in the

13 jails to avoid discrimination against detainees with disabilities where possible. See

14 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7), and generally 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. For example, LASD

15 staff fails to ensure that people with disabilities are assigned to sleep in bottom

16 bunks, even when they cannot physically climb up to a top bunk or do so only with

17 great pain. Of course, the general jail population is not typically assigned to

18 functionally inaccessible beds. Moreover, LASD could readily develop a system to

19 ensure that people with physical disabilities and disabling medical conditions have

20 lower bunks, but it has chosen not to do so.

21

Similarly, Defendants have failed repeatedly to provide necessary medication

22 (including pain medication, injections for diabetics, and other prescription

23 medications), medical equipment (including wheelchairs, mobility aids, and catheters

24 for those suffering bladder control problems) and medical services (including nurses’

25 and doctors’ visits) to detainees with disabilities. The lack of appropriate medical

26 accommodations for inmates with disabilities, in itself, violates their rights under the

27 ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(vii) (public entity may not limit an individual

28

17
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 with a disability “in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity

2 enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service”); Kiman v. New Hampshire

3 Dep’t of Corr., 451 F.3d 274, 286-87 (1st Cir. 2006) (access to medication is part of

4 the prison’s medical services and thus, one of the “services, programs, or activities”

5 covered by the ADA) (citing U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 157 (2006)). Moreover,

6 because the denial of adequate medical services also impairs the abilities of detainees

7 with disabilities to participate in other programs, services and activities that are

8 accessible by the general jail population, and thus contributes to a “wholesale” denial

9 of program access, in violation of the ADA. See Chaffin, 348 F.3d at 861.

10

c. Defendants Deny Detainees With Disabilities Access To

11

Programs Available To The General Jail Population In Violation Of The ADA

12

The Ninth Circuit recently made crystal clear that, “[a]ny type of educational,

13 vocational, rehabilitative, or recreational program, service, or activity offered [by a

14 jail system] to nondisabled detainees should, when viewed in its entirety, be similarly

15 available to disabled detainees who, with or without reasonable accommodations,

16 meet the essential eligibility requirements to participate.” Pierce, 2008 WL 2052408

17 at *24; see Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 210 (inmate cannot be categorically excluded from a

18 program based solely on disability). The Pierce decision emphatically resolves the

19 question of whether Defendants’ denial of beneficial programs to people with

20 disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jails violates the ADA. It does.

21

In Pierce, a class action suit brought by inmates with disabilities against the

22 Orange County Jail system, plaintiffs argued that, by virtue of being housed

23 exclusively in that county’s MCJ, they were categorically denied access to a variety

24 of programs, such as agricultural training, woodworking, and welding, that were

25 available in the other county jail facilities. Id. at 2008 WL 2052408 at *24. The

26 Ninth Circuit held that ADA regulations contemplate “‘reassignment of services to

27 accessible buildings,’ as a permissible means of accommodation,” id. (quoting 28

28

18
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1)), and that the “County may not shunt the disabled into facilities 2 where there is no possibility of access to those programs.” Id.6

3

LASD’s practice of segregating detainees with disabilities in areas of MCJ

4 where they are denied access to a variety of programs that are available to the general

5 jail population is precisely the practice the Ninth Circuit declared unlawful in 6 Pierce.7 Indeed, the consequences of such segregation in Los Angeles County MCJ

7 are more severe than they were in Orange County. As Logan Hopper noted, although

8 the large number of vocational and educational programs offered at certain facilities

9 “was quite impressive,” (Hoppe Decl., Exh. B at 8), these programs and services are

10 not available to the inmates with disabilities in MCJ. Id. at 9; see, e.g., Peterson

11 Decl. ¶ 4; Ceballos Decl. ¶ 18; Curfman Decl. ¶ 12; C. Reyes Decl. ¶ 12. Moreover,

12 the disparity between the level of programs and services available to the general

13 inmate population, as compared to inmates with disabilities, is particularly egregious

14 in light of the fact that “minor, cost-effective, and well-placed physical

15 improvements” could accommodate inmates with disabilities, allowing them to

16 participate in the programs and services that they are currently excluded from. Id. at

17 30. “Little thought seems to have been given to how inmates could or would be

18 accommodated within all of the programs that are offered to the general inmate

19

20

6 See also Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr., 103 F.3d 558, 558-61 (7th Cir. 1996)

21 (segregation of quadriplegic inmate in the infirmary, which resulted in exclusion

22 from recreational facilities, dining hall, visitation facilities, substance abuse programs, education, church, work, and other programs available to the general

23 population violated the ADA); Clarkson v. Coughlin, 898 F.Supp. 1019, 1047, 52

24 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (exclusion of inmates with disabilities from prison programs

violated the ADA).

25

7 In addition to the effect of the segregation, i.e., denial of programs and

26 services available to other inmates, the act of segregation itself is prohibited under

27

the ADA and accompanying regulations. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) (public entity must administer services, programs, and activities “in the most integrated setting

28 appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”)

19
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 population…and the need to provide equal access to programs for those individuals

2 [with disabilities] is almost entirely unknown.” Id. at 6. Such categorical

3 segregation of people with disabilities in MCJ, and the resulting denial of programs

4 and services, solely by reason of their disabilities, is an indisputable ADA violation.

5

5. Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act Similarly Prohibits

6

Discrimination Against Inmates With Disabilities

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, similarly prohibits
7

discrimination against individuals with disabilities, by reason of the disability. The
8

substantive standards for determining liability under Section 504 and the ADA “are
9

the same.” McDonald v. Penn. Dept. of Public Welfare, 62 F.3d 92, 95 (3d Cir.
10

1995) (citing Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 281 (4th Cir. 1995)); see Collings, 63 F.3d
11

at 832 n.3. The only additional requirement of Section 504 is that it is limited to
12

programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. § 794.
13

“Program or activity” under Section 504 covers all operations of the government
14

department or agency, “any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.
15

29 U.S.C. § 794(b). Accordingly, because Defendants receive federal funding for
16

their programs, they violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for the same
17

reasons that they violate the ADA. See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. A through
18

D (requests from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to the County Board
19
of Supervisors for authorization to receive various federal grant awards).8
20

C. Plaintiffs Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Injury Without A

21

Preliminary Injunction

22

Having established a likelihood of success on the merits of its state and federal

23 statutory nondiscrimination claims, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction

24

25

8 Defendants’ violation of the ADA similarly establishes violations of several analogous California disability rights statutes that form the basis of other claims in

26 the Complaint. See Cal. Govt. Code § 11135(b) (ADA violation also constitutes

27

violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 11135); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f) (same for Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.); Cal. Civ. Code § 54(c) (same for Cal. Civ. Code § 54, et seq.);

28 Cal. Govt. Code § 4450(c) (same for Cal. Govt. Code § 4450).

20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 upon a showing that they will continue to suffer irreparable injury if an injunction

2 does not issue. See Clear Channel, 340 F.3d at 813; Rodde, 357 F.3d at 998-99.

3 Plaintiffs readily meet this standard for a number of reasons. First, bodily harm such

4 as Plaintiffs allege and have demonstrated in this motion, including pain, infection,

5 and medical complications due to delayed or inadequate treatment constitutes

6 irreparable injury. See Harris v. Board of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754, 758, 66 (9th

7 Cir. 2004). Similarly, injuries to individual dignity resulting from ADA violations, in

8 themselves, constitute irreparable injury. Save Our Summers v. Wash. State Dept. of

9 Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896, 906 (E.D. Wash. 1999) (citing Cupulo v. Bay Area

10 Rapid Transit, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1084 (N.D. Cal. 1997)); Sullivan v. Vallejo City

11 Unified School Dist., 5 F. Supp. 947, 961 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (harm to ability to

12 function as independent person constitutes irreparable injury). Finally, “‘[a]n alleged

13 constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.’”

14 Associated General Contractors of Cal. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401,

15 1412 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Ct, 739 F.2d 466, 16 472 (9th Cir. 1984)).9 Indeed, far less severe harms that result from ADA violations

17

18

9 Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (Fourteenth Amendment affords pretrial detainees

20 protections “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a

21

convicted prisoner”). Plaintiffs allege that the same practices that violate their rights under state and federal nondiscrimination laws likewise infringe their constitutional

22 rights. Courts have held that the constitutional claims Plaintiffs assert here can be

23

based on facts similar to those found in the declarations that support this motion, such as jail or prison officials’ denial of wheelchairs to detainees who are paralyzed

24 from the waist down, see Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 187 (6th Cir. 1993) –

25

especially when the detainee must then crawl on the floor and officials refuse him the help needed to clean his person, see Cummings v. Roberts, 628 F.2d 1065, 1068 (8th

26 Cir. 1980); ignoring a paraplegic detainee’s needs during his first ten days of

27

incarceration, Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1244 (6th Cir. 1989); failing to provide adequate medication and treatment for serious medical conditions,

28 see Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir.

21
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 have been found “irreparable” for purposes of injunctive relief. See Cupulo, 5 F.

2 Supp. 2d at 1084 (indignity resulting rom non-functioning elevators at transit stations

3 deemed irreparable harm). If inconvenience and indignity caused by non-functioning

4 elevators constitute irreparable harm, Plaintiffs here have far exceeded that standard.

5 Because Plaintiffs’ declarations demonstrate a likelihood of bodily injuries to inmates

6 with disabilities, harm to their personal dignity arising from the County’s gross

7 disregard for its obligations under the ADA, and harms with constitutional

8 dimension, they have demonstrated a sufficient risk of irreparable harm to justify a

9 preliminary injunction.

10

D. The Balance of Hardships Plainly Favors Plaintiffs

11

In a case like this one, where the party seeking a preliminary injunction has

12 demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, a court has

13 little need to balance the equities to determine whether an injunction is appropriate.

14 Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. 340 F.3d at 813. Plaintiffs have already demonstrated

15 both here and balancing is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, Defendants will suffer

16 little from issuance of the requested injunction, which will merely accelerate the pace

17 at which they come into compliance with statutes with which they are bound to

18 comply in any event. The balance therefore favors issuance of an injunction.

19

Defendants may contend that a preliminary injunction would harm the County

20 because it is already financially challenged and compliance would be costly. The

21 argument should be rejected out of hand. Some changes that Plaintiffs seek would

22 cost little to implement, such as creating systems and protocols regarding access to

23 wheelchairs and other medical equipment, and monitoring needed medications so

24 they do not run out without being renewed.

25 2003); depriving detainees of access to toilet facilities, see Palmer v. Johnson, 193

26 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999); or denying them any opportunity for physical exercise,

27

see Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1152 (5th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s claims and alleged harms thus have a constitutional dimension that only underscores the need for

28 immediate relief from such serious and irreparable harm.

22
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

Other changes will save the County money in the long run by maintaining the

2 health and well-being of thousands of County residents who have been and will again

3 be the County’s responsibility when they return to the community. For example,

4 Christian Reyes was treated at another County institution – Rancho Los Amigos

5 Rehabilitation Hospital – after his initial injury earlier this year. L. Reyes Decl., ¶ 3.

6 After thousands of dollars in county funds were expended to treat and improve his

7 condition, another county institution – the Jail – then neglected his care, failed to

8 continue his physical therapy, and subjected him to additional injury, so that all the

9 improvements achieved at Rancho are now lost. Whenever Christian Reyes returns

10 to the community, he will require more care, and more expensive care, as a result of

11 his mis-treatment in the jail. His chances of becoming a productive citizen are also

12 significantly diminished. Because the County itself funds and operates the hospitals

13 that will treat these individuals with disabilities after their release, it is in the

14 County’s interest to accommodate and not exacerbate, their disabilities. The County

15 could also realize cost-avoidance benefits by reducing its risk of multi-million dollar

16 damages lawsuits for the mistreatment of detainees with disabilities.

17

The relief requested here can also be a “win-win” for the County by ultimately

18 saving county funds. The prohibitory injunction requested would forbid LASD from

19 holding people with disabilities unless it can meet their needs. One way to comply is

20 to develop alternatives to incarceration and pre-trial release programs for this

21 population. When this suit was filed, Sheriff Lee Baca stated publicly that the County

22 spends $700-$800 per day to house detainees with disabilities in their current

23 conditions, and suggested selective home detention as a cost-saving alternative. See

24 Decl. of Helen Eckert, Exh. A: Richard Winton, Disabled Inmates Subjected To

25 Shocking Conditions In Los Angeles County Jails, Los Angeles Times (May 29,

26 2008) (quoting Sheriff Baca). Plaintiffs welcome such a solution.

27

Ultimately, even if compliance will be costly, however, when faced with a

28 balancing of hardships between preventable human suffering and financial

23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1 constraints, courts have “‘little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips

2 decidedly in plaintiff’s favor.’” Harris v. Bd of Supervisors, Los Angeles, 366 F.3d

3 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.

4 1983)). As Judge Gray explained 30 years ago, although an injunction may pose

5 difficulties for LASD, considerations of statutory and constitutional “rights and basic 6 decency” require the injunction to correct inhuman conditions in L.A. County Jails.10

7 Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F.Supp. 104, 114 (C.D. Cal. 1978), re’vd in part on other

8 grounds sub nom., Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984).

9

E. A Preliminary Injunction Would Advance The Public Interest

10

The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that “government must be concerned not only

11 with the public fisc but also with the public weal,” adding that “[o]ur society as a

12 whole suffers when we neglect the poor, the hungry, the disabled, or when we

13 deprive them of their rights or privileges.” Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1437. It is always in

14 the public interest to protect constitutional and statutory rights, especially with

15 respect to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are free from unlawful

16 discrimination. See Warshak v. U.S., 490 F.3d 455, 481-82 (6th Cir. 2007) (it is

17 always in the public interest to prevent violations of constitutional rights); 42 U.S.C.

18 § 12101 (purpose of the ADA is to remedy discrimination against individuals with

19 disabilities, who occupy an inferior status in society). Nothing about this calculus

20 changes because Plaintiffs are inmates. See Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of

21 Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Rights against discrimination are

22 among the few rights that prisoners do not park at the prison gates.”). An injunction

23 would plainly serve the public interest.

24

25

26

10 Of course, denial of an injunction would likely only perpetuate the

27

unspeakable conditions that Plaintiffs are forced to tolerate, while the County continues its decade long pattern of delay in coming to terms with its obligations

28 under the ADA.

24
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

F. The Preliminary Injunction Complies With the Prison Reform

2

Litigation Act

3

As required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C.

4 § 3626(a)(2), Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that would be narrowly drawn

5 to extend no further than necessary to redress the County’s violations of the ADA

6 and Rehabilitation Act and to prevent them from recurring. See Armstrong v. Davis,

7 275 F.3d 849, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2001).

8 IV. CONCLUSION

9

Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their ADA and Rehabilitation

10 Act claims and, if the County’s violations of those statutes are not enjoined, will

11 continue to suffer irreparable harm as they are subjected to the unspeakable

12 conditions detailed above that are imposed uniquely on people with disabilities in the

13 Los Angeles County Jails.11 For these reasons, and because an injunction plainly

14 serves the public interest, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction should be

15 granted and the Court should issue an order requiring that they be afforded treatment

16 that comports with basic standards of human decency.

17 Dated: June 9, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

18
HELLER EHRMAN LLP
19

20

By: /s/ John C. Ulin

JOHN C. ULIN

21

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

11 The Court has the discretion to issue a preliminary injunction without

24 requiring Plaintiffs to post a bond. People ex rel Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional

25

Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325-26 (9th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985). Exercise of that discretion is particularly

26 appropriate where an action is brought by a class of indigent plaintiffs. Orantes-

27

Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F.Supp. 351, 386 n. 42 (C.D. Cal. 1982). Here, too, no bond should be required as this case has been brought by a class of indigent

28 plaintiffs.

25
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:1535
FILED

1 Paula D. Pearlman (State Bar No. 109038) Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu
2 ShawnaL. Parks (State BarNo. 208301) Shawna.Parks@lls.edu
3 Matthew strugar@tate Bar No. 232951) Matthew.Strugafi lls.edu
4 DISABILITY RI HTS LEGAL CENTER 5 919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, California 90015 6 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428

2010 JUN 10 PM 3: 105
r:LERK U ~,. CiS:R:C7 C0~'~T CENTR/'!. C,ST, r, CAli~ LOS ,',NGf. i>
0" _ _ _ _ _ __

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No.: CV 08-3515 DDP (JTLx)

11 PETERJOHNSON,DONALD PETERSON and MICHAEL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

12 CGUORNFZMALAENL4 .ACNODLRUEMBBUUTSLER, JOE

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF:

13 GRIGSBY, and DERRICK WHITE on behalf of themselves and all others

1.

Americans with Disabilities Act

14 similarly situated,

(42 U.S.c. § 12131 et seq.)

15

Plaintiffs,

2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.)

16

vs.

3. California Government Code Section

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

11135, et seq.

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, armblic 4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil

18 entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angi::les, and

Code §51, et seq.)

19 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a

5. Blind and Other Physically Disabled

public entity, ,

Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code § 54, et

20

Defendants.

seq.)

21

6. California Government Code § 4450,

22

et seq. 7. Eighth Amendment (42 U.S.C. §

23

1983)

24

8. Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.c. §

1983)

25

CLASS ACTION

26

27

28

1 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:1536
Hector Villagra (State Bar No. 177586) hvillagra(aJ,aClu-sc.org .. 2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Boulevard 3 Los Angeles, California 90026 4 Tel: (213) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 250-3980 5 Anna Masters (State Bar No. 117060) amasters@winston.com 6 Benjamin Gipson (State Bar No. 222830) bgipson(aJ,winston.com 7 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue 8 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750
9
Melinda Bird (State Bar No. 102236) 10 melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
Rachel Scherer (State Bar No. 260538) 11 rachel.scherer(aJ,disabilityrightsca.org
DISABILITY 'RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 12 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 902
Los Angeles, CA 90010 13 Tel: (213) 427-8747 Fax: (213) 427-8767
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27 28
2 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:1537

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 1. The first two claims alleged herein arise under the Americans with Disabilities

3 Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.) ("ADA"), and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of

4 1973 (29 U.S.c. §794 et seq.) ("Section 504"), such that the jurisdiction of this Court is

5 invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Through the same actions and

6 omissions that form the basis of Plaintiffs' federal claims, Defendants have also violated

7 Plaintiffs' rights under state law, over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for

9 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 65 of

10 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11 2. Venue over Plaintiffs' claims is proper in the Central District of California

12 because Defendants reside in the Central District of California within the meaning of28

13 U.S.C. § 1391, and because the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs'

14 claims occurred in the Central District of California.

15

INTRODUCTION

16 3. This lawsuit is brought to address systemic and pervasive discrimination against

17 people with disabilities in the Los Angeles County Jail system. Despite the acute need for

18 accommodations and physical access within the jail environment, the County of Los

19 Angeles and Los Angeles Sheriff s Department currently fail to provide any legally

20 acceptable level of access, services or accommodations for people with disabilities in the

21 jails.

22 4. Instead, people with disabilities in the Los Angeles County jails are denied

23 accommodations or provided inadequate accommodations, inappropriately segregated,

24 excluded from jail programs and services, and subjected to multiple and pervasive

25 physical access barriers throughout the facilities. The result is a system that imposes some

26 of the worst conditions on people with disabilities while at the same time excluding them

27 from the most beneficial of programs within the jail. These conditions have dire

28 consequences for people with disabilities.

3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:1538
1 5. From the time they are processed at the jail, people with disabilities face myriad 2 discriminatory conditions. For example, at the Inmate Reception Center ("IRC") people 3 with disabilities sit in their own feces for hours or days because there is no accessible 4 bathroom available. Even though everyone entering the jail system passes through the 5 IRC, and many remain there for days, there is not a single accessible toilet at this facility. 6 6. Once they are housed, the discriminatory conditions continue. People with 7 disabilities are housed in windowless, decaying facilities that are among the worst in the 8 jail system. Most people with disabilities are kept in their cells 24 hours per day, other 9 than occasional trips to the shower. Inmates with disabilities are regularly denied outdoor 10 exercise, or any exercise at all, for months on end. Physical therapy is not provided to 11 people with disabilities at the jail, no matter how great the need. 12 7. People with disabilities are also explicitly denied the opportunity to be trustees, a 13 valued position within the jail. They are also prohibited from participating in most jail 14 programs, including vocational programs, because people with disabilities are housed in 15 segregated settings that do not provide these services. 16 8. Even when housed in units purportedly designated for people with disabilities, 17 inmates face pervasive architectural barriers. Many of these units lack required access 18 features, such as grab bars in showers or toilets. As a result, many people with disabilities 19 have fallen and injured themselves while simply trying to take a shower or use the toilet. 20 9. Others have had their wheelchairs taken away or are denied the use of a 21 wheelchair despite their obvious or documented need for one. At best, these inmates use 22 dangerously inadequate alternatives, such as walkers, in an attempt to move around. At 23 worst, inmates must deal with excruciating pain when attempting to walk, crawl on the 24 floor, or simply stay in bed for days, weeks or even months while they are incarcerated. 25 10. Those who do receive wheelchairs or other equipment are often given equipment 26 that is in a dangerous state of disrepair. For example, many of the wheelchairs provided 27 within Los Angeles County Jails lack footrests. As a result, inmates' feet drag on the 28 ground, causing them to bruise and making it extremely difficult and dangerous to move
4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:1539

1 to or from the wheelchair. In an attempt to avoid this dangerous situation, those who use

2 these wheelchairs often tie plastic bags across the bottom as a makeshift footrest in an

3 effort to gain leverage and balance.

4

II. People with disabilities are also subjected to dangerous and difficult conditions

5 when they are transported by the Sheriff's Department to and from the jails. People with

6 disabilities often have their mobility aids taken away when boarding buses and must

7 attempt to steady themselves for fear of falling. Inmates who use wheelchairs are often

8 placed on buses with insufficient space for their wheelchairs. As a result, they must

9 attempt to transfer on to benches without assistance, where they are neither restrained nor

10 secured. In many of these situations, inmates with disabilities fall or nearly fall simply

11 attempting to ride the jail's buses.

12 12. People with disabilities who rely on medication or other medical supplies, such

13 as catheters, to address their disability needs find that provision of such supplies within

14 the jails is inconsistent at best and nonexistent at worst. Similarly, requested

15 accommodations, such as an extra set of sheets for someone whose disability causes

16 bladder control problems or a bottom bunk assignment for someone with a seizure

17 disorder, are routinely denied. The result is that inmates' conditions become dangerously

18 out of control or exacerbated by lack of necessary supplies and accommodations.

19 13. These, and many other conditions, result in a system that violates the

20 fundamental rights of people with disabilities within the Los Angeles County Jail system.

21 Plaintiffs thus initiate this suit under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42

22 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. (the "ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

23 794 (the "Rehabilitation Act"), as well as analogous state statutes alleging that

24 Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their disabilities, and that Defendants

25 maintain, operate, and control the Los Angeles County Jail System in a manner that

26 violates the rights of people with disabilities under state and federal nondiscrimination

27 statutes. The County's actions and inactions also clearly demonstrate a deliberate

28 indifference to the needs and rights of people with disabilities within the Los Angeles

5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:1540

1 County jails in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs thus

2 also seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3 14. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the above statutes, as

4 well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs under applicable law.

5

PARTIES

6 15. Plaintiffs are people with disabilities who are or were housed within Los

7 Angeles County Jail facilities. They bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all

8 present and future inmates and detainees who are or will be housed in the Los Angeles

9 County Jail system, and who, because oftheir disabilities, have been or will be

10 discriminated against.

11 16. Plaintiff Peter Johnson is paraplegic. Plaintiff Johnson is a "qualified person

12 with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.c.

13 §12131(2),29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926.

14 17. Plaintiff Donald Peterson has diabetes and a significant mobility disability,

15 stemming from the loss offeeling in his right leg and severe pain and substantial mobility

16 limitations in his right arm. Plaintiff Peterson is a "qualified person with a disability"

17 within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C.

18 §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926.

19 18. Plaintiff Michael Curfman has partial paralysis and traumatic brain injury that

20 causes, among other things, a substantial mobility limitation. Plaintiff Curfman is a

21 "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including

22 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926.

23 19. Plaintiff Andre Butler has partial paralysis on his left side, severe arthritis, and a

24 spinal injury. Plaintiff Butler is a "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning

25 of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2),29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

26 California Government Code § 12926.

27 20. Plaintiff Joe Gonzalez has partial paralysis in his left leg. Plaintiff Gonzalez is a

28 "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including

6 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:1541
1 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California Government Code § 12926. 2 21. Plaintiff Columbus Grigsby has partial paralysis in his left side, including his 3 left arm and leg, as well as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Hypoglycemia. Plaintiff 4 Grigsby is a "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable 5 statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and California 6 Government Code § 12926. 7 22. Plaintiff Derrick White has partial paralysis on his left side as the result of a 8 spinal injury. Plaintiff White is a "qualified person with a disability" within the meaning 9 of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2),29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and 10 California Government Code § 12926. 11 23. The Plaintiff class consists of all detainees and inmates with physical disabilities 12 and disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate 13 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with 14 federal and state disability laws. 15 24. Hereafter, references to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include the named 16 Plaintiffs and each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated. 17 25. Defendant County of Los Angeles ("County") is a local government entity 18 within the meaning of the Title II of the ADA, and receives federal funding within the 19 meaning ofthe Rehabilitation Act. The County is responsible for providing the jail 20 facilities and for funding the construction and operations of the Los Angeles jail facilities, 21 including funding to and oversight of Defendant Los Angeles Sheriffs Department 22 ("LASD"). The County also promulgates policies and procedures at these facilities. 23 26. Defendant LASD is a local government entity created under the laws of the state 24 of California, and an agency of Defendant County. The LASD is responsible for 25 operating the Los Angeles County Jail facilities, including promulgating policies and 26 procedures at those facilities. 27 27. Defendants LASD and County are "persons" subject to suit within the meaning 28 of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under Monell v. New York Department ofSocial Services, 436 U.S.
7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:1542

1 658,691 (1978). Under California Government Code § 815(a), these Defendants are

2 liable for any and all wrongful acts in violation of state law hereinafter complained of and

3 committed by any of these Defendants' employees acting within the course and scope of

4 their employment.

5 28. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants County and

6 LASD have been public entities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and have

7 received federal financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, and

8 state financial assistance within the meaning of Govemrnent Code Section 11135.

9 29. Defendant Leroy Baca is the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. He is an elected

10 official of the County and responsible for oversight of Defendant LASD and

11 implementation of its policy. Plaintiffs name Defendant Baca in his official capacity

12 only.

13 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant was

14 the agent and employee of every other defendant and was at all times acting within the

15 scope of such agency.

16 31. Hereafter, references to Defendants shall be deemed to include all named

17 Defendants, unless otherwise indicated.

18

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

19 32. The Los Angeles County Jail system is the largest in the nation, processing more

20 than 180,000 people per year. The system is comprised of a number of facilities,

21 including Men's Central Jail, Twin Towers and the Inmate Reception Center which are

22 located in downtown Los Angeles, the North County Correctional Facility and Pitchess

23 Detention Center both located in Northern Los Angeles County, and the Central Regional

24 Detention Facility, located in Lynwood. The entire County jail system houses

25 approximately 19,000 people at any given time.

26 33. Throughout the Los Angeles County Jail system there are significant problems

27 for people with disabilities with respect to classification, housing, access to programs and

28 services, and physical access barriers. Defendants systemically fail to effectively evaluate

8 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:1543

1 the needs of people with disabilities within the jails, and to meet those needs through

2 appropriate accommodations and physical access.

3 34. Systemic issues include, but are not limited to, failure to appropriately identifY

4 people with disabilities in need of accommodations and services, resulting in

5 inappropriate placement and/or classification of people with disabilities; failure to

6 provide appropriate mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, walkers and crutches; failure to

7 accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, including by failing to establish

8 reliable methods for medication, medical supplies and other disability accommodations;

9 failure to modifY policies and procedures for people with disabilities; failure to remove

10 multiple and pervasive architectural barriers throughout the jails; failure to allow people

11 with disabilities access to vocational, educational and other programs and services; failure

12 to provide safe and accessible transportation for people with disabilities; failure to have

13 an emergency and/or evacuation policy for people with disabilities; and failure to provide

14 an effective complaint procedure for disability related complaints.

15 35. These violations result from a number of pervasive problems, including, but not

16 limited to the following:

17

a. There is no comprehensive set of policies or procedures for identifYing

18

inmates with disabilities and determining appropriate accommodations,

19

modifications or services for these individuals;

20

b. Housing and classification decisions are made based on stereotypes and

21

misconceptions, and in an extremely cursory manner, relying mainly on the

22

simplest and quickest observations by staff;

23

c. This classification system results in, among other things, a failure to

24

recognize that persons who do not rely exclusively on wheelchairs may have

25

significant physical restrictions requiring accommodations;

26

d. People who are identified as having disabilities are housed in segregated

27

facilities that provide no access to the programs and services available in the

28

L.A. County Jail system;

9 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:1544

e. People who are not identified as having disabilities, but who nevertheless

2

have disabilities, are placed in units and are subject to procedures that fail to

3

provide necessary accommodations and services;

4

f. These facilities in which people identified as having disabilities are housed

5

are often those with the poorest conditions, including broken plumbing, lack

6

of any natural light and limited access to outdoor recreation, and are replete

7

with myriad architectural barriers;

8

g. Architectural barriers are also pervasive throughout the rest of the jail system.

9

This includes a failure to make housing and programming accessible to

10

people with disabilities, as well as a failure to provide emergency evacuation

II

plans for people with disabilities.

12 36. The above failings, in combination with erroneous assumptions about the

13 capabilities and legal rights of people with disabilities, ensure that the entire population of

14 people with disabilities has little to no access to the vast majority of programs and

15 services of the L.A. County Jail System.

16 37. This discrimination has a dramatic impact on people with disabilities within the

17 jails as represented by the experiences of the named Plaintiffs in this matter.

18 38. Plaintiff Peter Johnson has paraplegia. He was in Los Angeles County jail from

19 October of2007 to January of2009. Plaintiff Johnson had a number of disability related

20 problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access,

21 mobility aids and access to programs at the jail.

22 39. Upon entry into the jail system PlaintiffJohnson was brought into the IRC.

23 Plaintiff Johnson, who uses a wheelchair, was left in the IRC for approximately 8-10

24 hours despite the fact that there is no accessible bathroom in the IRC. As a result, he

25 soiled himself, and was left sitting in his own feces for approximately 6-8 hours.

26 40. Plaintiff Johnson also could not use the drinking fountains or phones in the IRC

27 because they are not accessible. Plaintiff Johnson tried to use an inaccessible phone to

28 make a phone call by attempting to transfer to a bench next to the phone. However, he

10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:1545

fell off the bench and onto the floor in that attempt.

2 41. At the IRC Plaintiff Johnson's wheelchair was taken away and replaced with a

3 jail issued chair. The jail wheelchair he was given had numerous problems. The

4 wheelchair made it difficult for Plaintiff Johnson to transfer to the toilet, and also lacked

5 footrests. As a result, Plaintiff Johnson's feet dragged on the floor. The wheelchair would

6 also flip forward if Plaintiff Johnson did not carefully maintain his balance.

7 42. Approximately three weeks later the jail returned Plaintiff Johnson's original

8 chair to him but insisted on replacing the wheels with jail issued wheels. However, these

9 new wheels did not fit his wheelchair. As a result, on Plaintiff Johnson's next court trip

10 one of the wheels fell off and he fell out of the chair injuring himself.

11

43. Plaintiff Johnson was housed in what is referred to as the 8100 block at Men's

12 Central Jail, which is the unit allegedly designated for wheelchair users. This unit

\3 receives little, if any, outdoor exercise. In the fifteen months that Plaintiff Johnson was in

14 this unit, he was only allowed outside for exercise on approximately seven occasions that

15 he can remember.

16 44. Other than the times that he went to the roof for exercise, the only time that

17 Plaintiff Johnson has been let outside is to go to court. Other than those events, and

18 Sunday visits to the jail chapel, Plaintiff Johnson remained in his jail cell twenty-four

19 hours per day seven days per week.

20 45. Even though he was housed in the unit allegedly designated for wheelchair

21 access, Plaintiff Johnson faced a number of architectural barriers. In one cell, there was a

22 lip at the shower intended to keep water in the shower area. However, this lip also keeps

23 wheelchairs out. In attempting to maneuver over this barrier, Plaintiff Johnson fell and

24 hurt himself. In another cell, the grab bar at the toilet was broken, and Plaintiff Johnson

25 fell on mUltiple occasions attempting to use the toilet.

26 46. Plaintiff Johnson also spent three weeks on the 8000 block at Men's Central Jail.

27 On the 8000 block, Plaintiff Johnson also was not allowed to shower when he soiled

28 himself, which on occasion happened when the jail food disagreed with his stomach.

1\ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:1546
I Even though he was supposed to be allowed to shower more frequently, he often went 2 many days at a time without a shower. Even after he had an accident deputies would not 3 allow him to shower. As a result, he often sat in his own feces for many days at a time. 4 47. Plaintiff Donald Peterson, a veteran of the United States military, has diabetes 5 and a significant mobility limitation. Plaintiff Peterson has no feeling in his right leg 6 going all the way up to his mid-torso. He also has chronic pain in his right arm such that 7 he cannot make a fist with his hand. The loss of mobility in his right side makes it 8 difficult for him to walk and balance unaided. He needs either crutches or a wheelchair 9 for mobility. Plaintiff Peterson had a number of disability related problems, including but 10 not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access, mobility aids and medication II for his disability. 12 48. Plaintiff Peterson was in Los Angeles County jail for approximately six months. 13 When he first arrived at the jail he was provided a wheelchair and placed in the 8100 14 block. While on that floor, other than church on Sunday, he spent nearly all of his time in 15 his cell. He was never allowed to the roof for exercise, and never participated in any 16 vocational or educational programs. 17 49. Approximately three months after his arrival, a deputy moved Plaintiff Peterson 18 to the 6050 unit, which is the unit at Men's Central Jail allegedly designated for people 19 with walkers or crutches. At that time his wheelchair was taken away and he was given a 20 walker. He had never used a walker before. As a result, he fell over when he tried to use 21 the walker. 22 50. Despite his disability, Plaintiff Peterson was given a top bunk in the 6050 unit. It 23 was very difficult for him to get up and down from the top bunk. The deputies also took 24 away his catheter bag which Plaintiff Peterson used to urinate at night without getting out 25 of bed. Without the catheter bag Plaintiff Peterson had either to get out of his top bunk or 26 wet the bed. Plaintiff Peterson fell a number oftimes trying to get out of his top bunk 27 when needing to go to the bathroom.
28
12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:1547
51. After a few days in 6050 Plaintiff Peterson was moved again, this time to the 2 general population. At that time the deputies took away his walker and he was not 3 provided any other mobility aid. In general population he fell down three times and had 4 to drag himself around and hold onto the walls when he attempted to move. After three 5 days he was finally provided with a pair of crutches. After receiving the crutches he was 6 moved back to 6050. 7 52. Plaintiff Peterson also has no teeth, in part due to his diabetes, and did not have 8 his dentures in the jail. He is supposed to be on a soft diet, meaning his food is mashed 9 up, but, except for one week in June of2008, he was only provided regular food. Plaintiff 10 Peterson tried to make food soft enough by swishing it around with water in his mouth. 11 53. Plaintiff Peterson takes medication to control his blood sugar levels as a result of 12 his diabetes. This medication was not provided regularly at the jail, and Plaintiff Peterson 13 went as many as three days without his medication. His blood sugar was also not 14 regularly screened. In the approximately six months he was in jail his blood sugar was 15 screened only approximately two dozen times. 16 54. Plaintiff Michael Curfman has partial paralysis and traumatic brain injury. He 17 has significant difficulty with walking,. balance and stability due to his disability. He was 18 in Los Angeles County jail since January of2007, and was at Men's Central Jail for 19 approximately twenty-two months. Plaintiff Curfman had a number of disability related 20 problems, including but not limited to, denial of accommodations and mobility aids for 21 his disability, and pervasive architectural barriers. 22 55. Before residing at Men's Central, Plaintiff Curfman was at Twin Towers in the 23 medical unit where he was provided a wheelchair for mobility. When he was moved to 24 Men's Central Plaintiff Curfman's wheelchair was taken away despite his partial 25 paralysis and traumatic brain injury. 26 56. Upon moving to Men's Central PlaintiffCurfinan was initially denied the use of 27 any mobility aid, including a walker. This made standing or walking extremely difficult 28 for him. Even when he was eventually provided a walker, the walker had a broken tip
13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:1548
1 causing it to be extremely unsteady. 2 57. The toilet in Plaintiff Curfman's unit had no grab bars for accessibility. As a 3 result, Plaintiff Curfman attempted to steady himself by attempting to hold on to the wall 4 or the sink. Similarly, Plaintiff Curfman's shower had no grab bars. As a result, it was 5 very difficult for him to steady himself while taking a shower. On at least three occasions 6 he fell while showering. 7 58. Plaintiff Curfman asked for a wheelchair to assist in his mobility but was told 8 that because he can stand he could not have a wheelchair. Plaintiff Curfman, who 9 developed his disabilities shortly before being admitted to the jail, received no physical 10 therapy to improve his mobility or his speech. As a result, he has attempted to learn how 11 to walk and speak again on his own. 12 59. As a result of his disability Plaintiff Curfman has a hard time controlling his 13 bladder. Because of his bladder control problems, he had accidents in his bed but was not 14 allowed to replace his soiled sheets or soiled clothes. He.was not allowed to shower if it 15 was not his tum. Ifhe had an accident and soiled himself he was still required to wait for 16 his tum to shower. As a result, he waited for more than a day in his soiled clothes. He 17 also could not get new sheets when his sheets were soiled. When he asked a deputy for a 18 fresh set of sheets to replace the soiled set he was told he could not have any. He 19 sometimes had to use soiled sheets for almost a week before they were replaced. 20 60. Plaintiff Curfman was only allowed out of his cell to shower. He was rarely 21 permitted to go outside for exercise. The only program he had access to is a Friday visit 22 by a chaplain. Otherwise, he did not have any access to programs at the jail. 23 61. Plaintiff Andre Butler has partial paralysis on his left side, severe arthritis, and a 24 spinal injury. He has been in Los Angeles County jail since January of2009. Defendants 25 have discriminated against Plaintiff Butler based on his ability, including but not limited 26 to denying him mobility aids, physical access, accommodations, and adequate 27 transportation to and from the facility. 28 62. Upon entry into the jail system Plaintiff Butler was brought to the IRC where a
14
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 15 of 37 Page ID #:1549
1 jail deputy took Plaintiff Butler's wheelchair from him. During the approximately twenty2 four hours Plaintiff But1er spent in the IRC, he had to hop around on one leg to get 3 around. Plaintiff Butler also had to hop and limp to his court appearance the following 4 day. 5 63. Plaintiff Butler is not provided safe transportation to and from the facility. 6 During a transport from court to MCJ, Plaintiff Butler was unchained from other inmates 7 because of he was unable to walk from court to the bus. He remained unchained from 8 other inmates during the bus ride back from court, and was not secured for the ride. The 9 bus got in an accident, and Plaintiff Butler was thrown from his seat. As a result, Plaintiff 10 Butler's jaw broke in five places, ribs broke on his left side, and his neck was injured. He 11 received emergency treatment at Los Angeles County Medical Center and stayed there for 12 a week and a half before returning to MCJ. 13 64. Upon reentry to MCJ, Plaintiff But1er was again brought to the IRC and 14 provided with a four-legged chair with small wheels on the bottom of the legs. This 15 "wheelchair" provided Plaintiff Butler with no way to push himself around. He stayed in 16 that chair for approximately eighteen hours before he was given a functioning wheelchair 17 and taken to the Medical Services Building in Twin Towers. After a number of weeks in 18 the Medical Services Building, Plaintiff Butler was transferred to the 8000 unit. 19 65. Even though the 8000 unit is allegedly designated for wheelchair access, 20 Plaintiff Butler faced a number of architectural barriers. The single man cells on the 8000 21 unit did not have grab bars for the toilet or the showers. In the ten-man dorm, only one of 22 the two toilets had grab bars. As a result, Plaintiff Butler fell several times when 23 transferring from the toilet to his wheelchair. 24 66. Plaintiff Butler has faced myriad of problems related to nonfunctioning 25 wheelchairs. The first wheelchair the jail provided Plaintiff Butler lacked footrests. The 26 absence of footrests caused Plaintiff Butler's feet to drag and scrape the floor when he 27 moved. Plaintiff Butler had his criminal attorney bring him a personal wheelchair, but 28 after a return from a trip to los Angeles County Medical Center for follow-up treatment
15 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINr FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 16 of 37 Page ID #:1550
1 for his jaw injury, deputies at MCJ claimed Plaintiff Butler's personal wheelchair was 2 "lost." The jail-issued wheelchair they provided him had no brakes and was so worn that 3 his buttocks sat directly on the metal frame. 4 67. Plaintiff Butler spent most of approximately four months in disciplinary 5 segregation because he refused to allow MCJ staff to take his wheelchair from him and 6 move him to the unit designed for people who use walkers and crutches. In August of 7 2009, deputies first told Plaintiff Butler he was "declassed"-meaning he would be 8 moved from the wheelchair unit to either the general population or the united designed 9 for people who use walkers or crutches. When he refused to get out of his wheelchair, 10 deputies placed Plaintiff Butler in disciplinary segregation. 11 68. Between August of2009 and January of2010, Plaintiff Butler was "declassed" 12 and "reclassed"-meaning an MCJ doctor reassigned him to the wheelchair unit13 approximately five times, despite the fact that his condition was unchanged. Because 14 Plaintiff Butler refused to allow jail staff to take his wheelchair from him, he typically 15 went to disciplinary segregation when he was "declassed," and came out of segregation 16 when he was "reclassed." 17 69. Plaintiff Joe Gonzalez has partial paralysis in his left leg. He has been in Los 18 Angeles County jail since October 2009 and is currently housed at the 8100 unit of Men's 19 Central Jail. Plaintiff Gonzalez has a number of disability related problems, including but 20 not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access, mobility aids and access to 21 programs and services at the jail. 22 70. Upon arrest, Plaintiff Gonzalez stated his need for a wheelchair but was 23 informed that he did not need to bring his wheelchair with him to the police station. 24 Plaintiff Gonzalez uses a wheelchair to travel distances over 10 to 20 feet. Plaintiff 25 Gonzalez assumed that he might not be questioned for very long and obeyed the officer's 26 order. When Plaintiff Gonzalez had been held at the station for some time, he again 27 stated he needed his wheelchair. Officers at the police station told him that he would get 28 a wheelchair when he arrived to the IRC or "glass house."
16 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 17 of 37 Page ID #:1551
1 71. Upon arriving at the jail, Plaintiff Gonzalez was not provided with a wheelchair. 2 Instead, Plaintiff Gonzalez was forced to climb a flight of stairs, descend a flight of stairs, 3 and climb onto a bus to travel to his first arraignment. Plaintiff Gonzalez attempted to 4 perform these activities while holding his paralyzed leg with both hands and hopping on 5 one leg. Plaintiff Gonzalez fell when trying to hop onto the bus. Plaintiff Gonzalez was 6 placed in a holding tank where there was no room to sit except by holding his legs to his 7 chest. Plaintiff Gonzalez's paralyzed leg was beginning to swell and turn purple because 8 he is supposed to elevate his leg regularly to keep the blood circulating. Plaintiff 9 Gonzalez fell when leaving the holding tank. When Plaintiff Gonzalez informed deputies 10 that he needed a wheelchair, he was brought crutches. Plaintiff Gonzalez attempted to 11 use the crutches but was not able to do so. A nurse saw that Plaintiff Gonzalez's leg was 12 swollen and purple and stated he should elevate it. Plaintiff Gonzalez began to elevate 13 his leg on a bar and a deputy yelled at him for doing so, accusing him of acting like he 14 was royalty. Plaintiff Gonzalez informed the deputy that he was following the nurse's 15 order and that his leg was paralyzed. The nurse returned and Plaintiff Gonzalez was 16 finally provided a wheelchair. This wheelchair did not have an arm that Plaintiff 17 Gonzalez could remove to safely transfer to a bed or the toilet. 18 72. Plaintiff Gonzalez was informed that he would be transferred to the wheelchair 19 unit or the 8100 floor. However, there were no open beds on 8100 so Plaintiff Gonzalez 20 slept for two days in the IRe sitting in the wheelchair. 21 73. After Plaintiff Gonzalez was placed on 8100, he resided there for three or four 22 months until he was de-classed to the "step-down" unit, also known as 7000, for almost 23 three weeks. On unit 7000 wheelchairs are not available; only walkers and crutches are. 24 On unit 7000, the beds do not elevate like they do on 8100 to assist with blood circulation 25 in a paralyzed leg. Plaintiff Gonzalez was placed on unit 7000 for about 30 days and 26 attempted to use crutches as best he could before his paralyzed left leg was so swollen 27 and purple that jail staff decided to return the wheelchair to him to protect his health and 28 safety from further deterioration.
17 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 18 of 37 Page ID #:1552
1 74. When Plaintiff Gonzalez was first approached about having been de-classed to 2 7000, he was told that ifhe did not get out of his wheelchair and use crutches that he 3 would go into solitary confinement for 30 days, which could be renewed continuously 4 until he did get out of the wheelchair and use crutches. Plaintiff Gonzalez did not want to 5 go into solitary confinement and lose his privileges. It is important to him to be able to 6 see his wife, for example. He did not want to give that right up, so he tried his best to use 7 the crutches and was de-classed to the 7000 unit. 8 75. When Plaintiff Gonzalez began using crutches on the 7000 unit, his leg began to 9 swell and turn purple because it was not being properly circulated. Plaintiff Gonzalez's 10 foot dragged with the toe pointed down across every jail surface he traveled. This is 11 because Plaintiff Gonzalez cannot elevate his foot from the ankle because it is paralyzed. 12 Plaintiff Gonzalez was not able to travel distances longer than 10 to 20 feet with the l3 crutches and so he was denied equal access to jail programs and services. Plaintiff 14 Gonzalez once fell onto the floor next to the toilet when his leg gave out as he tried to 15 transfer from his crutches to the toilet using the wall with no grab bars. Plaintiff 16 Gonzalez was forced to crawl to the toilet that did not have grab bars nearby. Plaintiff 17 Gonzalez's family stopped visiting him as often because they knew how difficult and 18 time consuming it was for him to travel to the visiting room, which included climbing up 19 and down stairs and along long corridors to meet with them. Or if they did arrive to visit, 20 it would take Plaintiff Gonzalez so long to travel to meet them, that they had to leave 21 before he arrived, and therefore he was unable to meet with them during the visiting 22 hours. Plaintiff Gonzalez fell in the shower because there were no grab bars and he was 23 trying to shower while using the crutches. Plaintiff Gonzalez did not travel to the roof for 24 recreation when he was on unit 7000 because the journey was too far for him to 25 accomplish with crutches. Plaintiff Gonzalez was forced to travel to court on the general 26 population bus with crutches. He could not lift his leg onto the bus and fell face-first into 27 the bus. 28 76. Plaintiff Gonzalez has filed several inmate complaints that have gone
18
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 19 of 37 Page ID #:1553
1 unanswered. The judge in his case, having observed the condition of his leg, placed an 2 order for him to be immediately evaluated. Once Plaintiff Gonzalez was evaluated, he 3 was provided with a wheelchair and placed back on 8100. 4 77. Plaintiff Columbus Grigsby has partial paralysis in his left side, including his 5 left arm and leg, as well as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Hypoglycemia. He has 6 been in Los Angeles County jail since November 2009 and is currently housed at the 7 8100 unit of Men's Central Jail. Plaintiff Grigsby has a number of disability related 8 problems, including but not limited to denial of accommodations, physical access, 9 mobility aids and access to programs and services at the jail. 10 78. Upon arrest, Plaintiff Grigsby's quad-cane was taken away. In the community, 11 Plaintiff Grigsby uses a quad-cane for short distances and a manual wheelchair for longer 12 distances. Plaintiff Grigsby was placed in a holding cell without his quad-cane after he 13 was arrested. When Plaintiff Grigsby was transferred from the holding cell to the Inmate 14 Reception Center ("IRC"), his quad-cane was taken away permanently and he was 15 provided a wheelchair in order to be transported to the IRC. However, when Plaintiff 16 Grigsby arrived at the IRC, the wheelchair was taken away from him and he had no quad17 cane. 18 79. Plaintiff Grigsby was placed in the medical unit at the IRC, and when the nurse 19 called out his name to come forward, he had to crawl on the floor to move toward her 20 since he no longer had a wheelchair or his quad-cane. The nurse provided him with a 21 wheelchair and Plaintiff Grigsby was placed on the 8100 unit. The wheelchair provided 22 to Plaintiff Grigsby was not accessible to him based on his disability. The wheelchair did 23 not have footrests. Plaintiff Grigsby's left foot is paralyzed, and without the footrest, his 24 foot drags on the floor and the wheelchair wheels would roll over his foot. Plaintiff 25 Grigsby's requests to the deputies for footrests were ignored. Plaintiff Grigsby was 26 forced to persuade another inmate to trade wheelchairs with him in order to get a footrest. 27 While Plaintiff Grigsby now has footrests, the seat of his chair does not separate him 28 from the cross-bars, causing pain on a daily basis. Plaintiff Grigsby also had difficulty
19 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 20 of 37 Page ID #:1554
1 transferring to his bed or to the toilet because there was not a removable arm rest on the 2 first jail chair. 3 80. Plaintiff Grigsby was ordered on January 25, 2010 to roll up his bed because he 4 was being declassed to the 7000 step down unit. The deputy informed Plaintiff Grigsby 5 that he was required to use a walker from this point forward. Plaintiff Grigsby informed 6 the deputy that a walker was not accessible to him because of paralysis on one entire side 7 of his body. A walker requires the use of two arms, and Plaintiff Grigsby's left arm is 8 paralyzed. Plaintiff Grigsby was later informed by the deputy that he was going to be 9 sent to solitary confinement for failing to obey the deputy's order to get out of his 10 wheelchair and use the walker. Plaintiff Grigsby served 20 days in solitary confinement 11 for failing to obey this order. 12 81. When in solitary confinement Plaintiff Grigsby was denied access to jail 13 programs and services that are important to him. Plaintiff Grigsby was denied access to 14 the Commissary. Plaintiff Grigsby is Hypoglycemic and needs to purchase sweets in 15 order to maintain his blood sugar level. Plaintiff Grigsby was instead forced to negotiate 16 with other inmates for their jelly packets from meals in the hole in order to maintain his 17 blood sugar level. Plaintiff Grigsby was also denied access to the television and the 18 telephone. These services are important to Plaintiff Grigsby because they keep him 19 connected to the outside world. Plaintiff Grigsby has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and 20 is prone to depression. Having these services taken away from him while he was in 21 solitary confinement led him to become severely depressed with suicidal ideation. 22 82. Plaintiff Grigsby fell on 8100 when trying to get out of the shower because there 23 are no grab bars at the entrance/exit of the shower once a detainee steps out. Plaintiff 24 Grigsby fell face first and suffered injury from the fall. 25 83. Plaintiff Grigsby is also unable to write inmate jail complaints on his own 26 because of the paralysis in the hand that he writes with. Plaintiff Grigsby has to ask other 27 inmates to draft them for him, which violates his confidentiality regarding medical and 28 other personal issues. Plaintiff Grigsby has nonetheless fIled complaints to the best of his
20 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 21 of 37 Page ID #:1555
ability that have been ignored. 2 84. Plaintiff Grigsby is concerned that he will be de-classed again because he 3 recently was ordered to see the doctor who previously de-classed him. Plaintiff Grigsby 4 does not believe the jail doctor gave him an adequate evaluation regarding his paralysis. 5 Plaintiff Grigsby has not as yet been de-classed, but he is fearful that deputies could come 6 for him any day and tell him to roll up his belongings and use a walker. Plaintiff Grigsby 7 will not be able to use a walker ifthey ask him to. Plaintiff Grigsby does not want to go 8 back into solitary confinement for failing to obey the deputy's order. 9 85. Plaintiff Derrick White has partial paralysis on his left side as the result of a 10 spinal injury. He has been in Los Angeles County jail since February of2009. Defendants 11 have discriminated against Plaintiff Butler based on his ability, including but not limited 12 to denying him mobility aids, physical access, and accommodations. 13 86. Upon entry into the jail system, Plaintiff White was brought to the IRe. During 14 the approximately eighteen hours he spent in IRe, Plaintiff White was not given any kind 15 of mobility aid. Plaintiff White was forced to slide himself on the metal benches or crawl 16 to get around. Due to the absence of accessible toilets in the IRe, Plaintiff White had to 17 crawl to the toilet and lift himself onto it using the sink to steady himself. 18 87. Plaintiff White was initially provided a pair of crutches and assigned to the 7000 19 unit for people who use walkers or crutches. Due to the severity of his disability, Plaintiff 20 White had great difficult ambulating with crutches. He could only walk while bracing his 21 left side against a wall or with the help of a deputy. Plaintiff White was assigned to a six22 man cell with three sets of bunk beds. The lower bunks were already taken and, due to his 23 disability, Plaintiff White could not get into the top bunk, so he slept on a mattress on the 24 floor. 25 88. Approximately once a week Plaintiff White was called out to the "dec1ass line," 26 where inmates lined up before a jail doctor who told the inmates to try to walk. Plaintiff 27 White repeatedly informed the doctors that he could not walk, but the doctors informed 28 him he had to try. Once, while trying to walk to for the doctor on the dec1ass line,
2\
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 22 of 37 Page ID #:1556
1 Plaintiff White fell and hit the ground face first, causing him great pain. 2 89. During one declass line, the doctor told Plaintiff White he was faking not being 3 able to walk. Later that night, deputies told Plaintiff White he had been declassed. The 4 next morning deputies took his crutches from him and moved him to the general 5 population unit. Plaintiff White was forced to crawl to get around the jail, and he even 6 crawled to his attorney visits. When his attorney tried to carry him, deputies told Plaintiff 7 White he had to try to walk on my own. 8 90. After a month and a half in the general population, a doctor examined Plaintiff 9 White and sent him back to the unit for people who use crutches or walkers. A few weeks 10 later, Plaintiff White received another examination, complete with X-rays of his spine, 11 and was then provided a wheelchair and moved to the wheelchair unit. 12 91. Approximately a week later, Plaintiff White was declassed again and sent to the 13 general population. Plaintiff White spent another month in general population, forced to 14 crawl to get around, before being sent back up to the wheelchair unit. 15 92. In October of2009, deputies informed Plaintiff White he had been declassed 16 once again. When Plaintiff White refused to get out of his wheelchair, deputies placed 17 him in administrative segregation. For approximately four months, Plaintiff White 18 remained in disciplinary segregation-with no visitation, no recreation, and no access to 19 programs-for refusing to give up his wheelchair. 20 93. The above examples demonstrate the pain, fear, humiliation and isolation that 21 people with disabilities experience within the Los Angeles County jail system. Indeed, 22 many people with disabilities find the conditions so intolerable that they are willing to 23 agree to a plea bargain, one that they otherwise may not have accepted, simply to leave 24 these conditions. 25 94. Plaintiffs have filed administrative complaints with the Los Angeles County jail 26 and have exhausted procedures for such administrative complaints. Defendants have been 27 on notice about these conditions for a considerable amount of time, and have been 28 specifically on notice about the issues raised in this lawsuit for at least a year.
22 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 23 of 37 Page ID #:1557

95. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to ensure

2 compliance with the ADA and other laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals

3 with disabilities.

4

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

5 96. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all inmates who are or

6 will be held within any and all Los Angeles County Jail facilities, as a class action under

7 Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

8 97. The class consists of all detainees and inmates with physical disabilities and

9 disabling medical conditions who because of those disabilities need appropriate

10 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

II federal and state disability laws.

12 98. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

13 that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to comply with the ADA and with the

14 Rehabilitation Act and analogous state statutes.

IS 99. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

16 that Defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and procedures

17 to ensure that LASD is in compliance with these statutes to ensure nondiscrimination

18 against persons with disabilities and equal access to programs, services and activities for

19 persons with disabilities.

20 100. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

21 that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide LASD officers and employees

22 with appropriate training regarding their legal obligations under relevant federal and state

23 statutes.

24 101. The violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and related federal and

25 California State statues set forth in detail have injured all members of the proposed class

26 and violated their rights.

27 102. The requirements of Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met

28 with regard to the proposed class in that:

23 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 24 of 37 Page ID #:1558

a. The class is so numerous that it would be impractical to bring all class

2

members before the Court;

3

b. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the class;

4

c. The named Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are typical

5

of the claims of the class;

6

d. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent common class

7

interests and are represented by counsel who are extremely experienced in

8

law reform class actions and the disability rights issues in this case;

9

e. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to

10

the class;

11

f. The questions of law and fact which are common to the class predominate

12

over individual questions; and

13

g. A class action is superior to other available means of resolving this

14

controversy.

15 103. The common questions of law and fact, shared by the named Plaintiffs and all

16 class members, include:

17

a. Whether Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. sections

18

12131, et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities

19

accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise

20

discriminating against persons with disabilities, as set forth above;

21

b. Whether Defendants are violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29

22

U.S.C. § 794 et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities

23

accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise

24

discriminating against people with disabilities, as set forth above.

25

c. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code Section

26

11135 (a), which prohibits denial of benefits to persons with disabilities of

27

any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any

28

financial assistance from the state.

24
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 25 of 37 Page ID #:1559

d. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §51 et seq., by

2

failing to provide full and equal access to people with disabilities.

3

e. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §54 et seq., by

4

failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

5

f. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code §4450, et

6

seq., by failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

7

g. Whether Defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

8

Constitution as a result of the conditions of confinement.

9

h. Whether Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

10

Constitution as a result of the conditions of confinement.

11

104. The class is believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is

12 impracticable. On information and belief, more than one thousand individuals with physical

13 disabilities or disabling medical conditions are currently detained or confined in the Los

14 Angeles County Jail System. The inmate popUlation within the Los Angeles Jail System

15 changes constantly and therefore not all class members can be specifically identified.

16 105. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed class

17 members that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. Defendants'

18 records may be used for assistance in the preparation of such notices. To the extent that

19 any further notices may be required, Plaintiffs contemplate the use of additional media

20 and/or mailings.

21

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

The Americans with Disabilities Act

23

42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.

24

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

25 foregoing paragraphs.

26

107. Congress enacted the ADA upon finding, among other things, that "society has

27 tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities" and that such forms of

28 discrimination continue to be a "serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U.S.C.

25 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 26 of 37 Page ID #:1560

§ 12101(a) (2).

2 108. In response to these findings, Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the

3 ADA is to provide "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

4 discrimination against individuals with disabilities" and "clear, strong, consistent,

5 enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42

6 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (1)-(2).

7 109. Title II ofthe ADA provides in pertinent part: "[N]o qualified individual with a

8 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

9 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

10 subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

11

110. The ADA requires public entries to ensure that their programs, services and

12 activities are accessible to and useable by detainees and inmates with disabilities.

13

111. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were each a "public entity"

14 within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provided a program, service or activity to

15 the general public.

16 112. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals within the

17 meaning of Title II of the ADA and met the essential eligibility requirements for the

18 receipt of the services, programs, or activities ofthe defendants. 42 U.S.C. § 12131.

19 113. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a

20 qualified individual with a disability on the basis of a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

21

114. Defendants have excluded plaintiffs from participation in the services, programs

22 and activities of the Los Angeles County Jail facilities, and have denied them the rights and

23 benefits accorded to other inmates, solely by reason oftheir disabilities in violation of the

24 ADA. In addition, the defendants have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide

25 plaintiffs with reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disabilities. See

26 generally 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

27

115. Defendants are mandated to operate each program, service, or activity "so that,

28 when viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with

26 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 27 of 37 Page ID #:1561

disabilities." 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§35.l49 & 35.151. Defendants

2 continue to violate the ADA by maintaining inaccessible facilities that deny people with

3 disabilities access to programs, services and activities.

4 116. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents

5 and employees have failed and continue to fail to:

6

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications, services and/or physical

7

access necessary to enable inmates with disabilities to participate on an equal

8

basis in programs, services and activities.

9

b. Develop and enforce procedures for the Los Angeles Sheriff Department to

10

ensure provision ofnecessary accommodations, modifications, services and/or

11

physical access necessary to enable inmates with disabilities to participate on

12

an equal basis in programs, services and activities.

13

c. Train and supervise the jail personnel to provide necessary accommodations,

14

modifications, services and/or physical access necessary to enable inmates

15

with disabilities to participate on an equal basis in programs, services and

16

activities.

17 117. Pursuant to the ADA's implementing regulations, specifically 38 C.F.R. 150(d)(l),

18 Defendants were required to develop a written plan setting forth the steps necessary to

19 ensure that the Los Angeles County Jail facilities are in compliance with the ADA's

20 mandates. On information and belief, Defendants have not prepared a self-evaluation and a

21 transition plan that is compliant with the ADA.

22 118. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

23 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as deteriorating

24 physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations,

25 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

26 119. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

27 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions,

28 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

27 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 28 of 37 Page ID #:1562

1 120. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive

2 relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

3

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

5

29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

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

7 foregoing paragraphs.

8 122. Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: "[N]o

9 otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his

10 disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected

11 to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance ..."

12 29 U.S.c. § 794.

13 123. Each Plaintiff is at all times relevant herein a qualified individual with a

14 disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act because they have a physical

15 impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities. 29 U.S.c.

16 § 705(20) (B).

17 124. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or

18 activities that are provided to inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail facilities. See 29

19 U.S.C. § 794 (b).

20 125. At all times relevant to this action Defendants were recipients of federal funding

21 within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. As recipients of federal funds, they are

22 required to reasonably accommodate inmates with disabilities in their facilities, program

23 activities, and services. It further requires the Defendants to modify their facilities,

24 services, and programs as necessary to accomplish this purpose.

25 126. Through their acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated the

26 Rehabilitation Act by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the

27 benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination in the benefits and services

28 Defendants provides to the detainees and inmates without disabilities.

28 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 29 of 37 Page ID #:1563

127. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based thereon allege that Defendants

2 committed the acts and omissions alleged herein with intent and/or reckless disregard of

3 the rights of Plaintiffs. It is also alleged that the defendants have violated the Act by

4 providing substandard accommodations or refusing to provide plaintiffs with reasonable

5 accommodations for their disabilities.

6 128. Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act's implementing regulations, specifically, 28

7 C.F.R. 42.521, the Defendants were required to make any structural changes necessary to

8 render the programs and activities in existing Los Angeles County Jail facilities accessible to

9 persons with disabilities as expeditiously as possible. As part of that process, the Defendants

10 were required to develop a written plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete such

11 changes. Defendants have failed to develop a writtenplan and failed to abide by the

12 implementing regulations under the Rehabilitation Act.

13

129. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs suffered

14 and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship, anxiety as well as deteriorating physical

15 conditions due to Defendants failures to address accommodations, modifications, services

16 and access required for their disabilities.

17 130. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

18 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

19 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

20 131. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and

21 injunctive relief and to recover from Defendants the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

22 incurred in bringing this action.

23

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24

California Government Code § 11135

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

26 foregoing paragraphs.

27 133. Section 11135(a) of the California Government Code provides in pertinent part:

28 "No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of ... disability, be unlawfully

29 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 30 of 37 Page ID #:1564

1 denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or

2 activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the

3 state."

4 134. At all times relevant to this action, LASD was an agency of Defendant County.

5 At all times relevant to this action, the LASD and County, received financial assistance

6 from the State of California.

7

135. Through their acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated and

8 continue to violate California Government Code § 11135 by unlawfully denying

9 Plaintiffs the benefits of, and unlawfully sUbjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination under,

10 Defendants' programs and activities.

11

136. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

12 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as deteriorating

13 physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations,

14 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

15

137. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

16 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

17 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

18 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

19

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Unruh Civil Rights Act

21

California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

22

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

23 foregoing paragraphs.

24

139. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants have violated

25 California Civil Code § 51 (b) which provides in pertinent part that "All persons within

26 the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their. .. disability or

27 medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,

28 facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

30
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 31 of 37 Page ID #:1565
1 140. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 51(f), a violation of the ADA also 2 constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq. 3 141. The Los Angeles County Jail system is a "business establishment" within the 4 meaning of California Civil Code §51 et seq. 5 142. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants are violating 6 California Civil Code § 51 et seq. by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to its 7 program comparable to the access that it offers to others. 8 143. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have 9 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as 10 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations, 11 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities. 12 144. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and 13 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions 14 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. 15 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
31
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 32 of 37 Page ID #:1566

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons Act

3

California Civil Code § 54 et seq.

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

5 foregoing paragraphs.

6 146. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendants are violating

7 California Civil Code § 54 which states that "[iJndividuals with disabilities or medical

8 conditions have the same rights as the general public to the full and free use of public

9 services."

10 147. Under California Civil Code § 54(c), a violation of the ADA also constitutes a

11 violation of California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.

12 148. Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities within the meaning of California Civil

13 Code § 54(b) (1) and California Government Code § 12926.

14 149. The County and the LASD provide public services, within the meaning of

15 California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.

16

150. By failing to provide accommodations, modifications, services and physical

17 access to the detainees and inmates with disabilities, Defendants are violating California

18 Civil Code § 54, by denying detainees and inmates full access to the jail programs,

19 services and activities.

20 151. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

21 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

22 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations,

23 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

24 152. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

25 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

26 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

27 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

28

32 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 33 of 37 Page ID #:1567

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

California Government Code § 4450, et seq.

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

4 foregoing paragraphs.

5

154. Defendants' facilities are publicly funded and intended for use by the public

6 within the meaning of California Government Code § 4450, et seq. Defendants have

7 constructed, altered, installed, maintained and/or operated its facilities in violation of

8 disability access requirements under California Government Code § 4450, et seq., and

9 regulations implemented pursuant thereto. The aforementioned acts and omissions of the

\0 Defendants constitute a denial of equal access to and use of Defendants' facilities.

11

155. Defendants' failure to provide full and equal access to their facilities has caused

12 Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights.

13

156. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

14 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as

15 deteriorating physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations,

16 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

17

157. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

18 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

19 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

20 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

21

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

23

42 U.S.C. § 1983

24

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

25 foregoing paragraphs.

26

159. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional violations and violations of

27 federal statutes, where the violations are committed under color of State law.

28

160. Defendants are also liable for its failure to train its employees, creating § 1983

33 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 34 of 37 Page ID #:1568

1 liability where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of

2 inmates with whom those employees are likely to come into contact.

3

161. The Defendants have acted in reckless disregard for the serious needs of the

4 inmates, constituting willful violations ofthe Eighth Amendment to the Constitution ofthe

5 United States, by imposing cruel and unusual punishments on the inmates.

6 162. All Defendants have engaged in discriminatory acts and practices constituting

7 willful violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

8

163. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

9 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as deteriorating

10 physical conditions, due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations,

11 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities.

12

164. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

13 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions

14 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

15 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action.

16

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

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

20 foregoing paragraphs.

21

166. Detainees' rights arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

22 Amendment.

23

167. The Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment mandates that

24 Defendants shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

25 laws.

26

168. Defendants' failure to provide for sufficient training regarding detainees with

27 disabilities, as well as its failure to implement other procedures to safeguard the disability

28 rights of the detainees, amounts to deliberate indifference to their rights.

34 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 35 of 37 Page ID #:1569
1 169. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have 2 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, as well as deteriorating 3 physical conditions due to Defendants' failures to address accommodations, 4 modifications, services and access required for Plaintiffs' disabilities. 5 170. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and 6 injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of Defendants' actions 7 Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. 8 Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 9 111 10 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 23 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 25\1 1 1 26 1 1 1 27 1 1 1 28
35
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 36 of 37 Page ID #:1570

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

3 l. A declaration that Defendants' conduct as alleged herein has violated, and

4

continues to violate, Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of

5

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; California Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450;

6

California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54; and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

7

to the U.S. Constitution;

8 2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from violating the Americans with

9

Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; California

10

Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450; California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54; and

11

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;

12 3. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

13

orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will

14

continue to comply in the future, absent continuing jurisdiction;

15 4. Award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, as provided by statute; and

16 5. Such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.

17
DATED: kil,2010
18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted, DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
By /11Ji~ ____ Matthkw trUgar Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

28

36
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 97 Filed 06/10/10 Page 37 of 37 Page ID #:1571

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

Peter Johnson, et aL v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, et al.

3

Case No. CV 08-3515 DDP (JTLx)

4

I certify that I am authorized to serve documents in this action, as I am over the age of 18

and not a party to the action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, at

5 the Disability Rights Legal Center, in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose

direction service was made. My business address is 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, California
6 90015. On the date below, I served the foregoing document:

7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND 8 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9 [ ] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused such document to be served via electronic mail (e-

10

mail) on the parties in this action by transmitting a true copy to the e-mail addresses listed

for each party.

11

[X] BY MAIL: I placed a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope

12

addressed to each interested party addressed as set forth below. I placed each such

13

envelope for collection and mailing at the Disability Rights Legal Center at Loyola Law

School, Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with Loyola Law School's practice

14

for collecting and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal

Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States

15

Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.

16

True copies were addressed to and served upon:

17 LAWRENCE, BEACH, ALLEN & CHOI, PC

18

Paul B. Beach, Esq.

Justiu Clark, Esq.

19

100 West Broadway, Suite 1200

20

Glendale, CA 91210-1219

21

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above

is true and correct. Executed on June 10,2010 at Los Angeles, California.

22

23

24

Steve A. Cuellar

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:1617

1 Stephen R. Smerek(SBN: 208343)

ssmerek@winston.com

2 Benjamin Gipson (SBN: 222830)

bgipson@winston.com

3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

333 S. Grand Avenue

4 Los Angeles, California 90071

Tel: (213) 615-1700; Fax: (213) 615-1750

5

Shawna L. Parks (SBN: 208301)

6 Shawna.Parks@lls.edu

Matthew Strugar (SBN: 232951)

7

Matthew.Strugar@lls.edu DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

8 919 Albany Street

Los Angeles, California 90015

9 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 14 15 16 17

PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, MICHAEL CURFMAN, ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and DERRICK WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

)

Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (JTLx) PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

18

Plaintiffs,

) THEREOF )

19

vs.

) [Filed concurrently with ) (1) Compendium of Evidence; and

20 21 22 23 24 25

)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH, YVONNE B. BURKE, DON KNABE, GLORIA MOLINA, and ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, as supervisors of the County of Los Angeles,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(2) [Proposed] Order] Date: December 13, 2010 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Dean Pregerson

26

Defendants.

) )

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:1618

1 (continued from previous page)

2 Melinda Bird (SBN: 102236) Melinda.Bird@disabilityrightsca.org

3 Kevin Bayley (SBN: 218070)

Kevin.Bayley@disabilityrightsca.org

4 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 902

5

Los Angeles, California 90010-2512 Tel: (213) 427-8747; Fax: (213) 427-8767

6 Peter Eliasberg (SBN: 189110)

7

peliasberg@aclu-sc.org Hector Villagra (SBN: 177586)

8

hvillagra@aclu-sc.org Jessica Price (SBN: 264053)

9

jprice@aclu-sc.org ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

10

1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90026

11 Tel: (213) 977-9500; Fax: (213) 250-3980

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:1619

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., before the

2 Honorable Dean Pregerson, in Courtroom 3 of the courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street,

3 Los Angeles, plaintiffs will move for an order certifying the following class for

4 purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief: “All detainees and inmates with mobility

5 impairments who because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations,

6 modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state

7 disability laws.” Plaintiffs have met the numerosity, commonality, typicality and

8 adequacy of representation requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition, this

9 class is appropriate for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because defendants

10 have acted or refused to act on a basis applicable to the whole class.

11

This Motion is based upon this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of

12 Points and Authorities; Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Evidence, and all exhibits thereto;

13 all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon any argument or evidence

14 which may be presented at the hearing of this matter.

15

In accordance with Local Rule 7-3, plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with

16 defense counsel on numerous occasions, including September 24, 2010, regarding this

17 motion for class certification. The parties were unable to resolve the matter

18 informally.

19 DATED: November 12, 2010 20 21 22 23 24

Respectfully submitted, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA

25

By /s/ Stephen R. Smerek

26

Stephen R. Smerek

27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

1 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:1620

1 2
I. 3
II. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 FACTS .................................................................................................................. 2 A. The L.A. County Jails House Hundreds Of Detainees With
Mobility Impairments On Any Given Day. ............................................... 2 B. The Los Angeles County Jails Offer A Wide Array Of Programs,
Services And Activities To Detainees. ...................................................... 3 C. Defendants’ Common Practices And Procedures Cause Detainees
With Disabilities To Face Pervasive Discrimination................................. 5 1. The failure to appropriately identify people with disabilities
in need of accommodations and services and provide suitable mobility aids. ...................................................................... 5 2. The failure to provide access to programs and services. ................. 8 3. The failure to remove multiple and pervasive architectural barriers throughout the L.A. County jail system. .......................... 10 4. The failure to modify policies and procedures for people with disabilities. ............................................................................. 11 D. The Discrimination Faced By Detainees With Disabilities Is Caused By The L.A. County Jails’ Policies And Procedures (Or The Lack Thereof).................................................................................... 11 E. Proposed Class Representatives............................................................... 12 1. Joe Gonzalez. ................................................................................. 12 2. Derrick White. ............................................................................... 13 3. Peter Johnson. ................................................................................ 13 4. Donald Peterson. ............................................................................ 14 5. Michael Curfman. .......................................................................... 14 6. Andre Butler. ................................................................................. 15 7. Columbus Grigsby. ........................................................................ 15 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................... 16 A. Legal Standards Governing Motions For Class Certification.................. 16 B. Plaintiffs Have Met the Requirements of Rule 23(a)............................... 17 1. Numerosity is satisfied because there are far too many class members to make joinder practicable. ........................................... 17
i PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:1621

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IV. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2. Commonality is met because the lawsuit challenges systemwide practices and policies that affect all detainees with disabilities. ..................................................................................... 18
3. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class................................................................................................ 20
4. The Named Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately protect the interests of the class. .................................................... 22
C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2) Because They Challenge A Practice Of Discriminating Against Detainees With Disabilities................................................................................................ 24
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25

ii PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:1622

1 2 3 CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

4 Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. Group, Ltd., 5 197 F.R.D. 522 (S.D. Fla. 2000).........................................................................25

6 Anaya v. Campbell, 7 2009 WL 3763798 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9. 2009) .......................................................4

8 Armstrong v. Davis, 9 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................passim

10 Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.,

11

158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ................................................................. 18, 21

12 Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) .................................................................18, 21, 24, 25

13

14

Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 21

15 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Californians Dep’t of Transp.,
16 249 F.R.D. 334 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................17, 18

17 Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 18 253 F.R.D. 562 (C.D. Cal. 2008)........................................................................17

19 Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 20 500 U.S. 44 (1991)..............................................................................................22

21 Crowder v. Kititgawa,

22

81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.1996) ............................................................................... 20

23 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................17, 19, 21
24

25

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982)............................................................................................ 21

26 In re N. Dist. of Cal., Dalkon Shield IUD Prods. Liab. Litig.,
27 693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1982) ..............................................................................22

28

iii PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:1623

1 In re United Energy Corp., 2 122 F.R.D. 251 (C.D. Cal. 1988)........................................................................22

3 Jordan v. Cnty. of L.A.,

4

669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................ 23

5 L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV. S-06-2042, 2007 WL 662463 (E.D. Cal. 2007)..................................18
6

7

Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ........................................................................ 18

8 McGary v. City of Portland,
9 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................20

10 Neff v. VIA Metro. Transit Auth., 11 179 F.R.D. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1998)...................................................................... 17

12 Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 13 524 U.S. 206 (1998)..............................................................................................4

14 Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 15 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................4, 19, 20

16 Raymond v. Rowland, 220 F.R.D. 173 (D. Conn. 2004) ........................................................................ 25
17

18

Riker v. Gibbons, No. 3:08-CV-00115-LRH-RAM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35449 (D. Nev.

19 Mar. 31, 2009) ....................................................................................................19

20 Rodde v. Bonta, 21 357 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2004) ..............................................................................20

22 Von Colln v. Cnty. of Ventura, 23 189 F.R.D. 583 (C.D. Cal. 1999)..................................................................24, 25
24 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 24
25 26 CALIFORNIA STATUTES
27 California Government Code §11135........................................................................1

28 California Government Code §12926...............................................................passim

iv PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:1624
1 California Civil Code §51................................................................................1, 3, 20 2 California Civil Code §54................................................................................1, 3, 20 3
FEDERAL STATUTES 4 5 29 U.S.C. §705..................................................................................................passim 6 29 U.S.C. §794...........................................................................................................4 7 42 U.S.C. §12131.............................................................................................. passim 8 42 U.S.C. §12132.......................................................................................................4 9 OTHER AUTHORITIES 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 .....................................................................................passim 11 12 28 C.F.R. §35.130 ....................................................................................................20 13 28 C.F.R. §35.150 ....................................................................................................20 14 1 Conte & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3.5 (4th ed. 2006) ...................17 15 5 Moore's Federal Practice, § 23.22(3)(a) (3d ed. 2003).........................................17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
v PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:1625

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3

Plaintiffs brought this case to address the systemic failure of the County of

4 Los Angeles to provide accommodations, modifications, services and physical access

5 for people with mobility impairments who are housed within the Los Angeles County

6 jail system. These failures violate federal and state laws prohibiting disability-based

7 discrimination, are pervasive and longstanding, and are precisely the sort of

8 widespread discrimination that Rule 23(b)(2) class actions were designed to address.

9

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, persons in the L.A. County jails

10 with mobility impairments face pervasive discrimination in the conditions of their

11 confinement. Common issues regarding this discrimination include:

12

 The failure to appropriately identify people with mobility impairments, and

13

otherwise provide appropriate mobility aids (“classification” and

14

“declassification” issues, failure to provide appropriate wheelchairs, crutches

15

and prosthetic limbs);

16

 The failure to provide access to programs and services (educational and

17

vocational programs, exercise opportunities, physical therapy, educational

18

and religious activities, access to counsel, and transportation);

19

 The failure to modify policies and procedures for people with disabilities

20

(failure to provide accommodations and failure to provide procedures for

21

requesting accommodations); and

22

 The failure to remove multiple and pervasive architectural barriers

23

(inaccessible facilities throughout the jails).

24

Litigation of the claims asserted in this action involve numerous questions of

25 law and fact common to the class, the core issue being whether defendants’ practices

26 and procedures, as well as physical barriers within the jail system, violate the

27 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

28 California Civil Code §§51 and 54, et seq., and California Government Code §11135.

1 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:1626

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

By this Motion, plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “all detainees and inmates

2 with mobility impairments who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate

3 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

4 federal and state disability laws.” Plaintiffs readily meet the four requirements of Fed.

5 R. Civ. P. 23(a). Thousands of people with disabilities have been housed at L.A.

6 County jails during the relevant class period, and will continue to be housed in the

7 jails in the future (numerosity); there are common practices or procedures affecting

8 persons with disabilities and common legal claims at issue in this suit (commonality);

9 the named plaintiffs have claims typical of those raised by other persons with

10 disabilities in the L.A. County jail system (typicality); and the named plaintiffs have

11 chosen counsel who can adequately represent the proposed class (adequacy). In

12 addition, plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief, and the case is

13 appropriate for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because defendants have

14 acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the class as a whole.

15

Actions to enforce the civil rights of persons with disabilities are precisely the

16 types of actions that are appropriate for class treatment. This case challenges the

17 system-wide practices of discrimination against, and mistreatment of, detainees and

18 inmates and detainees with disabilities. Plaintiffs seek to have defendants make

19 systemic changes, and implement policies applicable to the class as a whole. For these

20 reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for class

21 certification.

22

II. FACTS

23 A. The L.A. County Jails House Hundreds Of Detainees With Mobility

24

Impairments On Any Given Day.

25

The L.A. County jail system processes 150,000 to 180,000 people per year. The

26 system comprises a number of facilities, including Men’s Central Jail, Twin Towers,

27 and the Inmate Reception Center, all located in downtown Los Angeles; the North

28 County Correctional Facility and Pitchess Detention Center, both located in Northern

2 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:1627

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 Los Angeles County; and the Central Regional Detention Facility, located in

2 Lynwood. The entire County jail system houses approximately 19,000 people at any

3 given time. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 32; “Education Based Incarceration”

4 at 12, Exh. D to Declaration of Shawna L. Parks (“Parks Decl.”) (Plaintiffs’

5 Compendium of Evidence (“Compendium”) Exh. H).

6

Defendants, through their own count sheets, identify roughly 200 people with

7 mobility impairments on any given day. For example, on September 24, 2010, the

8 8100 unit, designated for wheelchair users, housed 85 people; the 7000 unit,

9 designated for people who use crutches or prostheses, housed 66 people; another 16 in

10 7202, designated for 7000 overflow; as well as 41 additional people in the 7100 unit,

11 another unit which houses individuals who use wheelchairs, walkers, or crutches. See

12 Men’s Central Jail Housing and Count Sheet, Exh. E to Parks Decl.; see also Count

13 Sheet from October 12, 2010, Exh. F to Parks Decl. (showing 198 individuals in these 14 same units). These numbers alone establish numerosity in this matter.1

15

Census data further supports numerosity. Plaintiffs’ expert, Logan Hopper,

16 notes that census data shows that approximately 2.9% of the population use a

17 wheelchair or similar device, cane, crutches or a walker. Using this number, one

18 would expect that roughly 500 out of the 19,000 detained at any given time have a

19 mobility impairment. Declaration of Logan Hopper (“H opper Decl.”) ¶ 18

20 (Compendium Exh. G); see also Hopper Decl. ¶ 20 (census data shows that 13.9% of

21 population in adult correctional facilities report having a physical disability).

22 B. The Los Angeles County Jails Offer A Wide Array Of Programs, Services

23

And Activities To Detainees.

24

The L.A. County jails offer a wide variety of “programs, services and activities”

25 to detainees and inmates, as those terms are used in Title II of the ADA and §504 of

26 27 1 Because the claims in this matter involve “declassification” out of units for people
with mobility impairments and/or failure to provide appropriate mobility aids, 28 Plaintiffs believe that these numbers actually underestimate the numbers of people
with mobility impairments in the jail. The census data supports this conclusion. 3
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:1628

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See 42 U.S.C. §12132; 29 U.S.C. §794. “Programs”

2 generally refer to more specialized activities that are provided for effective

3 incarceration and potential rehabilitation, including regular and vocational education,

4 drug/alcohol counseling, and work programs. Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 7. As explained

5 by Mr. Hopper, the word “services” is often misunderstood in the correctional context.

6 Although detainees and inmates are incarcerated, they are still provided with

7 “services.” These “services” generally include all of the daily activities required to

8 assure humane treatment, including sanitary needs and hygiene, food service,

9 recreation, necessary medical care, religious services, visitation, and other similar and

10 necessary activities. Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 7. See also Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey,

11 524 U.S. 206, 211 (1998) (holding that Title II of the ADA applies to correctional

12 facilities, and explaining that “prisons provide inmates with many recreational

13 ‘activities,’ medical ‘services,’ and educational and vocational ‘programs,’” as those

14 terms are used in the ADA); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1224 n.44 (9th

15 Cir. 2008) (“Providing inmates with appropriate and adequate bedding and bathroom

16 facilities are ‘services’ of the jail.”); see also Anaya v. Campbell, No. CIV S-07-0029,

17 2009 WL 3763798, *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9. 2009) (a wheelchair is a reasonable

18 accommodation in situations where access to services would not be possible

19 otherwise).

20

The LASD provides many services and programs to detainees. Indeed, a recent

21 publication produced by the Sheriff’s Department details numerous educational and

22 vocational programs offered at the jail. See generally Education Based Incarceration,

23 Exh. D to Parks Decl. In addition to basic education programs, this includes, but is not

24 limited to, numerous other programs, such as veterans programs, drug and alcohol

25 programs (some of which are court ordered) and the MERIT program, which is

26 essentially an honor program in the jail. See, e.g., Deposition of Sergeant Christina

27 Baker at 55:14-57:17 (drug and alcohol program), 74:10-25 (MERIT program), 76:21-

28 77:16 (veterans’ program), Ex. H to Parks Decl. Many detainees are also given the

4 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:1629

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 opportunity to serve as “trustees.” Trustees assist the deputies with tasks within the

2 jails, and are given privileges and benefits in return. Serving as a trustee also

3 constitutes a “program” offered by the L.A. County jails. Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 7.

4 C. Defendants’ Common Practices And Procedures Cause Detainees With

5

Disabilities To Face Pervasive Discrimination.

6

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint, and documented consistently over

7 the last few years, detainees with mobility impairments throughout the L.A. County

8 jails face significant problems with respect to classification, housing, access to

9 programs and services, and physical access barriers. Defendants systemically fail to

10 effectively evaluate the needs of people with disabilities, and to meet those needs with

11 appropriate accommodations and physical access. FAC ¶ 33. These failures manifest 12 daily in very real and dramatic ways for people with disabilities.2

13

1. The failure to appropriately identify people with disabilities in need

14

of accommodations and services and provide suitable mobility aids.

15

Defendants fail to appropriately identify and accommodate persons with

16 mobility impairments both at intake and during the course of their stay in jail. Many

17 people who require the use of mobility aids are denied those aids and removed from 18 the “disability” units through a process that the County calls “declassification.”3 See,

19 e.g., Declaration of Named Plaintiff Donald Peterson (“Peterson Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-8

20 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Peterson was in a wheelchair unit, a walker unit, and

21 general population during his time in MCJ); Declaration of Willie Ezell ¶¶ 6-15

22 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Ezell was originally classified as needing a mobility aid,

23 then moved to general population, then reclassified as needing a mobility aid, only to

24 be declassified again); Declaration of Shawn Meyers (“Meyers Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-7, 11-14

25 2 In addition, plaintiffs have compiled a chart that illustrates the pervasive 26 discrimination faced by inmates with disabilities in L.A. County jails. (Compendium
Exh. A). This chart highlights just some of the most egregious examples of failures to 27 accommodate persons with disabilities identified to date. 28 3 When inmates are moved out of the wheelchair unit to other units, those units are
sometimes referred to as “step down” units. 5
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:1630

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 (Compendium Exh. C) (Mr. Meyers was originally classified with a disability but later

2 declassified despite the fact that Mr. Meyers has no feeling in his right leg and

3 shooting pains in his left leg); Declaration of Giovanni Ceballos ¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15

4 (Compendium Exh. E) (Mr. Ceballos was moved ten times between January and May

5 of 2008, being classified with a disability at some points and declassified at others

6 despite having doctor’s orders for a wheelchair, medication, and lower bunk to

7 accommodate a fractured disc in his lower back); Declaration of Named Plaintiff

8 Derrick White (“White Decl.”) ¶¶ 12-22, 28-29 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. White

9 was constantly moved between the wheelchair unit, step-down unit, and general

10 population). While the County may argue that these declassifications were based on

11 medical judgment, the pattern of problems, as well as the well-documented nature of

12 the inmates’ and detainees’ disabilities, belies this explanation.

13

In some circumstances, individuals are severely disciplined for failing to

14 comply with orders to give up their mobility aids and/or leave the disability units,

15 even when they are unable to do so as a result of their disability. See, e.g., Declaration

16 of Tashami Sims ¶¶ 8-12, 15 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Sims has been sent to the

17 “hole” for disobeying order when he was unable to walk on command, even though he

18 has occasional paralysis); Declaration of Named Plaintiff Columbus Grigsby

19 (“Grigsby Decl.”) ¶¶ 14-16 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Grigsby was placed in

20 solitary confinement, and not given the physical therapy that was ordered by an

21 independent doctor, because he questioned why he was being declassified from the

22 wheelchair unit); Declaration of Named Plaintiff Andre Butler (“Butler Decl.”) ¶ 15

23 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Butler spent nearly four months in disciplinary

24 segregation for refusing to surrender his mobility aid); White Decl. ¶¶ 22-28 (Mr.

25 White spent approximately four months in disciplinary segregation for refusing to

26 surrender his mobility aid).

27

These problems occur even when an individual has a long history of mobility

28 impairment and/or use of mobility aids. For example, Named Plaintiff Andre Butler

6 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:1631

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 was declassified on numerous occasions while at the jail, and was placed in the “hole”

2 when he refused to give up his wheelchair. Mr. Butler spent more than 70 days in

3 disciplinary segregation in late 2009 for refusing to give up his wheelchair, was then

4 reclassified as needing a wheelchair by a different jail doctor only to be declassified

5 again a week later. Butler Decl. ¶¶ 16-22. Earlier, Mr. Butler was provided a

6 wheelchair in the state prison system, and, as of 2008, classified as a “full time

7 wheelchair user,” by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

8 See, e.g, CDC Disability Placement Program Verification, 11/5/08, 6/3/08 and

9 8/14/03, Exh. I to Parks Decl. Despite this prior certification, Mr. Butler has been 10 faced with “declassification” throughout his time at the jail.4

11

Similarly, the L.A. County jails fail to provide mobility aids that actually serve

12 their purpose. People with mobility impairments are often given clearly inappropriate

13 mobility aids considering their condition. See, e.g., Declaration of Edward Turner ¶ 4,

14 7 (Compendium Exh. F) (Mr. Turner’s wheelchair was taken away and replaced with

15 crutches, which he cannot use because of an arm injury. As a result, he had to crawl

16 and hop around the unit); Declaration of Named Plaintiff Michael Curfman (“Curfman

17 Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-7 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Curfman’s wheelchair was taken away and

18 he was issued a walker missing a rubber bottom); Declaration of Named Plaintiff Joe

19 Gonzalez (“Gonzalez Decl.”) ¶¶ 9, 17, 21-13 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Gonzalez’s

20 personal wheelchair was taken away and he was provided one without removable

21 armrests. This was later taken away and Mr. Gonzalez was forced to use crutches,

22 4 Many inmates and detainees report that the California state prison system provides 23 much better accommodations for persons with disabilities, creating perverse
incentives for jail inmates to move to that system quickly. See, e.g., Supplemental 24 Declaration of Michael Curfman ¶¶ 2-10 (Compendium Exh. B) (Mr. Curfman is now
housed in North Kern State Prison, where he has access to physical therapy (provided 25 off-site), has a functioning walker, goes to church once a week, and sees a librarian
once a month. Because of these accommodations, Mr. Curfman’s condition has 26 improved); Peterson Decl. ¶ 2, 5-6 (Mr. Peterson is now housed at California State
Prison, Corcoran, where he has access to the yard twice a day where he can practice 27 walking and regain strength in his legs and can access the dayroom twice a day); and
White Decl. ¶ 30 (jail conditions make it difficult to mount a legal defense and Mr. 28 White considers taking a plea deal just to obtain better treatment in state prison
system). 7
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:1632

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 which caused his legs to swell and become bruised).

2

Even when aids are provided, they are often not in proper working order. For

3 example, many inmates receive wheelchairs without footrests. See, e.g., Grigsby Decl.

4 ¶¶ 9-10 (Mr. Grigsby was given a wheelchair with no foot or armrests, causing him to

5 drag his feet and run over them on multiple occasions. Mr. Grigsby was forced to

6 trade this wheelchair with another inmate for a chair that had a seat stretched so thin

7 that he sits on the metal frame of the chair); Declaration of Johnny Gonzalez ¶¶ 5-6

8 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Gonzalez was given a wheelchair without footrests

9 causing his legs to drag on the floor until a trash bag was attached to the bottom);

10 Declaration of Francis Tribble (“Tribble Decl.”) ¶ 7 (Compendium Exh. E) (Mr.

11 Tribble was given a wheelchair without a footrest, causing his feet to drag).

12

2. The failure to provide access to programs and services.

13

People with mobility impairments in the jail are denied access to much of the

14 educational, vocational and rehabilitative programming at the jail. Individuals are

15 denied access to virtually all of the educational and vocational programming within

16 the jail system, often do not go outside, do not have access to simple things like the

17 library or commissary, and do not have access to safe transportation.

18

Further, detainees with disabilities are segregated into the worst facilities in the

19 L.A. County jail system, a fundamental problem in itself. According to Mr. Hopper,

20 due in part to this segregation, “[i]nmates with disabilities have no access at all to the

21 vast majority of programs and services of the L.A. County jail system.” Hopper Decl.

22 Exh. B at 8. He further opines:

23

The degree of segregation of persons with disabilities that I observed

24

throughout the L.A. County Jail system is unparalleled in my experience.

25

I have never visited any facility, correctional or otherwise, that segregates

26

residents with disabilities to the degree I observed in the LA County Jail.

27

And nowhere were the segregation policies more profound than in the

28

context of extreme disparity of program and service availability between

8 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:1633

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

disabled and non-disabled inmates. Id. at 9.

2 This issue has not changed since Mr. Hopper first issued his report in 2008. See

3 Hopper Decl. ¶ 14. People with mobility impairments continue to be housed in a

4 single part of a single facility, without access to programs and services available at

5 other facilities. See, e.g., Hopper Decl. ¶ 14; Count Sheet, Exhs. E & F to Parks Decl.

6 For example, Sergeant Christina Baker from the Inmate Services Unit of the Offender

7 Services Bureau testified that inmates with mobility impairments would not be able to

8 participate in the veterans program because it is at a facility where those inmates are

9 not allowed to go. Baker Depo. at 102:10-19, Exh. H to Parks Decl. Similarly, inmates

10 with disabilities would not be allowed to participate in programs offered in program

11 specific units, including the MERIT program and the trustee program. Baker Depo. at

12 99:20-100:9, Exh. H to Parks Decl. No evaluation of physical accessibility has been

13 conducted for these programs. Baker Depo. at 99:4-8, Exh. H to Parks Decl.

14

As a result, inmates and detainees with mobility impairments are denied most,

15 if not all, programming within the jails. See, e.g., Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 8, 14-15 (While

16 housed in the wheelchair unit, Mr. Johnson was not allowed access to the roof or

17 allowed to buy food and drinks from the jail store, unlike other inmates); Declaration

18 of Kenneth Mills ¶ 12 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Mills is not provided any

19 educational or vocational programs and is denied access to outdoor recreation on the

20 roof). Meyers Decl. ¶ 20-21 (Mr. Meyers has not been given the opportunity to

21 participate in any jail sponsored educational activities or physical therapy). Further,

22 inmates in wheelchairs cannot be trustees in L.A. County jails. See, e.g., Johnson

23 Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 7 (Mr. Johnson was not able to become a trustee because deputies do not

24 allow prisoners with wheelchairs to serve in this capacity).

25

In addition, when individuals who cannot walk are classified incorrectly, they

26 miss out on numerous programs. See, e.g., Declaration of William Holt ¶¶ 4-6, 8-10

27 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Holt was declassified and accordingly his wheelchair was

28 taken away despite being unable to walk. Because he could not walk, Mr. Holt did not

9 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:1634

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 shower, could not attend church services, could not meet with his attorney, and could

2 not make it to pill call). Some individuals have even missed court appearances,

3 because of their inability to independently move around the jail. See, e.g., Declaration

4 of Ricky Williams ¶ 7 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Williams missed several court

5 appearances because he had no ability to move around the jail independently);

6 Declaration of Wade Wilson ¶ 8 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Wilson missed his court

7 appearance because he was denied a wheelchair despite a doctor’s order for use of a

8 wheelchair for court appearances).

9

The County’s lack of appropriate transportation for people with disabilities has

10 also resulted in completely avoidable injuries during transportation. See, e.g.,

11 Declaration of Raymond McPheters ¶ 13 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. McPheters was

12 not secured on the lift while getting into a bus, causing him to fall and sustain head

13 injuries during transport); Meyers Decl. ¶ 6 (Mr. Meyers’ wheelchair is never secured

14 during transport often because of broken or missing locking devices). One inmate

15 even broke his jaw during transportation because his wheelchair was taken away and

16 he was not secured to the vehicle when it was involved in an accident. Butler Decl. ¶¶

17 3-6.

18

3. The failure to remove multiple and pervasive architectural barriers

19

throughout the L.A. County jail system.

20

There can be no dispute that there are numerous architectural barriers in the

21 L.A. County jails. For example, there are often no grab bars around the toilets and/or

22 showers, making it difficult for people with mobility issues to use them. See, e.g.,

23 Declaration of Ronald Eaten ¶ 5 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Eaten cannot use the

24 toilets in his unit because there are no grab bars, causing him to fall at least three times

25 and injure his back); Curfman Decl. ¶ 12 (Mr. Curfman’s shower had no grab bars,

26 making it difficult to steady himself and leading to at least one fall). Likewise, there

27 are often physical barriers blocking access to shower facilities. See, e.g., Declaration

28 of Christian Reyes ¶ 4-5 (Compendium Exh. D) (Mr. Reyes cannot enter the shower

10 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:1635

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 in his wheelchair).

2

While some improvements have been made to certain discrete areas since this

3 lawsuit was first filed, pervasive barriers continue to exist throughout the rest of the

4 jail system, including the 7000 unit (where people in wheelchairs are also housed),

5 single man cells, paths of travel, the law libraries, visiting rooms, and facilities other

6 than Men’s Central Jail, i.e. Twin Towers and Pitchess Detention Center. Hopper

7 Decl. ¶ 14.

8

4. The failure to modify policies and procedures for people with

9

disabilities.

10

The County has consistently refused to modify its procedures to accommodate

11 individuals with disabilities. Curfman Decl. ¶ 17 (denied ability to replace soiled

12 sheets after soiling bed, and denied extra clothing after soiling); Declaration of

13 Bernard Ward ¶ 5 (Compendium Exh. F) (Mr. Ward has requested a bottom bunk, and

14 even received a court order for one to accommodate his spinal cord injury, but was not

15 given one, and therefore had to sleep on the cement floor); White Decl. ¶ 10 (unable

16 to get a bottom bunk, he took the mattress down and slept on the floor).

17 D. The Discrimination Faced By Detainees With Disabilities Is Caused By The

18

L.A. County Jails’ Policies And Procedures (Or The Lack Thereof).

19

The problems faced by detainees and inmates with disabilities are caused by the

20 L.A. County jails’ common policies and procedures, or lack thereof. Defendants have

21 not identified any ADA coordinator for the jails, nor does staff appear to be aware of

22 any such coordinator. Baker Depo. at 25:21-26:2, Exh. H to Parks Decl.; and

23 Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, Exh. G to Parks Decl.

24

Significantly, there is no comprehensive set of policies or procedures for

25 identifying detainees with disabilities and determining appropriate accommodations,

26 modifications or services. FAC ¶ 35; Hopper Decl. ¶ 14 and Exh. B at 6 (“I did not see

27 a comprehensive manual or set of policies and procedures for identifying inmates with

28 disabilities and determining appropriate accommodations for these individuals.”).

11 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:1636

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

Further, common, compliant training is not provided to the staff within the L.A.

2 County jails regarding the housing and classification of detainees with disabilities.

3 Housing and classification decisions are made in an extremely cursory manner,

4 relying mainly on the simplest and quickest observations by staff which is often led by

5 nothing more than stereotypes and misconceptions. FAC ¶ 35. This classification

6 system results in, among other things, a failure to recognize that persons who do not

7 rely exclusively on wheelchairs may have significant physical restrictions requiring

8 accommodation. Id.; Hopper Decl. Exh. B at 6 (“[M]ost staff did not appear to have a

9 working knowledge of the broad range of disabilities that are covered by the ADA or

10 the range of accommodations that may be appropriate. For example, there did not

11 appear to be an awareness that many persons with physical disabilities do not require

12 wheelchairs, but have equally critical disability-related needs for accommodation,

13 which the ADA requires be provided to them.”); and Hopper Decl. ¶ 14 (noting that

14 his opinions have not changed since his initial report).

15 E. Proposed Class Representatives.

16

1. Joe Gonzalez.

17

Joe Gonzalez is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of all

18 applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

19 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 20. Mr. Gonzalez was the victim of a

20 violent crime in October of 2006. Since then his left leg has been paralyzed and his

21 right leg is very weak. See id. at ¶ 69. Mr. Gonzalez, like many other inmates with

22 mobility disabilities, was forced to hop around on one leg during his in-processing,

23 and was berated when he followed a nurses instructions and elevated his leg to reduce

24 swelling. Id. at ¶ 71. Mr. Gonzalez was also moved in and out of the wheelchair unit

25 several times once he was processed – and was threatened with discipline if he did not

26 get out of his wheelchair and use crutches. Id. at ¶¶ 73-75. Mr. Gonzalez has had great

27 difficulty accessing the visiting room, and has fallen in the shower, due to the

28 existence of physical barriers and lack of grab bars in the LA County jail. Id. at ¶ 75.

12 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:1637

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

2. Derrick White.

2

Derrick White is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of all

3 applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

4 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 22. Mr. White is partially paralyzed on

5 the left side of his body, with little grip in his left hand, and osteoporosis, and has

6 been in L.A. County jail since February of 2009. See id. at ¶ 85. Since Mr. White has

7 been housed at the jail, he has been forced to participate in the “declass line

8 approximately once a week, where inmates are lined up and told to try and walk.” Id.

9 at ¶ 88. He has been told that he is “faking” his inability to work in this line, and

10 based on that has been declassed and placed in general population. Id. at ¶ 89. After

11 Mr. White was placed in general population, he was forced to crawl because he had no

12 mobility aids. Id. at ¶ 90. He was finally examined by a doctor and placed back in the

13 wheelchair unit. Id. at ¶ 90. Despite this medical evaluation and determination, he was

14 again placed in general population one week later, without his wheelchair, and again

15 was forced to crawl around the jail. Id. at ¶ 91. After being placed back in the

16 wheelchair unit Mr. White was declassed again, and when he questioned this third

17 arbitrary decision he was put in disciplinary segregation for four months. Id. at ¶ 92.

18

3. Peter Johnson.

19

Peter Johnson is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of all

20 applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

21 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 16. Mr. Johnson is 38 years old, and is a

22 paraplegic who was in L.A. County jail from October of 2007 to January of 2009. Id.

23 at ¶ 38. During his time in L.A. County jail, Mr. Johnson was given a broken

24 wheelchair, was placed in cells without adequate grab bars by toilets and which

25 contained lips at the shower entrance, making it difficult (and, indeed, dangerous) to

26 basic personal hygiene. Id. at ¶¶ 41-42, 45-46. Further, despite his disability Mr.

27 Johnson was at times given a top bunk, and had his catheter taken away causing him

28 to wet his bed. Id. at ¶ 50. Due to his disability, Mr. Johnson was also forced to spend

13 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:1638

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 almost 24 hours a day in his cell, and was unable to participate in many programs

2 offered at the jail. Id. at ¶ 43.

3

4. Donald Peterson.

4

Donald Peterson is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of

5 all applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

6 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 17. Plaintiff Donald Peterson is a U.S.

7 military veteran with diabetes and significant mobility limitations. Id. at ¶ 47. During

8 the six months he spent at L.A. County jail, Mr. Peterson was never allowed to the

9 roof for exercise, and never participated in vocational or educational programs. Id. at

10 ¶ 48. Further, despite being provided a wheelchair when he first arrived, Mr. Walker

11 was moved to a unit for persons with walkers and crutches, despite the fact that Mr.

12 Walker had never used these mobility devices before. Id. at ¶ 49. Not surprisingly, Mr.

13 Peterson’s lack of familiarity with the walker he was given in this unit caused him to

14 fall. Id. at ¶ 49. Despite his mobility limitations, Mr. Peterson was even given a top

15 bunk, and at the same time had his catheter bag taken away from him, further

16 exacerbating that problem. Id. at ¶ 50. In addition, Mr. Peterson has no teeth due to

17 his disabilities, and was not provided a soft-food diet while in jail – nor was he

18 regularly provided medication to control his blood sugar, adding to the problems he

19 faced due to the jail’s failure to accommodate his mobility disabilities. See id. at ¶ 52.

20

5. Michael Curfman.

21

Michael Curfman is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of

22 all applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

23 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 18. Mr. Curfman has partial paralysis

24 and traumatic brain injury, and accordingly has significant difficulty with walking,

25 balance and stability due to his disability. Id. at ¶ 54. In total, he spent approximately

26 22 months in L.A. County jail, during which time he was denied the use of a mobility

27 aid, was placed in units with no grab bars, and was only allowed out of his cell to

28 shower. Id. at ¶¶ 56-60. Due to his disabilities, Mr. Curfman also has a hard time

14 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:1639

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 controlling his bladder, and despite repeated accidents he was not allowed to change

2 his soiled sheets or clothes, or even shower if it was not his turn. Id. at ¶ 59.

3

6. Andre Butler.

4

Andre Butler is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning of all

5 applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

6 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 19. Andre Butler has partial paralysis on

7 his left side, severe arthritis, and a spinal injury, and has been housed in L.A. County

8 jail since January of 2009. Id. at ¶ 61. Mr. Butler was forced to hop around on one leg

9 after his wheelchair was taken away during the intake procedure; broke his jaw in five

10 places, injured his neck, and broke several ribs when he was unsecured in a bus that

11 was involved in an accident; was given non-functioning wheelchairs; and spent most

12 of four months in disciplinary segregation when he was retaliated against for

13 questioning a decision to move him to a unit designed for people with walkers and

14 crutches. Id. at ¶¶ 62-67. Indeed, Mr. Butler has been “declassed” and “reclassed” in

15 and out of the wheelchair unit approximately five times, despite the fact that his

16 condition has not changed. Id. at ¶ 68. As noted above, when Mr. Butler was in state

17 prison, he was classified as a permanent wheelchair user.

18

7. Columbus Grigsby.

19

Columbus Grigsby is a “qualified person with a disability” within the meaning

20 of all applicable statues, including 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), 29 U.S.C. §705(20)(B), and

21 California Government Code §12926. FAC ¶ 121. Mr. Grigsby has been partially

22 paralyzed in his left arm and left leg since September of 2008, and has been in L.A.

23 County jail since November of 2009. Id. at ¶ 77. When Mr. Grigsby arrived at the

24 jail, his quad-cane was taken away and he was given a series of non-functioning

25 wheelchairs that either lacked footrests or did not have adequate seating. Id. at ¶ 79.

26 Mr. Grigsby has spent substantial time in solitary confinement when he questioned

27 decisions to move him out of the wheelchair unit. See id. at ¶ 80. While in solitary

28 confinement Mr. Grigsby was not allowed to purchase sweets he needed to maintain

15 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:1640

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 his blood sugar levels, and denied access to the outside world through television and

2 telephones exacerbating the depression caused by his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

3 Id. at ¶ 81.

4

III. ARGUMENT

5

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on May 29, 2008 and a First Amended Complaint

6 on June 11, 2010. Based on that First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs here seek to

7 certify a class consisting of all detainees and inmates with mobility impairments who

8 because of those disabilities need appropriate accommodations, modifications, 9 services, and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws.5

10 This proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

11 A. Legal Standards Governing Motions For Class Certification.

12

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for class

13 certification. Under Rule 23(a), a party seeking class certification must show: (1) the

14 class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are

15 questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the

16 representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the

17 representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.

18 R. Civ. P. 23(a); Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001).

19

In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must also meet one of

20 the requirements of Rule 23(b), which imposes different requirements depending on

21 the type of class action a party seeks to certify. Here, plaintiffs seek to certify a class

22 for injunctive and declaratory relief only. Accordingly, plaintiffs must meet the

23 requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), which requires plaintiffs to show that “the party

24 opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the

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

26 respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868.

27

28 5 Plaintiffs have modified the class definition from that contained in the original complaint in order to focus the matter on the most significant issues. 16 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:1641

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1

The decision whether to certify a class is committed to the district court’s

2 discretion. Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 871 n.28. “[W]hen considering class certification

3 under Rule 23, district courts . . . must, perform a rigorous analysis to ensure that the

4 prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied, and this analysis will often, though not

5 always, require looking behind the pleadings to issues overlapping with the merits of

6 the underlying claims.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 594 (9th Cir.

7 2010). However, “Rule 23 gives neither party the right to turn the certification

8 decision into a trial.” Id. at 591. In the present case, the requirements for class

9 certification under this standard are clearly satisfied.

10 B. Plaintiffs Have Met the Requirements of Rule 23(a).

11

1. Numerosity is satisfied because there are far too many class members

12

to make joinder practicable.

13

Under the numerosity requirement, plaintiffs must show that the class is so

14 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs may meet this

15 requirement even if the exact number of potential class members is unknown. Neff v.

16 VIA Metro. Transit Auth., 179 F.R.D. 185, 193 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (certifying class of

17 persons with disabilities who used public transit) (citation omitted). “While there is no

18 bright-line rule as to how many class members are required to be sufficiently

19 numerous, various courts have found that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class

20 comprises 40 or more members and have found it not satisfied when the class

21 comprises 21 or fewer.” Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Californians Dep’t

22 of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 346 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citation omitted); see also 1 Conte

23 & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3.5 (4th ed. 2006) (class of 40 or greater

24 should satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)); 5 Moore's Federal Practice, § 23.22(3)(a) (3d ed. 2003)

25 (classes with more than 40 members generally held sufficient to establish numerosity);

26 Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 569 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Courts may

27 appropriately consider statistical and census data in determining whether the

28 numerosity requirement has been met. Californians for Disability Rights, 249 F.R.D.

17 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:1642

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 at 347-48 (citing Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448

2 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604, 608 (N.D. Cal. 2004)).

3

In this case, defendants own documents demonstrate that approximately 200

4 people fall within the class definition at any given time. Plaintiffs’ expert Logan

5 Hopper estimates that there could be as many as 500 people with mobility

6 impairments in the jail based on census data. Hopper Decl. ¶¶ 15-21. These numbers

7 are sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement.

8

2. Commonality is met because the lawsuit challenges system-wide

9

practices and policies that affect all detainees with disabilities.

10

Rule 23(a)(2) requires plaintiffs to show that there is “at least one question of

11 fact or law” that is common to the class. Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d

12 48, 56 (3d Cir. 1994). In the context of civil rights lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit has held

13 that “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or

14 policy that affects all of the putative class members. . . . In such circumstance,

15 individual factual differences among the individual litigants or groups of litigants will

16 not preclude a finding of commonality.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 868 (affirming

17 certification of a class of California state prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, 18 hearing, learning and developmental disabilities) (citations omitted).6

19

The general practice in civil rights suits is to find that “commonality is satisfied

20 where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the

21 putative class members.” Id.; Arnold, 158 F.R.D. at 448 (commonality requirement is

22 “met by the alleged existence of common discriminatory practices.”). Further, actions

23 for injunctive relief are generally considered to present common questions. See Baby

24 6 See also L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV. S-06-2042, 2007 WL 662463, *11-12 25 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (commonality satisfied where a broad class of juvenile parolees with
disabilities challenged system-wide discriminatory practices); Californians for 26 Disability Rights, 249 F.R.D. at 345 (“Cases challenging an entity’s policies and
practices regarding access for the disabled represent the mine run of disability rights 27 class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2).”); Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248,
254 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (certifying a broad class of public assistance recipients “who 28 have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of [state law]”
whose cases were transferred to various sites). 18
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:1643

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 Neal, 43 F.3d at 57 (“[B]ecause they do not also involve an individualized inquiry for

2 the determination of damage awards, injunctive actions ‘by their very nature often

3 present common questions satisfying Rule 23(a)(2)’”) quoting 7A Charles Alan

4 Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1763, at 247 (2d ed. 1986); see also

5 Riker v. Gibbons, No. 3:08-CV-00115-LRH-RAM, 2009 WL 910971 (D. Nev. Mar.

6 31, 2009).

7

As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, “[t]he commonality test is ‘qualitative

8 rather than quantitative’ – one significant issue common to the class may be sufficient

9 to warrant certification.” Dukes, 603 F.3d at 599. Moreover, what matters is plaintiffs’

10 theory, not whether the theory will ultimately succeed on the merits. Id. at 614-15.

11 Because of this focus on theories presented, “a full inquiry into the merits of a putative

12 class’s legal claims is precisely what both the Supreme Court and [the 9th Circuit

13 Court of Appeals] have cautioned is not appropriate for a Rule 23 certification

14 inquiry.” Id. at 590 (citing United Steel Works v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802,

15 808-809 (9th Cir. 2010)).

16

Here, plaintiffs easily meet the commonality requirement because they are

17 challenging a system-wide failure by the L.A. County jails to provide programs,

18 services and activities to detainees and inmates with disabilities. This legal challenge

19 will require the Court to address a number of factual and legal questions that are

20 common to the class. This is a quintessential civil rights class action, in that it

21 revolves around the County’s illegal system-wide policies and practices, and its

22 systemic failures to take necessary action, which have affected all class members in

23 the same manner. As the Ninth Circuit recently held in a similar class action lawsuit

24 on behalf of detainees with disabilities in the Orange County jails, “[a]ny type of

25 educational, vocational, rehabilitative, or recreational program, service, or activity

26 offered to nondisabled detainees should, when viewed in its entirety, be similarly

27 available to disabled detainees who, with or without reasonable accommodations,

28 meet the essential eligibility requirements to participate.” Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1222. In

19 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:1644

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 addition, defendants here have an obligation to modify policies and procedures where

2 necessary to avoid discrimination, as well as remove physical barriers to ensure that

3 people with disabilities may access programs and services. See generally, 28 C.F.R.

4 §35.130(b)(7), and §35.150; see also Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1214-1216 (outlining

5 requirements for removal of physical barriers); and Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d

6 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (action that uniquely burdens people with disabilities violates

7 ADA); Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (same); and McGary v. City

8 of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265-67 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining reasonable

9 modification requirement).

10

Here, common issues abound, including: (1) the failure to provide accessible

11 facilities throughout the jail; (2) the systemic failure to identify and classify persons

12 with disabilities, and provide appropriate mobility aids; (3) the failure to provide

13 access to programs and services; and (4) the failure to provide reasonable 14 accommodations to persons with disabilities.7 The Court will need to make common

15 factual findings on these issues, as well as common legal determinations whether the

16 L.A. County jails are violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42

17 U.S.C. §12131), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794), the United States

18 Constitution, and California disability laws. Because the putative class members share

19 a number of legal and factual issues, commonality is certainly met.

20

3. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class.

21

Under Rule 23(a)(3), plaintiffs must show that the claims of the representative

22 parties are typical of the claims of the class. To satisfy the requirement of typicality,

23 “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and

24 25 7 Defendants cannot make vague arguments about penological interests preventing it
from accommodating inmate disabilities – instead, defendants will have to make a 26 specific proffer about why specific accommodations are not available – another
common question. See Pierce, 562 F.3d at 1220 (vague assertions are not a legitimate 27 basis for failing to comply with the ADA); see also Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 873.
Further, defendants’ failure to review accommodation requests made by a class of 28 individuals, in and of itself, creates a common issue of law and fact that the Court can
certify here. 20
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:1645

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 suffer the same injury as the class members.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S.

2 147, 156 (1982) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To satisfy typicality,

3 the Ninth Circuit “do[es] not insist that the named plaintiffs’ injuries be identical with

4 those of the other class members, only that the unnamed class members have injuries

5 similar to those of the named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the same,

6 injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 869 (citation omitted); see also

7 Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58 (“Where an action challenges a policy or practice, the named

8 plaintiffs suffering one specific injury from the practice can represent a class suffering

9 other injuries, so long as all the injuries are shown to result from the practice.”); Cal.

10 Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 917 F.2d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir.

11 1990) (Rule 23 “does not require the named plaintiffs to be identically situated with

12 all other class members,” only that their situations be “sufficiently parallel to insure a

13 vigorous and full presentation of all claims for relief.”) (citations omitted).

14

In order to satisfy typicality, the named plaintiffs’ claims need not be identical

15 to the claims of the class. Claims are typical under the rule’s permissive standards if

16 they are “reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members.” Dukes, 603

17 F.3d at 613 quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). It

18 is sufficient for plaintiffs’ claims to “arise from the same remedial and legal theories”

19 as the class’s claims. Arnold, 158 F.R.D. at 449.

20

Here, the named plaintiffs – Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Michael Curfman,

21 Andre Butler, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, and Derrick White – are all persons

22 with disabilities who have been or are detained in the L.A. County jails. They each

23 allege that defendants have failed to make the programs, services and activities

24 offered by the L.A. County jails accessible to persons with disabilities, and have failed

25 to adopt appropriate policies and procedures for housing, accommodating and caring

26 for persons with disabilities. Between the seven of them, they have suffered injuries

27 similar to the injuries suffered by the class, including the seemingly arbitrary and

28 capricious classification and declassification decisions, inappropriate mobility aids,

21 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:1646

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 the failure to accommodate their disabilities, segregation into the inappropriate

2 facilities within the jail that contain systemic architectural barriers, and/or denial of

3 access to programs and services. See, e.g., Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 19-23 (capricious

4 classification and declassification decisions); White Decl. ¶¶ 7-8 (same); Grigsby

5 Decl. ¶¶ 11-13, 26 (same); Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (inappropriate mobility aids); White

6 Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13 (same); see Peterson Decl. ¶ 8 (failure to accommodate disabilities);

7 Curfman Decl. ¶ 12 (segregation into facilities with physical barriers); White Decl. ¶

8 10 (same); Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 8, 14-15 (denial of access to programs and services); 9 Grigsby Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16-21, 23 (same).8 Plaintiffs challenge the same course of

10 conduct on the same legal grounds as would be challenged by the class. Therefore,

11 typicality is established.

12

4. The Named Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately protect

13

the interests of the class.

14

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative parties will fairly

15 and adequately protect the interests of the class. “Adequacy of representation depends

16 on the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a

17 sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that

18 the suit is collusive.” In re N. Dist. of Cal., Dalkon Shield IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 693

19 F.2d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also In re United Energy Corp.,

20 122 F.R.D. 251, 257 (C.D. Cal. 1988).

21

As set forth above in the discussion of the commonality and typicality

22 requirements, plaintiffs share the same interests of declaratory and injunctive relief as

23 the proposed class members. None of the plaintiffs is currently seeking damages as a

24

25 26 8 Those plaintiffs who are no longer detained within the jail may properly represent
the class in light of the fact that the claims of most people within the jail are 27 “inherently transitory.” See, e.g., Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44
(1991); and “Education Based Incarceration” at 828 (average length of stay in 2009 28 was 54 days). However, even were this not the case, two named Plaintiffs, Joe
Gonzalez and Derrick White, are currently detained in the Los Angeles County Jail. 22
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:1647

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, and there is no basis on which to argue that

2 their interests are antagonistic to those of the class.

3

The putative class is represented by the highly experienced legal team of the

4 Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”), the American Civil Liberties Union of

5 Southern California (“ACLU”), Disability Rights California (“DRC”) and Winston &

6 Strawn. The list of counsels’ qualifications is too long to recite here, but are fully set

7 forth in counsel’s declarations accompanying this motion. Named Plaintiffs and their

8 attorneys are well-qualified to litigate their claims against Los Angeles County. See

9 Parks Decl.; Declarations of Melinda Bird (“Bird Decl.”); Stephen Smerek (“Smerek

10 Decl.”); Hector Villagra (“Villagra Decl.”); Jordan v. Cnty. of L.A., 669 F.2d 1311,

11 1323 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that adequacy of counsel can be met by showing that

12 the named plaintiffs’ attorneys are qualified, experienced, and generally able to

13 conduct litigation).

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel also meets the requirements of Rule 23(g), and should

15 therefore be appointed class counsel.9 Under Rule 23(g), in appointing class counsel, a

16 court must consider: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating

17 potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other

18 complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s

19 knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to

20 representing the class.” Counsel has done extensive work in identifying and

21 investigating the claims in this action. Counsel’s declarations further establish that

22 they have substantial experience handling class actions, and other complex litigation,

23 including with respect to jail conditions and persons with disabilities. Counsel is well-

24 versed in disability and constitutional law, which will apply in this case, and they have

25 more than sufficient resources to vigorously prosecute this case. See generally; Parks

26 Decl.; Bird Decl.; Smerek Decl.; Villagra Decl.

27 28 9 Rule 23(c) requires that an order certifying a class action “must appoint class counsel
under Rule 23(g).” 23
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:1648

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 C. Plaintiffs Meet the Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2) Because They Challenge

2

A Practice Of Discriminating Against Detainees With Disabilities.

3

Plaintiffs must also satisfy at least one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b).

4 Here, plaintiffs seek to certify a class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), which

5 requires plaintiffs to show that defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds

6 that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

7 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8 23(b)(2). For a class to be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), “[i]t is sufficient if class

9 members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class,”

10 even if all not all class members have been injured by the challenged practice.

11 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998); Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 57 (Rule

12 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when a “defendant’s conduct is central to the

13 claims of all class members irrespective of their individual circumstances and the

14 disparate impact of the conduct.”). The requirements of Rule 23(b) are also “almost

15 automatically satisfied in actions primarily seeking injunctive relief.” Baby Neal, 43

16 F.3d at 58 (citation omitted); see also Von Colln v. Cnty. of Ventura, 189 F.R.D. 583,

17 592 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“If the Rule 23(a) prerequisites have been met and injunctive

18 relief has been requested, the action should be allowed to proceed under subdivision

19 (b)(2).”) (citation omitted).

20

L.A. County jails should be operated in compliance with federal and state

21 disability laws and the U.S. Constitution. The basis for plaintiffs’ claims is that the

22 County has violated these laws by failing to make the programs, services and activities

23 offered by the L.A. County jails accessible to persons with disabilities, and has failed

24 to adopt appropriate policies and procedures for housing, accommodating and caring

25 for persons with disabilities. Because plaintiffs’ central claim is that the County has

26 “acted or refused to act on grounds that generally apply to the class” of detainees with

27 disabilities in the L.A. County jails, plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(2).

28

Suits brought to vindicate civil rights are precisely the type of suits for which

24 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 107 Filed 11/12/10 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:1649

Winston & Strawn LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

1 Rule 23(b)(2) was designed. See Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Ctr. Group,

2 Ltd., 197 F.R.D. 522, 524 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (listing disability rights class action

3 cases certified under Rule 23(b)(2)); see also Raymond v. Rowland, 220 F.R.D. 173,

4 181 (D. Conn. 2004) (certifying broad class of persons with disabilities and stating

5 that “[c]ases of this nature, alleging systemic failure of governmental bodies to

6 properly fulfill statutory requirements, have been held to be appropriate for class

7 certification under Rule 23(b)(2).”).

8

Indeed, the requirements of Rule 23(b) are also “almost automatically satisfied

9 in actions primarily seeking injunctive relief.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58 (citation

10 omitted); see also Von Colln v. Cnty. of Ventura, 189 F.R.D. 583, 592 (C.D.Cal. 1999)

11 (“If the Rule 23(a) prerequisites have been met and injunctive relief has been

12 requested, the action should be allowed to proceed under subdivision(b)(2).”) (citation

13 omitted).

14

IV. CONCLUSION

15

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

16 certify the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

17 Procedure. Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed order concurrently herewith.

18 DATED: November 12, 2010 19 20 21 22 23

Respectfully submitted, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

24

25

By /s/ Stephen R. Smerek Stephen R. Smerek

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

28 LA:279501.13

25 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 212 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:3978

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD
11 PETERSON, MICHAEL CURFMAN, ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ,
12 COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and
13 DERRICK WHITE on behalf of themselves and all others
14 similarly situated,

15

16

vs.

Plaintiffs,

Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx) Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND SCHEDULING A FAIRNESS HEARING

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

18

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of

19 the County of Los Angeles, and

20

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

21

Defendants

22

23

Plaintiffs PETER JOHNSON, DONALD, PETERSON, MICHAEL

24 CURFMAN, ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and

25 DERRICK WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

26 (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”) have filed, and Defendants do not oppose, a

27 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Order Directing

28
1 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 212 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:3979

1 Notice to the Class and Scheduling a Fairness Hearing (hereinafter “Preliminary

2 Approval Motion”). The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ moving papers including 3 the Settlement Agreement, the proposed Class Notice,1 the proposed Plan for Class

4 Notice, and supporting declarations and exhibits, as well as the arguments of

5 counsel presented at a hearing on the Preliminary Approval Motion held on

6 November 24, 2014.

7

Based on the above-referenced papers, the arguments of counsel, and this

8 Court’s file, the Court hereby finds and concludes that:

9

1. The settlement is the result of serious, informed, non-collusive

10

negotiations between the parties, has no obvious deficiencies, does not

11

improperly grant preferential treatment to Named Plaintiffs or segments of

12

the Class, and falls within the range of possible settlement approval such

13

that notice to the Class is appropriate and should be given.

14

2. The proposed Class Notice allows Class members a full and fair

15

opportunity to consider the settlement and it fairly, plainly, accurately, and

16

reasonably informs Class members of the nature of this litigation, the

17

identity of Class counsel, the essential terms of the Settlement Agreement,

18

the Court’s procedures for final approval of the settlement, Class

19

members’ right to comment or object if they so desire, and how to obtain

20

additional information regarding this litigation and the settlement. The

21

proposed Class Notice thus satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of

22

___________________________________
23 1 The Court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), defined

24 as “all present and future detainees and inmates in Los Angeles County jail with

25

mobility impairments who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with

26 federal and state disabilities laws” (“the Class”).

27

28
2 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 212 Filed 11/24/14 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:3980

1

Civil Procedure 23, due process, and the Class Action Fairness Act of

2

2005.

3

3. The proposed Plan for Class Notice is a reasonable method to inform Class

4

members of the settlement and satisfies the notice requirements of Federal

5

Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court finds that the Plan for Class Notice

6

constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances of this

7

action, satisfies constitutional and statutory due process requirements, and

8

shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto.

9

BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY

10 ORDERED that:

11

1. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is granted and

12

the settlement is preliminarily approved;

13

2. The proposed Class Notice is approved;

14

3. The manner of distributing the proposed Class Notice, as set forth in the

15

proposed Plan for Class Notice, is approved;

16

4. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule:

17

(a) Class Notice, as outlined in the Plan for Class Notice, shall be

18

posted no later than December 2, 2014;

19

(b) Class members may submit objections to the settlement as outlined

20

in the Plan for Class Notice and the Settlement Agreement itself, so

21

long as the objections are postmarked or otherwise received by

22

January 12, 2015. Class counsel will record the date of receipt of

23

each objection or comment, and shall provide Defendants’ counsel

24

with copies of any objections within five (5) working days of

25

receipt. To the extent Defendants receive any complaints,

26

grievances or comments that appear to be objections to the

27

28
3 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 212 Filed 11/24/14 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:3981

1

settlement, Defendants shall provide Class counsel with copies of

2

such objections within five (5) working days of receipt.

3

(c) By March 2, 2015, the parties shall file a motion for final approval

4

of the settlement including all valid and timely objections to the

5

settlement and any responses thereto;

6

(d) The Court shall conduct a Fairness Hearing on March 23, 2015 at

7

10:00 a.m. for the purpose of adjudging final approval of the

8

settlement. Class members who served timely objections to the

9

settlement may appear at the Fairness Hearing in person or through

10

counsel to show cause why the settlement should not be finally

11

approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court will decide

12

whether to allow objecting Class members to be heard. The

13

Fairness Hearing may be postponed, adjourned or continued by

14

order of the Court without further notice to the Class;

15

(e) The Named Plaintiffs shall file a Notice of Motion and Motion for

16

Attorneys’ Fees (“Fees Motion”) no later than March 2, 2015.

17

Defendants shall file a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Fees Motion

18

no later than March 9, 2015; and

19

(f) The February 2, 2015 Final Pretrial Conference and February 10,

20

2015 trial are hereby vacated.

21

22

IT IS SO ORDERED

23

24
Dated: November 24, 2014
25
26

The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

27

28
4 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12

PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, MICHAEL CURFMAN,

13 ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ,

14 COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and DERRICK WHITE

15 on behalf of themselves and all others

16 similarly situated,

Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx) Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES

17

18

vs.

Plaintiffs,

19 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

20 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of
21 the County of Los Angeles

22

Defendants

23

24

25

26

27

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE

28

ATTORNEY’S FEES

1

The Court determines that, for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum

2 in Support of the Motion for Attorney’s Fees, an award of fees and expenses of 3 $2,200,00.00 as provided by the Settlement Agreement as compensation for their 4 work on this lawsuit is warranted. The Court therefore awards fees and expenses to 5 Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $2,200,000.00.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
DATED: March 24, 2015
9
10

____________________________________ The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES

1

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 220 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:5233

1

2

3

4

5

6

JS-6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD
11 PETERSON, MICHAEL CURFMAN, ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ,
12 COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and
13 DERRICK WHITE on behalf of themselves and all others
14 similarly situated,

15

16

vs.

Plaintiffs,

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

18

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of

19 the County of Los Angeles, and

20

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

21

Defendants

Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx) Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Date: March 23, 2015 Time: 10:00 am Judge: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson Courtroom: 3

22

23

Plaintiffs PETER JOHNSON, DONALD, PETERSON, MICHAEL

24 CURFMAN, ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and

25 DERRICK WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

26 (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”) have filed, and all parties support, a Motion for

27

28
1 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 220 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:5234

1 Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Class Settlement Agreement

2 entered into by all parties is attached as Exhibit 1.

3

Classes in this case have previously been certified under Federal Rule of Civil

4 Procedure 23(b)(2) and need not be amended for purposes of settlement. On

5 November 24, 2014, this Court granted preliminary approval to the Class Settlement

6 Agreement and directed notice of the settlement, its terms, and the applicable

7 procedure and schedules. A Fairness Hearing was held on March 23, 2015 to

8 determine whether the Class Settlement Agreement should be granted final approval

9 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

10 Class members were given an opportunity to comment on and object to the Class

11 Settlement Agreement in writing and at that Fairness hearing.

12

Based on consideration of Plaintiffs’ moving papers, the arguments of

13 counsel, the objections of class members, and the proceedings in this action to date,

14 the Court hereby finds and concludes that:

15

1. The Class Notice distributed to Class Members, pursuant to this Court’s

16

prior order, was accomplished in all material requests and fully met the

17

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, due process, and any

18

other applicable laws.

19

2. The Class Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all

20

respects. The Class Settlement Agreement provides meaningful relief and

21

is reasonable related to the strength of Plaintiffs’ and class members’

22

claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further

23

litigation. The Class Settlement Agreement is the result of arms-length

24

negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the

25

Plaintiff Class and Defendants, after thorough factual and legal

26

investigation.

27

28
2 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval,
Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 220 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:5235

1

3. The Court has reviewed and considered the objections of class members

2

and finds that they do not raise concerns that warrant rejecting the Class

3

Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is a reasonable

4

compromise between the parties, given the risks of further litigation and

5

the harm to the Plaintiff Class.

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all

8

matters relating thereto, and over the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Venue is

9

proper in the Central District of California.

10

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), this Court grants final

11

approval to the Class Settlement Agreement, incorporates the terms of the

12

Class Settlement Agreement into this order as though fully set forth, and

13

orders all parties to perform all of their obligations thereunder.

14

3. This order and the Class Settlement Agreement are binding against the

15

parties, their successors in office, and their respective officers, agents, and

16

employees, and all others acting in concert with them.

17

4. The Court retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over this case, the

18

Named Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and Defendants for purposes of

19

supervising and resolving issues relating to administration,

20

implementation, and enforcement of the Class Settlement Agreement, its

21

terms, or the enforcement thereof; and fashioning appropriate remedies for

22

any violation of that Class Settlement Agreement, for three years from the

23

effective date of the Settlement Agreement.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED

25
Dated: March 24, 2015

26

27

The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson

United States District Judge

28

3

[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval, Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CLOSED

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD 14 PETERSON, MICHAEL CURFMAN,
15 ANDRE BUTLER, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, and
16 DERRICK WHITE
17 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
18

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 22 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public

23 entity; JIM MCDONNELL, as Sheriff of

24

the County of Los Angeles and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public

25 entity,

26

Defendants

Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx) Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH PREJDUDICE, WITH RETENTION OF JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT IF NECESSARY

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
1

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT IS

2 HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3 1. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, (see, Docket No.

4

210.2), the above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice with the

5

Court retaining jurisdiction over this action to enforce, if necessary,

6

compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9
10 DATED: June 08, 2015
11

The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
2

 
 1

2

3

O

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD

) Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx)

PETERSON and MICHAEL

)

12 CURFMAN, on behalf of

) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

themselves and all others

) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

13 similarly situated,

)

) [Application for Temporary

14

Plaintiffs, ) Restraining Order filed on 5/5/11

) - docket number 143]

15

v.

)

)

16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

DEPARTMENT, a public entity; )

17 LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of

)

the County of Los Angeles

)

18 and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a )

public entity; MICHAEL D.

)

19 ANTONOVICH, YVONNE B. BURKE, )

DON KNABE, GLORIA MOLINA,

)

20 ZEV YAROSLAVSKY as

)

Supervisors of the County of )

21 Los Angeles,

)

)

22

Defendants. )

___________________________ )

23

24 I. Background

25

Presently before the court is plaintiff Terry Alexander

26 (“Alexander”)’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

27 (“TRO”). At the time he filed for TRO, Alexander was incarcerated

28 in the Los Angeles Jail. (Declaration of Terry Alexander ¶¶ 2-3).

1 Alexander claims to have been confined to a wheelchair since 2003.

2 (Alexander Dec. ¶ 5). Alexander alleges that Los Angeles Sheriff’s

3 Department repeatedly attempted to “declassify” him (as disabled)

4 and remove him from his wheelchair. (Alexander Dec. ¶¶ 19, 21-22).

5 Alexander refused to give up his wheelchair, and was disciplined

6 with a restricted diet and solitary confinement. (Alexander Dec.

7 ¶¶ 26, 28).

8

At the time he filed for a TRO, Alexander had been in solitary

9 confinement for approximately three weeks. (Alexander Dec. ¶ 29).

10 Alexander alleges that defendants are discriminating against him on

11 the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with

12 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and Section 504 of the

13 Rehabilitation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 794(a). (Application for Temporary

14 Restraining Order at 10). Alexander now seeks a TRO ordering his

15 immediate release from solitary confinement and forty-eight hours

16 pre-disciplinary notice to Plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to all

17 Plaintiffs.

18 II. Discussion

19

A temporary restraining order is meant to be used only in

20 extraordinary circumstances. To establish entitlement to a TRO,

21 the requesting party must show (1) that he is likely to succeed on

22 the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

23 absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities

24 tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public

25 interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Counsel, 129 S.Ct. 365,

26 374 (2008). In the Ninth Circuit, a TRO may be warranted where a

27 party (1) shows a combination of probable success on the merits and

28 the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2)raises serious questions

2

1 and the balance of hardships tips in favor of a TRO. See Arcamuzi

2 v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th

3 Cir. 1987). “These two formulations represent two points on a

4 sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm

5 increases as the probability of success decreases.” Id. Under

6 both formulations, however, the party must demonstrate a “fair

7 chance of success on the merits” and a “significant threat of 8 irreparable injury.”1 Id.

9

As an initial matter, Plaintiff Alexander is no longer in

10 Defendants’ custody, thus mooting his application for relief.2

11 That issue notwithstanding, a TRO is not warranted because

12 Alexander cannot demonstrate the requisite likelihood of success on

13 the merits or risk of irreparable harm. Alexander has provided

14 evidence that he did at some point require the use of a wheelchair. 15 (Declaration of Terry Hill, M.D. ¶ 10)3. Other, more recent

16 evidence in the record, however, indicates that Alexander is

17 capable of walking. (Declaration of Nina Zasorin, M.D. ¶ 8). A

18 highly qualified physician tracked Alexander’s medical condition

19 for six months and conducted blood tests, neurological

20 examinations, and multiple spinal taps before concluding that

21

22

1 Even under the “serious interests” sliding scale test, a plaintiff must satisfy the four Winter factors and demonstrate

23

“that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild

24 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

25

2 It appears that Alexander was transferred to state custody

26 on May 9, 2011, four days after filing his application for a TRO.

27

3 Alexander has not attached any of the medical records upon which Dr. Terry Hill’s opinion are purportedly based. It does not

28

appear to the court that Dr. Hill reviewed any records generated during Alexander’s most recent incarceration.

3

1 Alexander does not have a mobility impairment.4 (Zasorin Dec. ¶¶

2 9, 10, 12).

3 III. Conclusion

4

Having failed to demonstrate that he is disabled, Alexander

5 cannot show a likelihood of success on his ADA or Rehabilitation

6 Act claims or a danger of irreparable harm stemming from violations

7 of those statutes. Accordingly, the Application for a Temporary

8 Restraining Order is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is

9 DENIED.

10

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

13

14 Dated: May 12, 2011 15

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4 Alexander’s application for a TRO refers to threats that named plaintiff Derrick White is also in danger of being

27

disciplined for refusal to leave his wheelchair. As with plaintiff Alexander, however, physical examinations support the conclusion

28

that plaintiff White is not paralyzed or mobility impaired (Zasorin Dec. ¶¶ 13-15).

4

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:5279

1 MAX HUNTSMAN

Inspector General, Bar No. 156780 2 CATHLEEN BELTZ

Assistant Inspector General, Bar No. 245593

KRITHTFIIKA VASUDEVAN

4 Deputy Inspector General, Bar No. 247590

STACEY NELSON

Investigator, Bar No. 302205

6

Inspector_Genera1oig.lacounty.gov OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

3 12 South Hill Street, 3 rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90013

$ Telephone: (213) 974-6100; Fax: (213) 680-1406

Monitors

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER JOHNSON, DONALD

) Case No.: CV 08-035 15 DDP

14 PETERSON and MICHAEL

15

CURFMAN on behalf of themselves and all other‘s si. mi. larly si. tuated,

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FIRST

)

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

16

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

)

17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public )

entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of

19

County of Los Angeles, and COUNTY ) OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

20 MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH,

)

YVONE B. BURKE, DON KNABE, )

21 GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV

YAROSLAVSKY, as Supervisors of ) 22 the County of Los Angeles

23

Defendants.

)

1

CVO8-03515DDP

24

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FIRST IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:5280

1

Pursuant to Section V, subsection M, of the Settlement Agreement

2 (Agreement), the Monitor appointed by this Court, the Office of Inspector General
3
(OIG), submits the attached Office of Inspector General’s First Implementation
4
Status Report (Report) evaluating the Defendant’s compliance with the terms of
5
6 this Agreement. This report was prepared by the OIG to provide “reasonable and

regular reports” to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (collectively referred to as “the

$ Parties”), and the Court. This is the OIG’s first of four (4) semi-annual reports

anticipated for the duration of the Agreement. The OIG representative is available

10
to answer any questions the Court may have regarding this Report and Defendants’
11
compliance with the Agreement.
12

13 Dated: October 5, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

14

By

16

/ Max Huntsin -

17

jnsèt9r4eneral

LoAIigeles County Office of Inspector

18

General

19

20

21

22

23

2

CV 08-035 15 DDP

24

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FIRST IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:5281
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FIRST IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT
The Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between the Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Michael Curfman (Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the County of Los Angeles, et al. (the Defendants) in Peter Johnson et. al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., United States District Court of the Central District of Calfornia, Case No. CV 08-03515 DDP (Action), provides that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) will prepare and submit to the Parties and the Court periodic reports evaluating the Defendants’ compliance with the Agreement. The Defendants have agreed to implement system-wide reform of the Los Angeles County conditions of confinement and access of prisoner Class Members to programming, medical care and other jail services, and to revise its policies, procedures, and practices that govern the treatment of Class Members housed in the Defendants’ jail facilities.
On August 12, 2014, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) passed Los Angeles County Code §6.44.190 (Code), to create the Office of Inspector General to provide “. . . . independent and comprehensive oversight, monitoring of, and reporting about” the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Department). In the OIG’s official capacity as counsel to the Board, and pursuant
1

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:5282
to the Memorandum of Agreement to Share and Protect Confidential Department Information (MOA) entered into on December 15, 2015, between the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the OIG, the OIG assists the Board in the discharge of its duties under Government Code Section 25303 by regularly monitoring the Department’s Custody Services Division and its jail facilities.
OIG personnel regularly inspect the Department’s Custody Services Division facilities, attend administrative meetings, and monitor the provision of medical and mental health services to Los Angeles County prisoners. The OIG began monitoring the Department’s Custody Services Division in January 2014 and, on November 14, 2014, was appointed by the Court to serve as monitor for the Defendants’ implementation of the Agreement. The parties understand and agree that the s implementation monitoring of the Agreement in no way limits the OIG’s access to personnel, facilities, and confidential records, or its duties and authority pursuant to the California Government Code, the Los Angeles County Code, and the MOA.
In assessing the Defendants’ compliance with the terms of the Agreement, the OIG has prepared and the parties have agreed to utilize compliance measures to evaluate, track, and report on the Defendants’ progress. The compliance measures were finalized on August 24, 2016. Although the Agreement does not mandate the use of compliance measures, they establish for the County the OIG’s compliance
2

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5283
expectations and serve as a guide for the Agreement’s implementation. The compliance measures were developed in consultation with the parties and in collaboration with the Department’s Custody Services Division line personnel and managers who are responsible for the Agreement’s implementation in the county jails.
For each of the Agreement’s substantive provisions, the compliance measures prescribe the documents, audit sampling methods, and additional information which will be utilized by the OIG in its assessment of the Department’s compliance with the Agreement. Because some compliance measures were developed before the Defendants determined how their corresponding provisions would be most effectively implemented, the OIG anticipates some modifications to the Defendants’ implementation plan(s) or to the compliance measures themselves. In monitoring Defendants’ implementation progress, the OIG may modify the compliance measures when necessary to make a compliance finding or to promote feasibility, efficiency or sustainability.
The OIG will utilize three compliance categories: “Non-Compliance” (NC), “Partial Compliance” (PC) and “Substantial Compliance” (SC). Meaningful reform is best achieved by way of efficient and sustainable implementation. The OIG and the Defendants share the expectation that reforms implemented pursuant to the Agreement must outlive the Agreement’s April 22, 2018 termination date.
3

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:5284
The County must account for existing personnel and other resources and implement plans that satisfy the terms of the Agreement and meet the needs both of prisoner Class Members and the jail personnel whose commitment is imperative to the Agreement’s long-term success. As such, the OIG will monitor both the Defendants’ implementation outcomes as well as the processes by which implementation is achieved.
Where the compliance measures refer to the promulgation of policies, the Defendants will be evaluated based upon a policy’s drafting, notification of personnel (and prisoners where appropriate), personnel training (where appropriate), policy implementation and, ultimately, adherence. Where the settlement agreement requires notification to prisoners, the Defendants are expected to ensure that notification of all Class Members, accounting for any applicable special needs.
Some of the compliance measures require evaluation of Class Member population data. The OIG has set forth a statistically valid method by which randomly selected representative samples will be generated for this purpose. The parties have agreed that where compliance measures identify population samples to be evaluated, the Department’s Audits and Accountability Bureau (AAB) will validate the Custody Services Division’s internal assessment methods. The AAB was established pursuant to a recommendation by the Citizens’ Commission on Jail
4

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:5285
Violence (CCJV). Consistent with the CCJV’s recommendation, the AAB reports directly to the Sheriff and provides internal monitoring, auditing, and accountability that is independent of the Custody Services or other Department Divisions. The OIG is confident that AAB’s involvement in the initial phases of the Agreement’s implementation will support the longevity of the Defendants’ reform successes.
The Defendants have agreed to retain a subject matter expert with expertise
in the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.), specifically
mobility impairments, to make recommendations regarding settlement agreement implementation and OIG compliance findings where necessary. The OIG anticipates that the Defendants’ expert will serve as a resource for the Defendants beyond the Agreement’s termination date. The OIG and the Parties will determine which aspects of the agreement require expert consultation as they are implemented.
The Defendants have represented that, as of June 30, 2016, many of the Agreement’s provisions were partially or wholly implemented. Based on the OIG’ s monitoring of the Defendants’ existing conditions of confinement for Class Members, review of the Defendants’ policies and procedures, frequent jail inspections and regular meetings with Department personnel, prisoners, and Plaintiffs’ co-counsel, the Defendants have made progress toward implementation
5

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:5286
of the Agreement and have achieved at least partial compliance with many of its provisions. With the August 24, 2016 completion of the compliance measures, OIG formal Johnson compliance monitoring was initiated on October 1, 2016.
The OIG and the parties have agreed to a semi-annual reporting schedule. This is the OIG’s first Implementation Status Report and subsequent semi-annual reports will be filed by June 30 and December 31 each year thereafter. The final report will be filed by June 30, 2018, following the April 22, 2018 termination of the Settlement Agreement. The OIG’s Second Implementation Status Report will contain compliance findings for each of the Agreement’s provisions that are timely for monitoring based on Agreement deadlines and the Defendants’ self-reporting. Where data analysis is necessary, the OIG will identify for AAB and Custody Serves Division’s Custody Compliance and Sustainability Bureau (CCSB) sampling timeframes that occur between July 1, 2016, and February 28, 2017. for the OIG’s Third Implementation Status Report, the sampling timeframes will occur between March 1, 2017, and September 30, 2017. The OIG’s Final Implementation Status Report will present findings based on sampling timeframes that occur between October 1, 2017, and March 30, 2018.
The CCSB will conduct internal monitoring and assessments of each settlement agreement provision following the provision’s implementation, and prepare and submit to the OIG written self-assessments and any supporting or
6

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:5287
“proof of practice” documentation, Following the OIG’s receipt of the Defendants’ self-assessments, the OIG will monitor the Defendants’ compliance and issue a compliance finding. Following the Defendants’ review of the OIG’s compliance findings, the OIG will post the findings to a secure website to which both parties have password protected access. The website will contain a Johnson Agreement Compliance Tracker (Tracker) which will document for the parties the OIG’s compliance determinations and explanations. The Tracker will also contain any supporting documentation which illustrates compliance and which is deemed by the Department and the OIG appropriate for the public record. Both parties will have an opportunity to review and respond to any OIG compliance finding. Finally, the OIG will utilize information from the Tracker in its semi-annual status reports to the Court.
Because the OIG maintains a regular presence in the County’s jail facilities, the OIG may begin compliance monitoring immediately following the Defendants’ notice to the OIG of a provision’s completed implementation. Once the Defendants achieve Substantial Compliance with an Agreement provision, following notice to Plaintiffs via the OIG’s secure website, a one-year “sustained compliance” period will begin. At the end of the one-year sustained compliance period, the OIG will again monitor the Defendants’ compliance, make a second compliance finding, and post the finding via the Tracker to the secure website.
7

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:5288
Following the OIG’s second Substantial Compliance finding, the OIG will discontinue formal monitoring of the provision. If the one-year sustained compliance date falls after April 22, 2018, the OIG will monitor and make a second compliance finding and recommendation for the Court’s consideration in OIG’s Final Implementation Status Report. The secure website and use of the Tracker, as envisioned, will improve communication between the parties as the Agreement terms are implemented and permit the OIG to provide more frequent compliance updates to Plaintiffs than would be accomplished via the semi-annual reporting schedule alone.
The OIG has attached for the Court’s review the Tracker which contains each of the Agreement’s provisions as well as implementation deadlines and the Defendants’ self-assessment status.
8

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:5289

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

#

PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson i’. Baca settlement agreement)

AI A2 A3
‘
A.5 (a)

Defendants agree that Class Members have and will continue to have access to all programming (including the satne programming made available to veterans) that non-mobility-impaired inmates have in Jail Settings. Mobility itnpainnent(s) will not serve to disqualify Class Members from participating in programming in which they are otherwise eligible to participate. Class Members svill be escorted, to tIme extent necessary, to any program in wInch they are otliersvise eligible to participate in. provided that program is available in the facility in wInch tIme inmate is housed. Subject to security classification and eligibility requirements. Defendants agree that Class Members mnay serve as trustees on the same floor on wInch they are housed. Defndants agree that relevant LASD personnel will be trained to ensure compliance with this term.

A.5 (b) Defendants further agree to provide Plaintifi? counsel with a list of the tasks that trustees regularly perfonn in the Jail.

A.5 (c) Defendants ftirtlier agree to identify some of tIme specific jobs that Class Members may perform.

A.6 Defendants agree to notify Class Members of the programs available to them in either paper or electronic fonnat. or both.

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

Department

SeIf-Assesment Stains

Date

Completed Completed

1/20/2016 1/20/2016

A.7 Notification of available programs svill also be provided during town hall meetings held at time Jail where appropriate.

BI

Plaintiffs dispute svhietlter the LASD has properly equipped and staffed an area within the Jail to provide physical therapy. Notuvithstanding this dispute, the Parties agree as follosvs:

B.l (a) Defendants agree tlsat Class Members will have access to physical therapy as prescribed by LASD tasedical professionals.

B.I (b) B . I (c,
B.2 B3 B4

Defundants shall continue to maintain and staff a physical therapy roomn in MCJ and further agree to attempt to locate space in TTCF for a similar room (essentially, a mini clinic) to provide physical therapy to Class Members once they are moved into housing locations in that facility.
Defendants ftirtlier agree to make a good faith effort to obtain additional resources to bolster the availability of physical therapy for all inmates, including Class Members.
The LASD will continue to count outdoor recreation time for Class Members from when the inmates arrive at the recreation area, not when they leave their hsousitig location. LASD shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all LASD personnel are asvare of this policy.
To the extent possible, and taking into account operational and logistical considerations. tIme time of day Class Members are offered outdoor recreation will rotate.
Class Members svho have been prescribed tlmennal clotlming as a reasonable accommodation for their disability so that they nay participate in outdoor recreation will be provided svartn coats and/or tliennal clotlting. LASD shall infonn Class Members that they may request thermal clothing as a reasonable accommodation, and shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all LASD personnel are aware of this policy.

Office Of Incpector Ceneral

t

I Compliance Rating

i

(NC, PC, SC)

L

Date

Compliance

Finding

* KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partiatty compliant; NC = non-comptiant

1 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:5290

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

#

PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson ‘. Baca settlement agreemeni)

The housing expansion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in the following phases:

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

Dep.iment

Selt-Assesment St*tus

Date

a. Phase I: Identify appropriate locations in TTCF for the construction of accessible housing modules. Modules 231, 232,

C.4 (a)

and 272 svere identified;

4/22/20 15

Completed

4/22/20 15

i. Projected Completion Date: Complete

The housing expansion for Class Members in TfCF will occur in tIme following phases:

b. Phase 2 - A: Inmate Processing Pilot Project to evaluate impact of

C.4 (b)

repurposing Modules 23 1/232 (svhich are currently used as medical overflow):

4/22/2015

Completed

4/22/2015

i. Projected Completion Date: Complete

The housing expansion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in the folloiving phases:

C.4 (c)

c. Phase 2- B: Closing of Module 231 and the construction of accessible housing including: the installation of 24 accessible toilets, the construction of 6 accessible showers, the installation of 6 new stainless steel frames in the upper tier shosvers;

4/22/2015

Completed

4/22/2015

i. Projected Completion Date: Complete. TIme mousing expansion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in tIme following phases:

C.4 (d)

U. Phase 2- C: Reopening of Module 231 as medical overllosv for IRC processing:

4/22/2015

Completed

4’22/20l5

i. Projected Completion Date: Complete. ftc mousing expansion for Class Members in TTCF svill occur in the following phases:

CA (e)

e. Ptmase 3: Repurposing of Module 232 and construction of approximately 60 accessible beds and subsequent trammsfer of 60 imnates with mobility impairments to TTCf:

4/22/2015

Completed

4/22/2015

i, Projected Completion Date: Complete.

Office Of Inspector General

Compliance Rating (NC PC’, SC’)

Date

Compliance

Finding

* KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partially compliant; NC = non-compliant

2 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:5291

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

#

PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson i’. Baca settlement agreement)

The housing expansion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in the following phases:

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

Department

Selt-Assesment Status

Date

c.4 (I)

f Phase 4: Installation of grab bars and shower benches in approximately 30 cells in housing locations outside of Modules 231 and 232 tobe detennined by Defendants;

8/10/2015

Completed

6/30/2016

I. Projected Completion Date: 120 days after the Effective Date. The housing expansion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in the follosving phases:

C.4 (g) g. Pltase 5: Construction of approximately 96 accessible beds in Module 272 ofTTCF:

it, Projected Completion Date Approxtmnately 24 inontlts after approval of fitnding, which will be sought by the Shentis

Department but requires the approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

C.5

Construction plans for the facilities to be constructed in the TFCF will be shared svith the Class Counsel, for reviesv and input. Class Counsel will itot. however, have the authority to veto any portion of the plans.

D

Initial Decisions and Ongoing Evaluations: Initial decisions and ongoing evaluations regarding Class Metnber’s need, if any, for the use ofa mobility assistive device are and will continue to be made by LASD Medical Professionals.

Secondamy Resiesv: In tIme event a Class Member disputes a decision made by LASD Medical Professionals regarding the

need, if any. for a mobility assistive device, the Class Member may request and receive a secondamy review of the

D2

determination regarding Ins or her need for a toobihity assistive device and/or tIme type of device requested. a. TIme secondary reviesv will be conducted by the Chief Physician or

his/Iter designee; and

b. The secondary review will include an independent evaluation.

3/31/2017

Completed CoinI’ leted

Office Of Inspector General

Compliance Ring (NC, PU, SC)

Date

Sustained Compliance
hnding

* KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partially compliant; NC = non-compliant

3 of 6

#

PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson e. Baca settlement agreement)

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

1

Department

i

SeIf-Assesment

Status

Date

Cotnplaint Procedure: Defendants have an existing grievance system in the Jail and the grievance fonn has been tnodified to

include an “ADA” box, which will facilitate forwarding all “ADA” complaints to Defendants’ ADA coordinators (addressed

in greater detail below). Within 90 days of tIme Effective Date, LASD shall create and distribute a leatlet )“Attistive Device

Leaflet”) to be available at time Jail to advise Class Metnbers of their rights pertaining to determinations regarding their need,

if any, for mobility assistive devices. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs shall provide LASD with proposed

language for tlmis leaflet, wlticlm Defendants will have the opporranity to revise, a. At a minimum, the Assistive Device Leaflet

shall include inlbrmation regarding Class Member’s right to:

D.3

a. At a inm. nminutn, time Asst‘stt.ve Devi. ce Leaflet shall i. nclude i. nfonnati.on regardi. ng Class Members n.ght to:

i. Be assessed ada re-evaluated )in accordance wtilm established medical standards) for tIme need for a mobility

assistive device;

ii. Obtain a secondary review of detenninations regarding mobility assistive device need;

iii. File a grievance challenging a determination regarding the inmate’s need, if any, for an assistive device; and

iv. Keep an assistive device svlmile a secondary reviesv and/or grievance regarding a decision concemingn an assistive

device is under reviesv.

As set forth in tins Agreement in Section “M” below, Defendants have policies and guidelines for tracking complications

common to inmates svitli mobility iinpainnents and Defendants agree to continue to track such complications using existing

134

policies and guidelines. Defendants do not currently have the ability to ran searches and provide statistics about assistive device usage to Plaintiffs’ counsel, but may have this ability in the future once the LASD’s medteal records system is fislly

upgraded -this process is already undenvay. Defendants agree to provide statistics fmtn the upgraded system. to die extent

feasible, when thtr upgrades are completed.

Within 60 days of mIme Effective Date, Defendants agree to investigate tIme availability of. and seek tIme provision ot training

D.5 for LASD nedical professionals from Ranclmo Los Amigos regarding svlteelcbnir seating to reduce complications commonly

attributable to svlteelcltair use.

D6

Within 60 days of mIme Effective Date, Defendants’ policies and guidelines for tracking complications common to individuals with mobility imnpainnents will be made public in all Jail Settings.

7/1 1/20 15
6/11/2015 6/i l/0ls
—

Completed

2/2/20 16

Completed

12/8/2015

Defendants agree that wheelchairs mlmat are medically prescribed will be mnaimmtained in working order (including fttmtctiommal E.1 (a) brakes and footresms nmmless otherwise prescribed by LASD Medical Professiommals) and will be serviced on a regular basis to
tIme extent feasible.

E.1 (b) Maintenance svill include the use of the wheelchair repair shop at the Pitchmess Detention Center. E.1 (c) Defendants agree to track wheelcisairs, thseir issuance and their conditions, using RFID transmitters on a pilot basis.

* KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partiatty comptmant; NC = non-compliant

4 of 6

Office Of Inspector General

Compliance Rating (NC’, PC’, Sc’)

Date

Cnmphanee

hnding

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:5292

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:5293

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

#

PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson i’. Baca settlement agreement)

E.1 (d) E2 E3 E•4
F.I
F.2 G.1

Defendants fitrtlter agree that wheelchairs with movable annrests may be provided to Class Members who require them if a custody safe option can be located at a comparable price to svheelcliairs the LASD currently purchases. Defendants agree to explore the availability of such svheelcltairs. and svelcome any suggestions Plaintiffs may have.

Personal wheelchairs are currently and will continue to be stored and returned to Class Members upon release from LASD custody.

Plaintiffs dispute svhether Defendants have an appropriate policy regarding the release of Class Members who need assistive

devices but do not have personal assistive devices available to them upon release. tVithout resolving any disputes about past

practices.

.

.

(a)

Defendants

agree

to

codt&

in

wntten

policies

and

procedures

existing

practices

.
governing

the

release

of Class

Members who need assistive devices but do not have personal assistive devices available to them upon release: and

)b(_Defendants_will_provide_this_policy_to_Plaintiffs_within_thirty_(3)_days_ofthe_Effective_Date.

Consistent with existing LASD policy, Defendants will ensure that all prostheses are returned to Class Members within 24 hours if not determined to pose a security risk.

rIte LASD svill staff Jail Settings with one or more ADA coordinator(s). Defendants will dedicate sufficient resources toward the ADA coordinator(s) position to ensure that necessary duties are being carried out in an appropriate fashion. The ADA coordinator(s) will be assigned to the Quality Assurance Unit of time Medical Services Bureau. (a) The duties of the ADA coordinator(s) will include:

i. Interfacitig with LASD custody and medical staff to ensure that Class Members receive reasonable accommodations as prescribed by 1..ASD Medical Professionals.

ii. Reviewing, investigating, and resolving inmate grievances on svluch the existing “ADA’ box is checked, or whicls have been designated ADA grievances, which will be fonvarded to the ADA coordinator(s) for disposition and which svill be retained consistent svith the LAS D’s existing grievance policy:

iii. Answering and loggimig phone calls made to the LAS D’s ADA coordinator telephone number: iv. Training LASD personnel working in units that Isouse inmates with tuobility impainnents:
v. Responding to inmate grievances in a manner consistent svitlt LASD’s existing grievance policy; and vi. Responding to Class Counsel in writing to report tIme resolution of any inmate grievance tlsat Class Counsel provided, orally or in writing, to the ADA coordinator. If resolution is not reached svithin 30 days of the report to the ADA coordinator, a stattts report on the grievance shall be provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing every thirty 30 days until resolution is reached. TIme communications required by this section are in addition to, not in lieu ot tlse responses and cotntnunications required by LASD’s existing grievance policy and pursuant to section vii, above.

The ADA coordinator(s) shall have authority to make recommendations regarding the provision of reasonable accommodations to Class Members including, svhten necessary, tlse authority to bring issues to time attention of LASD executives (including, without limitation, the Chief of the Custody Division) for resolution.
Plaintiffs svill assist in training the ADA coordinator(s). TIme ADA coordinator(s) will be assigned and trained svitlmin 60 days of tIme Effective Date.

The LAS D’s grievance fonn does and will continue to include an “ADA” box.

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

F

Department

Seif-Assesment Status

Completed

5/12/2015

Completed

1/20/2016

6/11/2015

Completed
Completed Completed

6/30/2016
6’181015 & 9/17/2015 1/20/2016

Office Of Inspector (cneraI

Compliance Rating (NC. PC, SC)

Sustained

Date

Compliance

Finding

KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partially compliant; NC = non-compliant

5 of 6

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 227 Filed 10/06/16 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:5294

OIG Johnson Compliance Tracker

# PROVISION (verbatim from Johnson v. Baca settlement agreement)

62

All grievances involving tnobility assistive devices and the physical accessibility of the Jail shall be designated “ADA” grievances even if the inmate who filed the grievance did not check the “ADA” box.

G.3 The response time for ADA grievances will be no more than that allowed under the standard grievance policy.

G.4 ADA grievances will not be designated as “basic” grievances.

6.5 Defendants svill keep copies of all ADA grievances, for purposes of monitoring in tIns matter.

Plaintiffs dispute svlictlier Defendants have provided Class Members witlt reasonable accommodations svhen requested.

Regardless. Defendants agree that Class Members shall receive reasonable accommodations when they request them and as

prescribed by LASD medical professionals.

11.1

(a) Accommodations nay include, but are not limited to: assignment to losver bunks: changes of clothing: extra blankets:

allosvance of extra time to respond to visitor calls and attorney visits: sltower benches; assistive device to travel outside ofa

housing module; and assignment to a cell witlt accessible features

Agreement Implementation
Deadline

Department

Selt-Assesment

Status

Date

II

Infonnation reflecting orders by LASD Medical Professionals for accommodations for Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they may be implemented in housing areas.

II 3

Defendants agree to explore the feasibility of adding a tab to the current medical records system (as part of upgrades), to track mobility assistive device requests and assessments by LASD Medical Professionals of Class Members.

Within 60 days of the Effective Date. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs svith a copy of the Inmate Roadmap to Custody. svlmmclt is used to notify Class Members of rules and regulations in the Jail, including their nghts under the ADA.

Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants will begin providing reasonable training to Jail personnel (including

medical personnel) consistent with the terms of tins Agreement.

K

Class Members who use wheelchairs or oilier mobility aids are and will continue to be transported in accessible vans and will be secured during transport.

6/11/2015
g,q tiot5
—

Completed

6/2015

Office Of lnsctor General

Compliance itating (NC PC, SC)

Date

Sustained Compliance
Finding

KEY: SC = substantially compliant; PC = partially compliant; NC = non-compliant

6 of 6

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 52 Page ID #:5297

1 MAX HUNTSMAN Inspector General, Bar No. 156780
2 CATHLEEN BELTZ
3 Assistant Inspector General, Bar No, 245593 KRITHTHIKA VASUDEVAN
4 Deputy Inspector General, Bar No. 247590 5 STACEYNELSON
Investigator, Bar No. 302205 6 Inspector_General@oig.lacounty.gov 7 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
312 South Hill Street, 3'' Floor
8 Los Angeles, California 90013 9 Telephone: (213) 974-6100; Fax: (213) 680-1406

10 Monitors
11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD

16 PETERSON and MICHAEL

17

CURFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY

20 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public

21

entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of County of Los Angeles, and COUNTY

22 OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

23

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH, YVONE B. BURKE, DON KNABE,

24 GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV

25

YAROSLAVSKY, as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles

26

Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 08-03515 DDP INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

27

28

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 2 of 52 Page ID #:5298

1 Pursuant to Section V, subsection M, of the Settlement Agreement (Agreement), the
2 Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Monitor appointed by this Court, submits the
3 attached Second Implementation Status Report (Report) evaluating the Defendants' 4 compliance with the terms of this Agreement. This report was prepared by the OIG 5 to provide "reasonable and regular reports" to the Parties and the Court. This is the 6 second of fo ur (4) semi-annual reports anticipated for the duration of the 7 Agreement. The OIG is available to answer any questions the Court may have 8 regarding this Report and the Defendants' compliance with the Agreement.
9

10 Dated: June 30,2017 11 12 13 14 15 16

Respectfully submitted,
By:/~/ A/~ __ /----,
~x HUrtf;lan
{ Inspector General '---U.os..A. ngeles County Office of Inspector
General

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28 IINMSPPLEECMTEONRTGAETNIOENRASTLA'STSUESCOND -2-
REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 3 of 52 Page ID #:5299

1

INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND IMPLEMENTATION

2

STATUS REPORT

3

4

The Agreement in the above-captioned case provides that the OIG will

5 prepare and submit periodic reports to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants (collectively 6 referred to as "the Parties") and the Court evaluating the Defendants' compliance 7 8 with the Agreement. The Defendants have agreed to implement system-wide refmm

9 of the Los Angeles County jail conditions of confinement for Class Members. The 10
Agreement defines Class Members as "all present and future detainees and inmates 11 12 with mobility impairments who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate

13 accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with 14
15 federal and state disabilities law." The OIG filed with this Court the "Inspector 16 General's First Implementation Status Report" on October 6, 2016. This Report,

17 unless otherwise stated, takes into account all data collected and analyzed, and

18 observations made from July I, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
19

20

On August 24, 2016, after the exchange of multiple drafts over nine (9)

21 months, the Pm1ies agreed on compliance measures that would serve as a guideline 22
23 for implementation of the terms of the Agreement and establish the OIG's minimum
24 compliance standards. The measures were written based on the Department's

25 predictions about policies, procedures, practices and systems that it intended to

26 utilize or implement to ensure compliance with the terms ofthe Agreement. For

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -3-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 4 of 52 Page ID #:5300

1 some compliance measures, the Department's information about existing or

2 available data and systems was limited or its predictions inconect. Where necessary

3 4

to serve the interests of Class Members and the Department, and to promote

5 effective implementation of the Agreement, the OIG is willing to consider

6 alternative evidence as proof of compliance. Precisely how the Department proves 7 8 its compliance with each provision is less important than whether each provision is
9 effectively and sustainably implemented. Though the OIG is not rigid in its

10 consideration of the types of evidence that support compliance, all evidence
11
12 submitted must be valid and it must be sufficient to make a compliance
13 determination. For many of the provisions discussed in this report and others with

14 which the Department has not reported substantial compliance, the Department
15 16 provided data that was inaccurate, unverifiable, or otherwise insufficient.

17

The OIG will make a compliance finding for each provision based on the

18 degree to which each provision has been effectively and sustainably implemented.
19 20 A non-compliance (or NC) finding means that the Department has made no notable

21 progress in achieving compliance with any of the key components of the provisions.

22 A partial compliance (or PC) finding means that the Department has made notable 23 24 progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision. A

25 substantial compliance (or SC) finding means that the Department has met or

26 achieved all or nearly all of the components of a particular provision. A sustained

27

28 IIMNSPPLEECMTEONRTGAETNIOENRASTLA'STSUESCOND -4-
REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 5 of 52 Page ID #:5301

1 compliance finding means that the OIG has monitored the provision twelve months

2 following its original finding of substantial compliance. If tbe Department has

3 sustained compliance for one year, the OIG will no longer monitor that provision.
4

5

In this report, the OIG issues compliance findings for thirty-seven (37) of the

6 forty-nine (49) Johnson provisions. The Department has achieved Sustained 7
Compliance with two (2) provisions, Substantial Compliance with sixteen (16) 8 9 provisions, Partial Compliance with seventeen (17) provisions, and Non-

10 Compliance with two (2) provisions. Five (5) of the forty-nine (49) provisions were 11
documented as "completed" in the Agreement, and on January 11,2017, the Parties 12 13 agreed, would not be subject to OIG monitoring. These f1ve (5) provisions are listed

14 under the "Physical Accessibility" heading of the Agreement, paragraph 4,
15
subsections (a) through (e). In lieu of an OIG compliance determination, tbe 16
17 Plaintiffs agreed to tour tbe jail facilities identified in these provisions and observe

18 completed construction. On April II, 2017, the Plaintiffs toured the jail facilities. In 19
20 a letter to tbe Department, dated April26, 2017, Plaintiffs raised several concerns
21 regarding the quality and upkeep of the completed construction. The OIG is hopeful

22 that tbe Parties can resolve tbe issues raised in the Plaintiffs' April letter but is
23 24 prepared to make compliance findings for tbese provisions as necessary. The
25 remaining provisions not addressed in tbis Report will be monitored once the
26 Department repm1s to tbe OIG that they have been fully implemented and are in
2827 1h]~N~srrpEmc~r~ouR>QnTIEN~~ERADTL''~S'S~E~C~O~NrrD,-'-5'--C-V---0-8--0-3--5-1-5~D~~D~~P~ IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 6 of 52 Page ID #:5302

1 substantial compliance.

2

The Department's Custody Compliance and Sustainability Bureau (CCSB)

3 has prepared self-assessment reports and provided additional documentation to aid 4

5 the OIG in making compliance detenninations. A quality self-assessment should

6 contain necessary data, information, and analysis to support a compliance
7 detennination. The Department's self-assigned compliance ratings should be based
8
9 on the Depmtment's honest, thorough and good faith review of its implementation

10 progress. For some of the provisions, the Department successfully analyzed and 11
presented documentation of its own implementation progress. For other provisions, 12 13 the self-assessment reflects little or no analysis of its supporting documentation.

14 Self-assigned ratings of substantial compliance coupled with documentation, which 15
can only reasonably be interpreted as supporting partial compliance or non16 17 compliance findings, may undermine the credibility of the Depmtment.

18

Additionally, many of the provisions with which the Department repmts to be

19
20 in substantial compliance require analysis of population samples. The Department

21 assigned personnel from its Audits and Accountability Bureau (AAB) to aid CCSB

22 in validating CCSB's "internal assessment methods" for those provisions. Initially, 23 24 AAB's role was limited to verifying that correct formulas were utilized in
25 calculating sa111ples. After reviewing the data and the documentation provided, the

26 OIG opined that AAB's role should increase, and the OIG is confident that the

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -6-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 7 of 52 Page ID #:5303

1 quality of CCSB 's self-assessments will improve going forward.

2

IMPLEMENATION STATUS OF AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

3 Provisions Deemed Substantially Compliant or Which Have Achieved
4

5 Sustained Compliance with the Agreement

6

1. Trusty Tasks- Substantial Compliance as of October 5, 2016

7 Under the heading of "Programming," section A, paragraph 5 of the
8

9 Agreement, "Defendants further agree to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of

10 the tasks that trustys regularly perform in Jail." On October 5, 2016, the Department 11
provided to the OIG a list of tasks regularly performed by jail workers. The same list 12 13 was provided to Plaintiffs on October 13, 2016.

14

2. Identify Jobs- Substantial Compliance as of December 2, 2016

15
Under the heading of "Programming," section A, paragraph 5 of the 16

17 Agreement, "[d]efendants further agree to identify some of the specific jobs that

18 Class Members may perform." On June 26,2016, the Department issued revised 19
Unit Order #005 ("Conservation Work Program Procedures"). The Unit Order 20
21 outlines twenty-two (22) jail worker assignments "for all inmates, including inmates

22 with disabilities" and states that reasonable accommodations shall be made to enable
23 prisoners with disabilities to participate.
24

25

On November I, 2016, the Department consulted with an occupational

26 therapist employed by Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center to evaluate trusty

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND ·7-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 8 of 52 Page ID #:5304

1 jobs and recommend possible accommodations that would increase job
2 opportunities for Class Members. On December 5, 2016, the Department provided 3
the therapist's report to the OIG for review. The report recommends 4 5 accommodations for three mobility categories: trustys who use manual wheelchairs,

6 trustys who use crutches or walkers and trustys with lower extremity mobility
7
deficits who use no mobility aids. For example, the therapist recommended 8 9 shortened handles for brooms, mops and dust pans for mobility impaired trustys in

10 wheelchairs. As the OIG continues to monitor jobs available to class member
11
workers, the OIG will verify whether or not the Department has implemented these 12 13 additional recommendations.

14

At the time of the review, two (2) of the twenty-two (22) jobs listed in Unit

15 16 Order #005 were not assessed in the therapist's repm1: (I) steam clean common

17 areas, restrooms, and cells; and (2) provide imnate haircuts. The OIG recommends

18 that the occupational therapist evaluate those two trusty assignments as well or 19 20 explain why reasonable accommodations cannot be made for these jobs. Lastly, the
21 OIG recommends that the Department reconcile Unit Order #005 and CDM section

22 5-01/020.00 ("Inmate Worker Assigmnents") to reflect the same listed jobs.

23

24

3. Physical Therapy- Substantial Compliance as of February 21,2017

25

Under the heading "Physical Therapy and Outdoor Recreation," section B,

26 paragraph I, subsection (c) of the Agreement, " [d]efendants further agree to make a

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -8-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 9 of 52 Page ID #:5305

1 good faith effort to obtain additional resources to bolster the availability of physical

2 therapy for all inmates, including Class Members." The compliance measures 3
require the Department to provide evidence to the OIG that it created a physical 4 5 therapist position and engaged in other good faith effmts to bolster the availability

6 ofphysical therapy in the jails.

7

8

On October 19, 2016, and January 4, 2017, the Department broadcast a

9 bulletin for an "immediate opening for Physical Therapist" on the Justice Data

10 Interface Controller (JDIC). JDIC is an electronic billboard that the Department uses 11
to post information that can be seen by other local, state and federal law 12
13 enforcement agencies. On March 9, 2017, the CCSB confirmed that the Physical

14 Therapist I job announcement was posted on the Los Angeles County Human
15
16 Resources website. The bulletin stated that the Department was experiencing a
17 shortage in recruitment for this position and, therefore, all new appointments would

18 be compensated at Step Five (5), rather than Step One (I), of the salary range.

19

20

On February 25, 2017, the jails' Chief Physician reported that six (6)

21 applicants were interviewed in the prior ten (I 0) months but all declined the

22 position. As of May I, 2017, the Correctional Healthcare Director reported that the
23
24 physical therapy positions would be filled under the Department of Health Services,

25 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center, and placed on a rotating schedule in the

26 jails with other Rancho Los Amigos therapists to ensure that physical therapy is

27

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -9IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 10 of 52 Page ID #:5306

1 available to those who need it.

2

3

4. Outdoor Recreation Time- Substantial Compliance as of

4

November 8, 2016

5

Under the heading "Physical Therapy and Outdoor Recreation," section B,

6

paragraph 2 of the Agreement, 7

8

The LASD will continue to count outdoor recreation time for Class Members

9

from when the inmates arrive at the recreation area, not when they leave their

10

11

housing location. LASD shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure

12

that all LASD personnel are aware of this policy.

13 The corresponding compliance measures require the Department to promulgate 14
15 policy consistent with the provision. On June 30, 2016, the Department

16 implemented COM section 5-12/005.10, "Handling oflnmates with Mobility and/or
17 Sensory Impairments" (Johnson policy) which covers many of the Johnson related
18
19 provisions. Specific to this provision, the Johnson policy states, "For record-

20 keeping purposes, the inmates' recreation time begins when inmates anive at the 21 recreation location." On February 2, 2016, the Department provided the OIG with a 22 23 copy of the Assistive Device Leaflet (ADL) that contains similar language.

24

To ensure that the policy is being adhered to, OIG personnel conducted site

25 visits, interviewed Department personnel, and reviewed CCTV footage of outdoor
26

27 recreation movement. On the day shift of July 26, 2016, and the evening shift of

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -10-

CV 08-03515 DDP

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 11 of 52 Page ID #:5307

I October 18,2016, OIG personnel visited Men's Central Jail (MCJ) 6000,7000, and

2 8000 floors, where class members are housed. On the day shift of October 25,2016, 3
OIG personnel visited Central Regional Detention Facility (CRDF). 1 On the day 4 5 shift of November 3, 2016, OIG personnel visited Twin Towers CmTectional

6 Facility (ITCF) module 232, pods A through F, where class members are housed. 7
All Department personnel interviewed communicated to the OIG their 8 9 understanding of the Department policy and represented that their practice is to

10 begin counting outdoor recreation time when prisoners reach the recreation area, not

11
when they leave their housing location. 12

13

On November 8, 2016, OIG personnel reviewed CCTV video of outdoor

I4 recreation time for the above listed housing locations for the week of October 30 to 15
November 5, 2016. The video reviewed indicated that outdoor recreation began 16
17 when prisonersr arrived at the recreation area.

18

5. Construction Plans- Substantial Compliance as of November 7, 20I6

I9

20

Under the heading "Physical Accessibility," section C, paragraph 5 of the

2I Agreement, "Construction plans for the facilities to be constructed in the TTCF will

22 be shared with Class Counsel for review and input. Class Counsel will not, however,
23
24 have the authority to veto any portion of the plans." Although a meeting has not

2511----------------

26

1 Unlike MCJ and TTCF, Class Members are housed throughout CRDF.

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -II-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 12 of 52 Page ID #:5308

1 taken place, the Department has made the plans available to Plaintiffs and they have

2 agreed to meet. On November 7, 2016, OIG personnel viewed the construction

3 plans for the ninety six (96) accessible beds at TTCF.
4

5

6. Tracking Complications- Substantial Compliance as of Aprill2,

6

2017

7 Under the heading "Use of Mobility Devices," section D, paragraph 4 of
8

9

the Agreement provides,

10

As set forth in this Agreement in Section 'M' below, Defendants have

11
policies and guidelines for tracking complications common to inmates
12

13

with mobility impairments and Defendants agree to continue to track such

14

complications using existing policies and guidelines. Defendants do not

15 currently have the ability to run searches and provide statistics about
16

17

assistive device usage to Plaintiffs' counsel, but may have this ability in

18

the future once the LASD's medical records system is fully upgraded-

19

20

this process is underway. Defendants agree to provide statistics from the

21

upgraded system, to the extent feasible, when the upgrades are completed.

22

23

The Department now reports that the Cerner system, which was the upgraded

24 system identified in the Agreement, is a patient-centric data system that was not 25
designed for tracking the data required in this provision. This assertion is consistent
26
27 with infonnation that the OIG obtained via monitoring on February 28, 2017. CV 08-03515 DDP
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -12-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 13 of 52 Page ID #:5309

I

Because Cerner is unable to capture tbe data required, the OIG approved the

2 new Correctional Health Services (CHS) to conduct a thorough qualitative review of 3 medical records to identifY complications common to mobility impaired Class 4 5 Members. On Aprill2, 2017, the Department and tbe OIG met with CHS staff to

6 discuss the results oftbeir "standardized retrospective review" which included data
7
related to complications. The OIG determined that these reviews, if completed 8 9 regularly and if corrective action is taken, are an effective means of identifYing and

I 0 treating complications. Consequently, CHS has implemented a new policy that 11
requires Standardized Retrospective Reviews semi-annually for Class Members with I2 13 paraplegia (a population which was identified during the review as requiring

I4 additional care) and bi-annually for all other Class Members.

I5

I6

7. Training in Complications Attributable to Wheelchair Use-

17

Substantial Compliance as of December 13, 20I6

I8

I9

Under the heading "Use of Mobility Devices," section D, paragraph 5 of the

20 Agreement,

2I

22

Within 60 days of the effective date, Defendants agree to investigate tbe

23

availability of, and seek the provision of, training for LASD medical

24 professionals from Rancho Los Amigos regarding wheelchair seating to
25

26

reduce complications commonly attributable to wheelchair use.

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -13-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 14 of 52 Page ID #:5310

I

Among other requirements, the compliance measures require the Department

2 to provide training curriculum and attendance rosters for each training conducted.

3

The Department initially provided copies of attendance rosters for initial

4

5 trainings conducted in December 2013 and 2015, but those trainings did not address

6 wheelchair seating as required in the provision. On December 13, 2016, the 7
Department conducted training for Department personnel and medical professionals, 8 9 which covered insttuctions on "wheelchair seating to reduce complications

10 commonly attributable to wheelchair use" and provided documentation of the

II training as required.
12

13

8. Maintenance of the Wheelchair Repair Shop- Substantial

14

Compliance as of September 20, 2016

15
Under the heading "Wheelchair and Prostheses," section E, paragraph I of the 16

17 Agreement, "[m]aintenance will include the use of the preexisting wheelchair repair

18 shop at the Pitchess Detention Center."

19

20

The Department provides semi-annual updates regarding the operation of the

21 wheelchair repair shop, which continues to operate consistent with the Agreement.

22 On September 20, 2016, OIG personnel visited the wheelchair repair shop and met
23
24 with Pitchess Detention Center supervisors and the Wheelchair Repair Shop civilian

25 instructor. The OIG verified that the repair shop operates five (5) days per week

26 from 8:00a.m. to 2:00p.m. and is staffed with two prisoner workers and a civilian

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -14-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 15 of 52 Page ID #:5311

1 instructor who repair approximately twenty-five (25) wheelchairs per month.

2

9. Installing RFID Transmitters- Substantial Compliance as of

3 January 5, 2017
4

5

Under the heading "Wheelchair and Prostheses," section E, paragraph I of the

6 Agreement, "Defendants agree to track wheelchairs, their issuance and their 7
conditions, using RFID transmitters on a pilot basis." The compliance measures for 8 9 this provision require the Department to semi-annually update the OIG on the status

10 of the use ofRFID transmitters. 11
The Department reports that it will utilize RFID transmitters on a pennanent 12 13 basis. On August 12, 2016, and Januaty 5, 2017, the Defendants provided the OIG

14 with updates on the use ofRFID transmitters to track wheelchairs. In the January 15 16 update, the Department represented that eighty-six (86) percent of the wheelchairs 17 were fitted with RFID transmitters. When the RFID transmitter is damaged or

18 removed, the information is captured in an Excel spreadsheet and a new RFID 19 20 transmitter is installed. The RFID transmitters are operational in TTCF, MCJ and
21 CRDF. OIG personnel have visited these facilities and have observed wheelchairs

22 equipped with RFID transmitters. In order for the Department to achieve a finding 23
24 of sustained compliance, the OIG has required that the Department attach
25 documentation and information that reflects RFID movement.

26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -15-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 16 of 52 Page ID #:5312

1

10. Policy Regarding Assistive Devices- Substantial Compliance as of

2

December 2, 2016

3

Under the heading "Wheelchairs and Prostheses," section E, paragraph 3 of

4

5 the Agreement. the Department is required to "codify in written policies and

6 procedures existing practices governing the release of Class Members who need 7
assistive devices but do not have personal assistive devices available to them upon 8 9 release." On January 13, 2014, the Department created an Inmate Reception Center

10 (IRC) Unit Order #5-01/011 .00 ("Release oflnmates with Special Needs or 11
Mobility Impairment") and on April28, 2014, created a CRDF Unit Order #5-2512 13 030 ("Release oflnmates with Mobility Impairments") related to this provision. On

14 December 2, 2016, the Department shared this document with the Plaintiffs.

15

16

11. ADA Coordinator(s)' Authority- Substantial Compliance as of

17

October 31,2016

18

Under the heading "ADA Coordinators," section F, paragraph 2 of the

19

Agreement,

20

21

The ADA coordinator(s) shall have authority to make recommendations

22

regarding the provision of reasonable accommodations to Class Members

23

including, when necessary, the authority to bring issues to the attention of

24

25

LASD executives (including, without limitation, the Chief of the Custody

26

Division) for resolution.

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -16-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 17 of 52 Page ID #:5313

1

The Johnson policy includes language consistent with this provision. To

2 ensure that the Department is complying with this aspect of the policy, between
3 October I, 2016, and October 31, 2016, OIG personnel interviewed each of the eight
4 5 (8) ADA coordinators, seven (7) assigned to the jail facilities and one centralized

6 coordinator assigned to the Department's Medical Services Bureau. Each
7 coordinator confinned that he or she has the authority to make recommendations
8 9 and bring issues to the attention of Department executives consistent with the tenns

10 of the Agreement.

11
12. Training ADA Coordinators- Substantial Compliance as of 12

13

November 29,2016

14

Under the heading "ADA Coordinators," section F, paragraph 3 of the

15
Agreement, "[p]laintiffs will assist in training the ADA coordinator(s). The ADA 16

17 coordinator(s) will be assigned and trained within 60 days of the effective date

18 [April22, 2015]."
19 By April22, 2015, the Department had assigned seven (7) facility ADA
20
21 coordinators and one (1) Division ADA coordinator. According to documentation

22 provided by the Department, Plaintiffs facilitated training for these ADA 23
coordinators on September 17, 2015. Then, on November 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs 24 25 facilitated another training, documentation for which shows that all eight (8) ADA
26 coordinators were trained in a course titled "Disability Rights Laws: Law
2827 11 r~N=snrE~c~rr-o~R~G~E~N~E~RAL"R's~swE~c~a~N~D~-~r~7---C-V--0-8---0-3-5-1-5~~D~D~~P~ IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 18 of 52 Page ID #:5314

1 Enforcement and Correctional Facilities." The Department reports that the
2 November 29, 2016, training was videotaped and will be utilized to train future 3
ADA Coordinator(s). All ADA Coordinator training was conducted with Plaintiffs' 4 5 assistance.

6

13, Grievance Form Shall Include an "ADA" box- Sustained

7
Compliance as of April 22, 2016 8

9

Under the heading "Grievance Form," section G, paragraph 1 of the

10 Agreement, it is stated that "[t]he LASD's grievance form does and will continue to
11
include an 'ADA' box." The Department's grievance form has contained an ADA 12 13 box since at least July 2012, prior to the April22, 2015 Agreement effective date.

14 As such, the Department has achieved "sustained compliance" and the OIG, in its 15
capacity as court appointed monitor, will no longer monitor its compliance with this 16 17 provisiOn.

18

14. Keep all ADA Grievances- Substantial Compliance as of May 4, 2017

19

20

Under the heading "Grievance Fonn," section G, paragraph 5 of the

21 Agreement, "[d]efendants will keep copies of all ADA grievances, for purposes of

22 monitoring in this matter." All prisoner grievances are automatically scanned and 23 24 retained in a Department database designed for that purpose. The compliance
25 measures for this provision require the Department to produce copies of a

26 representative sample of ADA grievances received during October l through

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -18-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 19 of 52 Page ID #:5315

1 October 7, 2016, and November 19 through November 25,2016. The Department

2 reported that during the two one-week periods, it received a total of eight (8) ADA

3 grievances, all of which it retained, copied and provided to the OIG.
4

5

The Department's grievance system is highly problematic and subject to

6 monitoring under all three (3) of the Department's Custody Services Division 7
settlement agreements. Grievance issues, as they impact Johnson, will be discussed 8 9 more thoroughly in the OIG's monitoring of provisions G.2 and G.3. Monitoring of

10 these provisions will commence once the Depmtment reports that the provisions

11 have been successfully implemented.
12

13

15. Accessibility of Information Reflecting Orders by LASD Medical-

14

Substantial Compliance as of November 3, 2016

15 Under the heading "Accommodations," section H, paragraph 2 of the
16

17 Agreement, "[i]nfonnation reflecting orders by LASD Medical Professionals for

18 accommodations for Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they 19 20 may be implemented in housing areas." The OIG conducted site visits to determine
21 whether personnel were trained to retrieve this infmmation.

22

The "IC12 print screen" is part of the Automated Jail Information System

23

24 database that is accessible by all custody staff and which displays information about

25 prisoners, where they are housed and any special needs or accommodation orders

26 they may have. Between July 26,2016, and October 25,2016, OIG personnel

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -19-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 20 of 52 Page ID #:5316

1 conducted site visits and personnel interviews in the following areas: MCJ on the

2 6000, 7000 and 8000 floors (on each of early morning, day, and evening); TTCF in
3 module 232, pods A through F (on day shift); and CRDF (on day shift). All
4 5 Department personnel interviewed were able to access the !Cl2 print screen and

6 accommodation orders for Class Members.

7 16. Roadmap to Custody- Sustained Compliance as of June 2, 2016
8

9

Under the heading "Notification of Rights," section!, paragraph I ofthe

10 Agreement, "[w]ithin 60 days of the effective date, Defendants will provide
11 Plaintiffs with a copy of the Inmate Roadmap to Custody, which is used to notifY
12
13 Class Members of rules and regulations in the Jail, including their rights under the

14 ADA." On June 2, 2015, (prior to the April 22, 2015 Agreement effective date), the 15
Defendants provided the Plaintiffs a copy of the "Inmate Roadmap to Custody." The 16
17 Department achieved "sustained compliance" one year later on June 2, 2016. The

18 O!G, in its capacity as coUlt appointed monitor, will no longer monitor the
19 Department's compliance with this provision.
20

21

17. Training- Substantial Compliance as of March 21, 2017

22

Under the heading "Training," section J, paragraph I of the Agreement,

23

24 "[w]ithin 60 days of April22, 2015, Defendants will begin providing reasonable

25 training to Jail personnel (including medical personnel) consistent with the terms of

26 this Agreement." Among other requirements, the compliance measures for this

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -20-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 21 of 52 Page ID #:5317

1 provision require the Department to provide training rosters, training curriculum (a

2 syllabus) and attendance rosters to the OIG.

3

On December 27, 2016, the Department provided to the OIG: (1) attendance

4

5 rosters for training that occurred on June 18, 2015, and September 17, 2015; (2) the

6 syllabus for "IdentifYing and Interacting with Mentally Ill Inmates" which had a
7
component about the ADA; and (3) rosters and curriculum for July 19,2016, and
8
9 November 15,2016, annual in-service trainings led by the ADA compliance teams.

10 The OIG reviewed all training rosters to ensure that the appropriate personnel were ll
in attendance. Additionally, the OIG reviewed the curriculum provided to ensure 12 13 that the appropriate ADA topics were discussed.

14

18. Transportation in Accessible Vans- Substantial Compliance as of

15 May ll, 2017
16

17

Under the heading 'Transportation," section K, paragraph I of the

18 Agreement, "Class Members who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids are and 19
will continue to be transported in accessible vans and will be secured during 20
21 transport." The compliance measures for this provision require the Depmtment to

22 provide policy and relevant portions of training materials related to this provision, as
23
well as a copy of the Department's movement logs (daily manifest) for mobility 24
25 impaired prisoners for the period December 4 through December 17, 2016.

26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -21-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 22 of 52 Page ID #:5318

1

The Johnson policy includes language consistent with this provision and, on

2 February 9, 2017, tbe Department provided tbe OIG with relevant portions ofthe

3 CST Wheel Chair Transpmiation Training Packet.
4

5

Documentation provided for December 2016 includes daily manifests which

6 list prisoners with wheelchairs or mobility assistive devices who were transported in
7
accessible vans during those weeks. To ensure tbe Department's compliance witb 8 9 the Johnson policy, on May I0, 2017, OIG personnel visited CRDF, MCJ and

10 TTCF. At MCJ and TTCF, OIG personnel observed Department personnel securing 11
Class Members in the accessible van and, on May II, 2017, OIG personnel spoke to
12
13 several prisoners regarding their transport. With the exception of one, all of the

14 prisoners interviewed stated they had been secured properly in accessible vans when IS 16 transpmied. One prisoner at CRDF indicated that, on one occasion, she was offered
17 transport in a radio car instead of an accessible van, which she declined. The

18 Department should make accessible vans available to all mobility impaired prisoners
19
20 for transportation regardless of tbe destination.

21

Provisions Deemed Partially Compliant with the Agreement

22

1. Access to All Programming- Partial Compliance

23

24 Under the heading "Programming," section A, paragraph I of the Agreement,

25 "[d]efendants agree that Class Members have and will continue to have access to all

26 programming (including the same programming made available to veterans) that

27

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -22IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 23 of 52 Page ID #:5319

1 non-mobility impaired inmates have in Jail Settings." Among other requirements,

2 the compliance measures for this provision require the Department to:

3

4

...2. Provide the following information for two one-week periods to be

5

selected by the OIG, which occur within the first quarter post implementation

6 of these compliance measures:
7

8

(a) A list of a randomly selected representative sample (confidence

9

level ~ 95%, margin of error ~ 5 percentage points) of all mobility

10

impaired prisoners.
11

12

(b) A list of all programs (education, vocation, and family) available to

13

Los Angeles County Jail ("LACJ") prisoners at facilities where

14

15

prisoners with mobility impairments are housed.

16

(c) For each listed prisoner, indicate whether the prisoner accepted,

17

rejected, or was denied the programming (education, vocation and

18

19

family).

20

(d) For each denial of programming, the security or other rationale(s).

21 The sampling timeframes selected by the OIG include October 27,2016, through 22
23 November 9, 2016.

24

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

25 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Department provided data,
26

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -23-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 24 of 52 Page ID #:5320

1 some of which appears to reflect the appropriate timeframe, but provided no

2 analysis of the data in support of its Substantial Compliance self-assessment and the

3 data was insufficient for the OIG to make a compliance finding.
4

5

The Department provided lists of all mobility impaired prisoners for the

6 relevant time period. The Department also provided a list ofprograms available at 7
each facility, but the list ofprograms was signed and dated Januruy 2017, months 8 9 after the October-November 2016 sampling timeframes and there is no indication

10 that suggests the list was applicable in 2016. The Department provided a "Program 11
Interest" list with no explanation for how the information contained therein is 12 13 relevant to the provision or the compliance measures,. The Department provided

14 program attendance records that seem to indicate some prisoners' attendance at 15 16 some progrruns, bnt no explanation of how the information would support a
17 compliance finding with respect to all programming.

18

Based on its own site visits, observations, and interviews of personnel and

19

20 prisoners, the OIG can confirm that the Department is offering programming to

21 mobility impaired prisoners. However, the Department has not shown that Class

22 Members have access to all the same programming as other prisoners pursuant to
23 this provision.
24

25

26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -24-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 25 of 52 Page ID #:5321

1

2. Escorting to Programming- Partial Compliance

2

Under the heading "Programming," section A, paragraph 3 of the Agreement,

3 "Class Members will be escorted, to the extent necessary, to any program in which 4
5 they are otherwise eligible to participate, provided that program is available in the

6 facility in which the inmate is housed." Among other requirements, the compliance
7
measures for this provision require the Department to: 8

9

...2. Provide to the OIG the following information for a six month period,

10

to be selected by the OIG, which occurs within the first year post
11

12

implementation of these compliance measures:

13

(a) Names fifty randomly selected mobility impaired prisoners at

14

15

each relevant housing location who are enrolled in a program

16

(education, work, family).

17

(b) ATAR documentation of each listed prisoner's attendance

18

19

records for the enrolled program.

20

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

21
achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Department requested and 22
23 were permitted to reduce the sample sizes from fifty (50) prisoners for each housing

24 location to a representative sample for two-one week periods including October 23

25 through October 29,2016, and November 13 through November 19,2016. The
26

27

Defendants instead provided information for fifty (50) total prisoners, some of CV 08-03515 DDP

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -25-

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 26 of 52 Page ID #:5322

1 whom were not enrolled in programs at all. (Thereafter, the OIG worked with the
2 Depmtment to detennine that an appropriate representative sample size for the 3
populations for each of these time periods would have contained fifty-one (51) 4 5 prisoners for week one and fifty-two (52) prisoners for week two.) Additionally,

6 attendance records provided in order to demonstrate compliance include attendance
7 at some progrmns that do not require enrollment and/or do not require an escort for
8
9 participation with no explanation that distinguishes one type from another. Dog

10 therapy, for example, is an excellent program during which a dog is brought to a
11
dorm or dayroom and approaches individual prisoners. The Department must 12 13 distinguish this type of programming in its self-assessment from the type that

14 requires an escort. The OIG commends the Depmtment for all progrmnming that it 15 16 provides and documents, but will consider only programming that requires an escort
17 in the OIG's compliance findings for this provision.

18

Based on its own site visits, observations, and interviews of personnel and

19 20 prisoners, the OIG can confinn that the Department is ensuring the escmt of some

21 prisoners to programming. However, documentation provided and information

22 contained in the self-assessment is insufficient to make a substantial compliance
23 finding.
24

25

26

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -26-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 27 of 52 Page ID #:5323

I

3. Class Members Serve as Trusty on Same Floor- Partial Compliance

2 Under the heading "Progrmnming," section A, paragraph 5 of the Agreement,

3 "Subject to security classification and eligibility requirements, Defendants agree that
4
5 Class Members may serve as trustys on the same floor on which they are housed.

6 Defendants agree that relevant LASD personnel will be trained to ensure
7 compliance with this term." Among other requirements, the corresponding
8 9 compliance measures for this provision require the Department to promulgate policy

I0 consistent with this provision, train personnel, and provide prisoner worker records
11
from each relevant housing location for two, one week periods, to be selected by the I2
13 OIG.

14

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

15
achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Johnson policy includes I6

17 language consistent with this provision. Regarding personnel training, the

18 Department provided a syllabus and sign-in sheets from four (4) briefings held on
19 May 27, June 3, June 28 and June 30, 2016. However, the sign-in sheets do not
20
21 indicate whether, or which, listed employees worked in the relevant housing

22 locations. The OIG selected and reviewed prisoner worker records for the period 23
October I, 2016, through October 14, 2016. The Department provided records from 24 25 thee-UDAL system that documents worker nmnes, booking numbers, work
26 location, security level and shift worked (day, evening or night). Documents
2827 11I~NITS~P~E°C~Tna~R'G~E~N~EmRAYALr'~S'S~E~cvOTIN~D~~-2~7~--C-V--0-8---0-3-5-1--5~D~~D~P~~ IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 28 of 52 Page ID #:5324

1 provided for that time period yielded zero (0) records from CRDF, one (1) record

2 for MCJ, and four (4) records for TTCF. 3
On December 21, 2016, prior to the Department providing this information, 4 5 OIG personnel directed the Department to document the offers extended to

6 prospective workers, the workers' acceptance or rejection of the offers, and reasons 7
for any disqualifications or ineligibilities. Neither the documentation provided nor 8 9 the Department's self-assessment provide this information.

10

4. Notify Class Members of Programs- Partial Compliance

11 Under the heading "Programming," section A, paragraph 6 of the Agreement,
12

13 "[d]efendants agree to notifY Class Members of the programs available to them in

14 either paper or electronic format, or both." Among other requirements, the 15 16 corresponding compliance measures require the Department to make the ADL 17 available to all mobility impaired prisoners, display posters containing ADL

18 information and provide a sample of all mobility impaired prisoners for the periods 19 20 including November 6 through November 12 and December 4 through
21 December 10,2016.

22

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

23

24 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Department generated the

25 requisite data, but provided no indication in its self-assessment that any of the listed

26 prisoners received the leaflet or were otherwise notified of available programming.

27

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -28-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 29 of 52 Page ID #:5325

1 The Department indicated in its self-assessment that personnel were distributing the
2 ADL to mobility impaired prisoners at both the IRC and CRDF reception areas. On
3 April 13, 2017, OIG personnel conducted a site visit at IRC and determined that the 4 5 leaflets were not being distributed. The OIG interviewed nursing staff and IRC line
6 personnel, none of whom were aware that they were required to distribute the ADL.
7 On April 13, 2017, OIG personnel observed that there was a supply of the ADL at
8
9 the "Booking Front" triage windows at IRC, but they were not being distributed. On
10 April 12, 2017, the Depmtment provided the OIG with Correctional Health Services
11
Policy# M206.13, which states that CHS providers will provide prisoners with an 12 13 ADL after the initial evaluation for a mobility device.

14

While the Department has displayed posters regarding programs available to

15 mobility impaired prisoners, it has not followed its own policies of distributing the
16

17 leaflets. Without proper distribution, the OIG cannot find that the Department have

18 notified Class Members as required. Accordingly, the OIG finds the Department in

19
PC with this provision. 20

21

5. Notification of Programs- Partial Compliance

22

Under the heading "Programming," section A, paragraph 7 of the Agreement,

23 "[n]otification of available progr=s will also be provided during "town hall"
24

25 meetings held at the Jail where appropriate." The corresponding compliance

26 measures require the Depa!tment to promulgate policy consistent with this provision

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -29-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 30 of 52 Page ID #:5326

1 and to provide town hall meeting minutes from each relevant housing location for
2 July and August 2016. 3
On February 15,2017, the Department indicated that it achieved substantial 4 5 compliance with this provision. The Johnson policy includes language consistent
6 witb tbe terms of the Agreement. The Department provided the OIG town hall 7
minutes for some of the relevant housing locations at CRDF, TTCF and MCJ. 8 9 However, documentation provided does not include minutes for all relevant housing
10 locations. For example, town hall meeting minutes for July 2016 were not provided 11
for TTCF module 232, pods A and F, and for August 2016, town hall meeting 12 13 minutes were not provided for TTCF module 232, pods B, E and F. There was no

14 indication that the Department reviewed or analyzed the minutes for compliance

15 with the provision.
16

17

MCJ's town hall meeting minutes were vague and unclear regarding who

18 attended the meetings or whether attendees were notified of programs available to 19
20 them. The Department did not address these meetings in its self-assessment or assert
21 that Class Members were notified of programs during these meetings.

22

On March 9, 2017, OIG personnel conducted a site visit to MCJ and spoke

23 24 with Department personnel. MCJ personnel astutely observed that MCJ's town hall

25 meetings could be improved by conducting the meetings in the day rooms of each

26 floor so that the Department could reach more prisoners. MCJ reports that it is
2827 11·r~NmsnpE~c~Tfi0~R'~G£EMNTIEITRAATL~'s~s~E~cvo~NITD.--~3no_C--V--0-8---0-3-5-1-5-~D~~D~P~~ IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 31 of 52 Page ID #:5327

1 currently in the process of drafting a schedule for these meetings.

2

CRDF's meeting minutes are excellent. In addition to the regular town halls,

3 CRDF has conducted ADA-specific town hall meetings for prisoners with mobility
4
5 impairments. Documents provided include booking numbers of each Class Member

6 who attended each town hall. The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment
7 accurately identified that the Department has achieved partial compliance with this
8 9 provision. If it is not feasible for MCJ and TTCF to implement a notification and

lO documentation process similar to CRDF's, the Department should identifY in its
11 self-assessment, and tl1e OIG will consider, other documentation or evidence that
12
13 supports a substantial compliance finding.

14

6. Rotation of Outdoor Recreation Time- Partial Compliance

15 Under the heading "Physical Therapy," section B, paragraph 3 of the
16

17 Agreement, "[t]o the extent possible, and taking into account operational and

18 logistical considerations, the time of day Class Members are offered outdoor
19 recreation will rotate." The corresponding compliance measures require the
20
21 Department to promulgate policy consistent with this provision and provide records

22 reflecting outdoor recreation2 times from each relevant housing location for two
23 three month periods, including July through September 2016 and October through
24

25
2 Outdoor recreation time does not always occur outdoors. At TTCF and CRDF, prisoners 26 can recreate inside and it is still considered "outdoor recreation" for compliance purposes.

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -31-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 32 of 52 Page ID #:5328

1 December 2016.

2

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

3 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The OIG is confident that the
4
5 Department is rotating at least some outdoor recreation schedules consistent with the

6 Johnson policy and this Agreement. OIG personnel conducted interviews and
7 reviewed video related to the rotation of outdoor recreation times as represented in
8 9 the documentation provided by the Department (discussed below). On October 25,

10 2016, and March 19,2017, OIG personnel spoke to prisoners at CRDF to ensure
11
they had access to outdoor recreation time as the Department represented. On 12 13 November 8, 2016, OIG personnel reviewed CCTV video footage that revealed that

14 CRDF prisoners had direct access to the recreation area at various times throughout 15
the day. On April 11, 2017, OIG personnel reviewed CCTV video footage and 16 17 confirmed that outdoor recreation time rotated for Class Members at TTCF during

18 the time period requested. On April 11, 2017, OIG personnel also reviewed CCTV

19 video footage for MCJ's outdoor recreation times.
20

21

The Department provided logs which purported to show that outdoor

22 recreation time rotated for Class Members at MCJ and TTCF. The Department was 23 24 not required to provide the same documentation for CRDF since at that location
25 prisoners can access outdoor recreation time at their leisure. The Department

26 reported to the OIG that the logs provided include entries for both Class Members

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -32-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 33 of 52 Page ID #:5329

1 and non-Class Members, but neither the documentation provided nor the self-

2 assessment indicate which time periods reference Class Members and non-Class
3 Members.
4

5

7. Thermals- Partial Compliance

6

7

Under the heading "Physical Therapy," section B, paragraph 4 of the

8 Agreement,

9

Class Members who have been prescribed thermal clothing as a reasonable

10

11

accommodation for their disability so that they may participate in outdoor

12

recreation will be provided warm coats and/or thermal clothing. LASD shall

13

inform Class Members that they may request thermal clothing as a reasonable

14

15

accommodation, and shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all

16

LASD personnel are aware of this policy.

17

During the development of the compliance measures, the Department

18

19 represented to the OIG that it would provide all Class Members with thermals rather

20 than only those with prescriptions. Providing thermals to all Class Members

21 regardless of medical necessity would exceed Agreement requirements. 22

23

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

24 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. According to the documents
25 provided, on January 25, 2017, a prisoner at CRDF complained to CCSB personnel
26 27 that tmstys hoard thermals during linen exchanges to use them as jailhouse
CV 08-03515 DDP
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -33-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 34 of 52 Page ID #:5330

1 ctmency, limiting the availability of thermals for Class Members who need them.
2 OIG personnel visited CRDF on May 2, 2017, and prisoners in modules 2700, 2800 3
and 3300 echoed the same complaint. The OIG immediately notified the Department 4 5 via email of this finding.

6

Additionally, on March 7, 2017, CCSB personnel visited MCJ to conduct

7
interviews and determine compliance with this provision. According to documents 8

9 provided, CCSB personnel learned that MCJ did not have any thermal pants

10 available and took appropriate actions to order them.
11
On April 19, the OIG again emailed the Department, this time regarding the 12 13 shortage of thermal pants. The Department now disputes whether thermal pants are

14 considered "the1mal clothing" for compliance purposes. The OIG has determined 15 16 that "thermal clothing" includes both tops and bottoms, particularly since mobility
17 impairment usually affects individuals below the torso.

18

The Department's effm1s to provide thermals to all Class Members exceeding

19

20 the Agreement requirements are commendable. Additionally, CCSB's internal

21 monitoring team thoroughly and accurately documented its findings during its site

22 visits. However, in preparing its self-assessment, the Department appears to have 23
24 failed to analyze its own documentation and data, failed to accurately evaluate its
25 own compliance, or both.

26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -34-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 35 of 52 Page ID #:5331

1

8. Construction of Accessible Beds- Partial Compliance

2

Under the heading "Physical Accessibility," section C, paragraph 4,

3 subsection (g) of the Agreement, the Department is required to expand housing for 4
5 class members by constructing approximately 96 accessible beds at TTCF, Module

6 272. Originally, the Deprutment expected a completion date within 24 months after
7 approval of funding by the Board of Supervisors. Compliance measures for this
8 9 provision reqnire the Department to show proof of funding approval and regularly

10 update the OIG on the status of construction.
11 On March 31, 2015, the Deprutment secured funding for the 96 accessible
12
13 beds. On March 21, 2017, the Department repmted to the OIG that the project

14 would not be completed within 24 months, and would instead be completed by May
15
26, 2017. The Department reports that the construction was completed on May 30, 16
17 2017, and the OIG is awaiting verification from the Senior Deputy Compliance

18 Officer, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office-Disability and Civil Rights 19
Section, that the beds comport with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
20
21 requirements.

22

9. Initial Decisions and Ongoing Evaluations Made by LASD Medical

23 Professionals
24

25

Under the heading "Use of Mobility Devices," section D, paragraph I of the

26 Agreement, "[i]initial decision and ongoing evaluations: Initial decisions and

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -35-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 36 of 52 Page ID #:5332

1 ongoing evaluations regarding Class Member's need, if any, oftbe use of a mobility
2 assistive device are and will continue to be made by LASD Medical Professionals." 3
The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has 4 5 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Johnson policy contains
6 language consistent with tbis provision. To ensure adherence to the policy and 7
monitor compliance with this provision, on October 24 and November I, 2016, OIG 8 9 personnel monitored the initial evaluation process at IRC. Through tbese visits, the

10 OIG determined that, although custody assistants are responsible for asking each 11
prisoner a set of triage questions, all medical evaluations, including those for 12 13 mobility impairments, are completed by medical professionals. All staff members

14 interviewed demonstrated a coherent understanding of these protocols. Additionally, 15
the OIG monitors complaints regarding initial evaluations that Plaintiffs forward to 16 17 the OIG on behalf of mobility impaired prisoners. Through monitoring of these

18 complaints, the OIG has determined that all initial evaluations were completed by
19 medical professionals.
20

21

Per the Agreement and the rights afforded to Class Members, which were

22 eventually docwnented in the ADL, Class Members may be assessed and re23
evaluated "in accordance with established medical standards" for the need for a 24
25 mobility assistive device. This standard applies to initial and on-going evaluations

26 made by medical providers. The requirement that initial and ongoing medical

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -36-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 37 of 52 Page ID #:5333

1 evaluations are conducted according to medical standards is an issue that also

2 applies to secondary reviews (see below). Thus, the OIG intends to have a subject 3 matter expert opine on this issue as it applies to initial and ongoing evaluations for 4 5 mobility assistive devices.

6

In February 2017, the Parties and the OIG agreed to utilize the expertise of

7
Mindy Aisen, DIO, Chieflnnovation and Research Officer, Rancho Los Amigos 8

9 Rehabilitation Center as the Johnson subject matter expert. Initially (unbeknownst

10 to the OIG, but for the Department's own information) the Department selected ten
11
medical records which spanned a time frame of several years, and contained both 12 13 initial and secondary evaluations, and provided them to Dr. Aisen for review. The

14 OIG is currently identifYing additional medical records for the physician to review
15
that adequately represent the proper time frame and population. Pending the 16
17 outcome of that review, the Department will remain in partial compliance with this

18 prOVIS!On. 19

20

10. Secondary Reviews- Partial Compliance

21

Under the heading "Use of Mobility Devices," section D, paragraph 2 of the

22

23 Agreement, the Department is required to have secondary reviews conducted by a

24 chief physician or his designee and such review must be an independent evaluation.

25 The compliance measures for this provision require the Department to promulgate
26

27 policy related to this provision, as well as provide summaries and dispositions

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -37-

CV 08-03 515 DDP

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 38 of 52 Page ID #:5334

1 related to grievances from mobility impaired prisoners requesting a secondary

2 review. Due to problems with the Department's grievance system overall, secondary
3 reviews cannot be accurately tracked and grievance data is unreliable at this time.
4 5 As such, the OIG directed the Department not to provide samples as required by the

6 compliance measures. The OIG met with the Department on January 17, March 13

7 and April 12, 2017, to discuss how to remedy these issues.
8

9

At the March 13'h meeting, the OIG provided notice to the Department that

10 CHS must create policy related to secondary reviews and ensure that all personnel 11
are trained on that policy. On April 12, 2017, the Department presented the OIG 12 13 with a proposal that would allow the Department to track requests for secondary

14 reviews; however, this solution requires an upgrade to the medical system which 15
may take substantial time to complete (see discussion of item 17, provision H.3. 16 17 below).

18

Through monitoring of ADA-related complaints, in-person observations and

19

20 documentation provided by the Department, the OIG has determined that the

21 Department is providing secondary reviews to prisoners. Whether every prisoner

22 who desires a secondary review is afforded one and whether these reviews are done
23
24 in accordance with medical standards must be determined before the Department

25 achieves substantial compliance with this provision.

26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -38-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 39 of 52 Page ID #:5335

1

11. Assistive Device Leaflet- Partial Compliance

2

Under the heading "Use of Mobility Devices," section D, paragraph 3 of the

3 Agreement, the Department is required to create and distribute an ADL advising
4
5 Class Members of their rights "pertaining to determinations regarding their need, if

6 any, for mobility assistive devices." On September 15,2016, the Depattment
7 represented to the OIG that it had achieved substantial compliance with this
8 9 provision. The OIG monitored the Depattment's compliance and on November 9,

10 2016, made a partial compliance finding. In the Department's March 31, 2017 self-
11
assessment, the Department accurately rated itself in partial compliance with this 12 13 provision (and see discussion above at item 4, provision A.6 regarding ADL

14 distribution issues).

15

16

12. Wheelchair Maintenance- Partial Compliance

17

Under the heading "Wheelchair and Prostheses," section E, paragraph 1 of the

18 Agreement,
19

20

Defendants agree that wheelchairs that are medically prescribed will be

21

maintained in working order (including functional brakes and footrests as

22 may be used unless otherwise prescribed by LASD Medical Professionals)
23

24

and will be serviced on a regular basis to the extent feasible.

25 The corresponding compliance measures require the Department to promulgate

26 policy consistent with this provision and to provide data related to grievances about

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -39-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 40 of 52 Page ID #:5336

1 wheelchair condition and corresponding maintenance logs for the period including
2 December 1 through December 15,2016. 3
The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has 4 5 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Johnson policy includes
6 language consistent with the terms of the Agreement. The Department provided 7
documentation that it represented was a complete log of all complaints about 8 9 wheelchair functionality for the relevant time periods. The grievance log that the
10 Department provided contained zero wheelchair grievances, which is an insufficient 11
sample for compliance purposes. Because of the Department's data and grievance 12 13 tracking problems, the OJG is not confident in the grievance log provided. The OJG

14 is confident, however, that at least some personnel are exchanging broken
15
wheelchairs upon request, based on observations made by OJG monitors during site 16
17 visits.

18

The wheelchair maintenance log provided contains a list of nine (9) broken

19 wheelchairs for the relevant timeframe. Based on documentation provided, none of
20

21 the listed wheelchairs appear to have been repaired and no explanation was

22 provided. On April 27, 2017, OJG persmmel offered Depm1ment an opportunity to 23 24 explain or provide additional documentation or evidence in support of a compliance
25 finding. The Department could not provide evidence that the listed wheelchairs had

26 been repaired. 27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -40-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 41 of 52 Page ID #:5337

1

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the Department

2 must identify or implement an effective mechanism for tracking wheelchair
3 maintenance and repairs, and it must ensure that Class Members' requests and 4 5 complaints are addressed consistently and uniformly.

6 13. Wheelchairs with Movable Armrests- Partial Compliance
7

8

Under the heading "Wheelchairs and Prostheses," section E, paragraph I of

9 the Agreement,

10

11

Defendants further agree that wheelchairs with movable armrests may be

12

provided to Class Members who require them if a custody safe option can be

13

located at a comparable price to wheelchairs the LASD currently purchases.

14

15

Defendants agree to explore the availability of such wheelchairs and welcome

16

any suggestions Plaintiffs may have.

17

The corresponding compliance measures require the Department "[t]o provide

18

19 to the OIG a brief summary of the Department's effmts to explore the availability

20 and feasibility of purchasing custody safe wheelchairs with movable arm rests."

21 The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has
22
23 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Department reported that,

24 in October 2016, it began to explore options for the purchase of new wheelchairs.

25 Department personnel reported that they identified wheelchairs with moveable
26

27

armrests but decided against purchasing them because they determined that all CV 08-03515 DDP

28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -41-

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 42 of 52 Page ID #:5338

1 wheelchairs with movable armrests are unsafe in a custody environment. The

2 Department, however, did not provide an explanation for this conclusion and failed
3 to summarize their efforts to identify a custody safe option. OIG personnel have
4 5 observed Class Members in Department facilities using wheelchairs with movable

6 armrests. If the chairs observed by OIG personnel are safe for a custody
7 environment, the Department should summarize its efforts to purchase similar
8 9 chairs.

10

The Department reports that instead of purchasing wheelchairs with movable

11
armrests, it will purchase wheelchairs with minimized armrests. Dr. Aisen has
12

13 opined that wheelchairs with minimized annrests are not appropriate for all types of

14 mobility impairments, and that the need for armrests requires case-by-case analysis.
15
The OIG has concerns that the Department has not sufficiently researched the 16
17 feasibility of purchasing wheelchairs with moveable armrests. The Department's

18 blanket position that all moveable armrests are unsafe for a custody environment is 19
not suppmted by evidence and is inconsistent with this provision and with current 20
21 jail practice.

22

14. Return of Personal Wheelchairs- Partial Compliance

23 Under the heading "Wheelchair and Prostheses," section E, paragraph 2 of the
24

25 Agreement, "[p]ersonal wheelchairs are currently and will continue to be stored and

26 returned to Class Members upon release from LASD custody." Among other

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -42-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 43 of 52 Page ID #:5339

1 requirements, the corresponding compliance measures require the Depaiiment to

2 provide property receipts for personal wheelchairs for a randomly selected
3 representative sample of mobility impaired prisoners released during the periods of 4 5 October 22 through November 2 and from December 8 through December 14,2016.

6

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

7
achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The timeframes requested 8

9 yielded a sample of only three (3) prisoners who were booked with personal

10 wheelchairs, each of whom had their chairs returned upon release. A sample of three
11
(3) Class Members is too small to make a compliance determination. The 12 13 Department should have expanded the sample timeframes and notified the OIG that

14 the sample yielded was too small (as it did for provision A.3 when the sample 15
yielded was too large). 16

17

15. ADA Duties- Partial Compliance

18

Under the heading "ADA Coordinators," section F, paragraph 1 of the

19
20 Agreement, the Department is required to designate one or more ADA

21 coordinator(s) and dedicate sufficient resources to ensure their necessary duties are

22 perfmmed appropriately. The provision enumerates duties specific to ADA 23 24 coordinators, which includes review, investigation and resolution of ADA
25 grievances, among other tasks. The corresponding compliance measures require the

26 Department to provide to the OIG a Jist of ADA Coordinators as well as a Jog of

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -43-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 44 of 52 Page ID #:5340

1 complaints related to mobility impairments received by the ADA team email group.

2

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

3 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The OIG has interviewed each
4
5 ADA Coordinator and confinned that they understand and perform their roles and

6 responsibilities consistent with the Agreement. In the initial documentation provided
7 many of the listed grievances were related to vision, communication, mental health,
8 9 housing and medical issues rather than mobility impairments. The Department

10 subsequently submitted a log of grievances received between June 23, 2015, and ll
March I, 2017. These grievances were related to mobility impairments, however,
12
13 they did not match the grievances for the same time period documented in the OIG' s

14 Johnson grievance log, and several grievances appear to be missing from the

15
Department's documentation. 16

17

Despite the Department's inability to properly track grievances consistent

18 with Department policy, the Department and its assigned ADA Coordinators are 19
responsive to Johnson related grievances. The OIG's records indicate that all of the
20
21 grievances received by the Department for the relevant timeframes were resolved,

22 even those that are missing from the Department's records. Grievances are the only
23
means by which Class Members may seek resolution to issues related to their 24
25 mobility impairments. Proper documentation and tracking is essential to the ADA

26 coordinators' functions, is required under Department policy and this Agreement

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -44-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 45 of 52 Page ID #:5341

1 and must be achieved in order for the Department to achieve substantial compliance

2 with this provision.

3 16. Reasonable Accommodations- Partial Compliance
4

5

Under the heading "Accommodations," section H, paragraph I of the

6 Agreement,

7

8

[d)efendants agree that Class Members shall receive reasonable

9

accommodations when they request them and as prescribed by LASD medical

10

11

professionals. Accommodations may include, but are not limited to:

12

assignment to lower bunks, changes of clothing; extra blankets; allowance of

13

extra time to respond to visitor calls and attorneys visits; shower benches;

14

15

assistive device to travel outside of a housing module; and assignment to a

16

cell with accessible features.

17

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

18

19 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Johnson policy includes

20 language consistent with the terms of the Agreement. On May 11, 2017, OIG
21 personnel conducted site visits at three (3) facilities, including CRDF (modules 22 23 2500, 2800, 3300 and 3700), TTCF (module 232, Pods A through F), and MCJ

24 (floors 6000, 7000 and 8000). At CRDF, class members are housed throughout the
25 facility, so all personnel are required to know and follow the Johnson policy. Most
26

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -45-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03 515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 46 of 52 Page ID #:5342

1 of the personnel interviewed stated that they had been briefed on the policy or had
2 received training in their jail operations academy course. However, some were
3 working overtime from patrol, they had not been trained in the Johnson policy and 4 5 were not aware of many of the acconunodations prisoners with mobility
6 impainnents are entitled to. OIG personnel also interviewed several Class Members 7
housed at CRDF. All of the women stated that they had received accommodations 8 9 when requested (with the exception of thermal clothing, see discussion of item 7,
10 provision B.4 above).
11 At TTCF, all personnel interviewed were regularly assigned to the floor, all
12 13 had been trained on the policy, and were aware of the accommodations prisoners

14 with mobility impairments are entitled to. Some prisoners report that they have 15
received their prescribed accommodations. Others complain that they have not been 16 17 provided with assistive devices that were prescribed for transport, or that

18 permanently prescribed devices are confiscated/lost during transport or while class
19
members are away from the facility. 20

21

At MCJ, some of the deputies on site during the OIG's visit were assigned to

22 patrol and were not familiar with the policy, some stated that they had just "cycle 23
changed" in and had not yet been briefed, and one stated that he would not give 24
25 extra blankets to any prisoners when they request them because extra blankets are

26 considered contraband and can be used for "tenting" (which can pose a security

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -46IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 47 of 52 Page ID #:5343

1 risk). OIG personnel also spoke to several Class Members housed at MCJ.

2 Approximately one half of the prisoners present during the site visit stated that they 3
did not receive extra blankets when requested and some stated that they were not 4 5 given changes of clothing when requested.

6

7

The Department must implement an effective mechanism to train all

8 personnel in the Johnson policy and ensure that assistive devices and other

9 reasonable accommodations are provided as prescribed.

10

11

17. Tracking Mobility Assistive Device Requests- Partial Compliance

12

Under the heading "Accommodations," section H, paragraph 3 of the

13 Agreement, the Department is required to "explore the feasibility of adding a tab to 14
15 the current medical records system (as patt of upgrades), to track mobility assistive

16 device requests and assessments by LASD Medical Professionals of Class
17 Members." The corresponding compliance measures require the Department to
18 19 provide documentation related to upgrades to the medical record system as well as

20 their efforts to comply with the provision.

21 The Depattment' s March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has
22
23 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The Department reports that

24 that Cerner is not capable of tracking assistive device requests and assessments 25
consistent with the provision. Currently, the Department relies on a manual process 26

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND 47-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 48 of 52 Page ID #:5344

l to track prisoners who are newly classified as Class Members with a "W" or nun

2 designation using the Automated Justice Information System to identify these newly 3
designated prisoners. This process was initiated in response to the Johnson lawsuit 4 5 and conducted by a nurse working at CCSB. In meetings with the Department held

6 on January 17 and March 13, 2017, the OIG notified the Department that it must 7
formalize this manual procedure either through policy or other means. The 8 9 Department has not yet provided evidence that it has done so.

10

The Department currently lacks the ability to track mobility device

11 assessments in a systematic manner. However, in a meeting on Apri112, 2017, the
12

13 Department proposed a solution for tracking requests for secondary reviews within

14 Cerner (see discussion of Item 10, provision D.2 above), which would allow the 15
Department to track secondary mobility assistive device assessments by a simple 16
17 addition to the Cerner system. Initial mobility assistive assessments which do not

18 result in a "W" or "U" classification will still not be tracked. However, the 19
20 Department created policy that requires assessing medical professionals to notify
21 Class Members of their right to a secondary review, in the event that they dispute

22 the outcome of their initial evaluation.

23

24

The OIG commends the Department for seeking creative solutions to comply

25 with this provision and will continue to work with the Department as it seeks to

26

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -48-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 49 of 52 Page ID #:5345

1 create the necessary updates in Cerner and fonnalize its manual tracking processes

2 for newly designated mobility impaired prisoners.

3 Provisions Deemed Non-Compliant with the Agreement
4

5

1. Disqualification from Programming- Non-Compliance

6

Under the heading "Programming," section A, paragraph 2 of the Agreement,

7 "[m]obility impairment(s) will not serve to disqualify Class Members from
8

9 pmticipating in programming in which they are otherwise eligible to participate."

10 The corresponding compliance measures requires the Department to produce the 11
same records as required by section A, paragraph 1 of the Agreement for the two 12 13 week period including October 27,2016, through November 9, 2016.

14

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

15 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. Documentation provided is
16

17 unclear as to the reasons for prisoners' disqualification from programs. The

18 Depmtment provided a table in its supporting documentation that includes a column 19
titled "Reason Inmate Was Denied Programming." However, the reasons are not 20
21 descriptive and they are not explained in the source documents or the self-

22 assessment. One commonly indicated reason for disqualification is simply, "DHS"
23
(Department of Health Services). This disqualification category is not explained 24

25 and, on its face, suggests that Class Members are disqualified because of their

26 medical condition or mobility impairment, contrary to the provision requirements.

27
28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -49-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 50 of 52 Page ID #:5346

1 Without more information, the OIG is unable to make even a partial compliance

2 finding.

3

4

2.

Maintain and Staff Physical Therapy Room- Non-Compliance

5 Under the heading "Physical Therapy and Outdoor Recreation," section B,
6 7 paragraph I, subsection (b) of the Agreement,

8

The Defendants shall continue to maintain and staff a physical therapy room

9

in MCJ and further agrees to attempt to locate space in TTCF for a similar

10

ll

room (essentially, a mini clinic) to provide physical therapy to Class

12

Members once they are moved into housing locations in that facility.

l3

14

The Department's March 31, 2017 self-assessment indicates that it has

15 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. The OIG has determined that 16
the Department has maintained physical therapy rooms at both TTCF and MCJ.
l7
18 CRDF has no physical therapy room. Currently, prisoners at that jail are sent to

19 outside medical facilities to receive services. The Depa11ment has reported that it is
20
21 currently converting an existing room at CRDF into a physical therapy room.

22

On December 21 and 22, 2016, OIG personnel interviewed the one physical

23 therapist employed by the Department. The therapist explained that she was tasked
24 25 with providing physical therapy for all County jail prisoners, not only Class

26 Members, which were too many to treat. For example, TTCF alone had forty-two

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -50-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 51 of 52 Page ID #:5347

1 (42) patients that had been prescribed physical therapy, but the therapist only
2 worked at that facility two days a week and each therapy session lasted one hour. 3
The OIG has since learned that this only physical therapist no longer works 4 5 for the Department and that there is currently no physical therapist on staff.

6 Conclusion 7
Systemic reform is complex and arduous for any correctional system. This is 8 9 particularly true in a jurisdiction the size of Los Angeles County, for a Department

10 that has recently undergone total leadership and organizational transformation
11 pursuant to four simultaneous consent decrees and intense public and judicial
12 13 scrutiny. As part of its reform efforts, the Department created CCSB, and assigned

14 thirty one (31) people to oversee the implementation of reforms and compliance

15 with Custody Services Division settlement agreements.'
16

17

For Johnson, the smallest of the three settlement agreements, CCSB has

I8 assigned a team consisting of one sergeant, and at least three deputies and custody
19 assistants to work with facilities to ensure implementation and with the OIG to
20

27 28 INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND -51-
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 229 Filed 06/30/17 Page 52 of 52 Page ID #:5348

1 the contrary, the team is competent, motivated, and committed to successful

2 systemic reform. The issues are instead a combination of insufficient systems, 3
processes and procedures, and unyielding commitment to an ineffective model 4 5 which distinguishes between short term consent decree compliance and effective

6 sustainable refmm, and prioritizes the short tenn compliance. 7
Substantial compliance with the entire Johnson Agreement is quite attainable 8 9 and the OIG remains committed to working with the Department to achieve it. If the

10 Department continues to seek thoughtful solutions to the issues raised in this report,
11
it should expect to achieve compliance and, more importantly, successful systemic
12
13 reform.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL'S SECOND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-52-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:5358

1 MAX HUNTSMAN

2

Inspector General, Bar No. 156780 CATHLEEN BELTZ

3 Assistant Inspector General, Bar No. 245593

STACEY NELSON

Monitor, Bar No. 302205

5 Inspector_Genera1oig. lacounty. gov

6

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 312 South Hill Street, 3h11 Floor

7 Los Angeles, California 90013

$ Telephone: (213) 974-6100; Fax: (213) 974-9346

9 Monitors

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 PETER JOHNSON, DONALD

15 PETERSON and MICHAEL CURFMAN, on behalf of themselves
16 and all others similarly situated,

17

Plaintiffs,

vs.

18 LOS ANGELES COUNTY

19 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; LEROY BACA, as Sheriff of
20 County of Los Angeles, and COUNTY

21 Of LOS ANGELES, a public entity, MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH,
22 YVONE B. BURKE, DON KNABE,

23 GLORIA MOLINA, ZEV

YAROSLAVSKY, as Supervisors of

24 the County of Los Angeles

25

Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 08-035 15 DDP INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT

26

27

2$

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:5359

1

Pursuant to Section V, subsection M, of the Settlement Agreement

2 (Agreement), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Monitor appointed by this

Court, submits the attached Third Implementation Status Report (Report) evaluating 4 5 Defendants’ compliance with the terms of the Agreement. This Report was prepared
6 by the OIG to provide “reasonable and regular reports” to the Parties and the Court.
7 This is the third status report on the implementation of the Agreement. The OIG is
$ available to answer any questions the Court may have regarding this Report and

10 Defendants’ compliance with the Agreement. 11

12 13 Dated: Aprilc, 201$

Respectfully submitted,

16

7/

17

1$

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

Hunt àii Ins ieiGeneral L€-’Ange1es County Office of Inspector General
CV 08-03515 DDP -2-

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:5360

1

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION

2

STATUS REPORT

3

4

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD REPORT

5

The Agreement in the above-captioned case provides that the OIG will

6 prepare and submit periodic reports to Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively 7 $ referred to as “the Parties”) and the Court to evaluate Defendants’ compliance with
9 the Agreement. Defendants have agreed to implement system-wide reforms of the

10 Los Angeles County jail conditions of confinement for Class Members. The 11 12 Agreement defines Class Members as “all present and future detainees and inmates

13 with mobility impairments who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate

14 accommodations, modifications, services and/or physical access in accordance with 15 16 federal and state disabilities law.” The OIG filed with this Court the Inspector

17 General’s Second Implementation Status Report on June 30, 2017. Unless otherwise

stated, this report takes into account all data collected and analyzed, and 19 20 observations made from January 1, 2017- March 31, 2018.

21

On August 24, 2016, the Parties agreed on compliance measures that would

22 serve as a guideline for implementation of the terms of the Agreement and establish 23
24 the Agreement’s minimum compliance standards. The compliance measures were

25 written based on the Department’s predictions about policies, procedures, practices

26 and systems that it intended to utilize or implement to ensure compliance with the

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-3-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 61 Page ID #:5361

1 terms of the Agreement. For some compliance measures, the Department’s 2 information about existing or available data and systems was limited or its

predictions were incoffect. ere necessaiy to sene the interests of Class Members 4
and the Department, and to promote effective implementation of the Agreement, the

6 OIG is willing to consider alternative evidence as proof of compliance. Though the 7
OIG is not rigid in its consideration of the types of evidence that support $ 9 compliance, all evidence submitted must be verifiable, replicable and it must be
10 sufficient to make a compliance determination. 11
On December 14, 2017, the Court granted the Parties’ joint request for an 12 13 extension of the Agreement terms by one (1) year from the original expiration date
14 of April 22, 2018, to April 22, 2019. The OIG will make a compliance finding for 15
each provision based on the degree to which each provision has been effectively and 16 17 sustainably implemented. A non-compliance finding means that the Department has

made no notable progress in achieving compliance with any of the key components 19
of the provisions. A partial compliance finding means that the Department has made 20 21 notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision.

22 A substantial compliance finding means that the Department has successfully
23 24 implemented all or nearly all of the components of a particular provision. A

25 sustained compliance finding means that the Department has maintained substantial

26 compliance for a period of at least twelve (12) months following the OIG’s initial

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-4-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 61 Page ID #:5362

1 substantial compliance finding and that the OIG will no longer monitor that 2 provision for purposes of this Agreement.

The Department’s Custody Compliance and Sustainability Bureau (CCSB) is 4 5 responsible for preparation of the Department’s self-assessments and the

6 coordination of additional documentation as requested by the 01G. As reported in 7
the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report, some data provided $
by CCSB in the last reporting period was insufficient to support compliance

10 findings. Pursuant to the OIG’s recommendation, the Sheriff tasked the Audits and 11
Accountability Bureau (AAB) with an expanded role in collecting and analyzing 12 13 CCSB’s supporting data. AAB is staffed with auditors who have the requisite

14 background, training, and experience to provide invaluable input to Department’s 15
internal compliance review process. CCSB and AAB created agreed-upon 16 17 procedures consistent with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards,

18 which included the following additional steps in the preparation of the Department’s
19 self-assessments:
20

21

• Reviewing population and sampling documentation, including all

22

supporting documentation, to verify that all data was derived from

23

24

reliable sources

25

• Ensuring that assessment tools represent the selected samples and were

26

adequately supported by appropriate documentation; and

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-5-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 61 Page ID #:5363

1

• Confirming that the self-assessment report comports with best practices

2

for communicating findings and conclusions.

3 The collaboration between CCSB and AAB has been successful and the quality of
4

the Department’s self-assessments has improved markedly. The OIG has

6 communicated to the Department that quality self-assessment is a critical component 7
to sustaining reforms following the termination of the Agreement, and CCSB has $
made tremendous progress in this area. CCSB personnel have made themselves

10 available to OIG monitors at all times and the OIG has received unfettered access to 11
Department documentation and facilities. CCSB’s commendable efforts in this 12
13 reporting period have aided the Department in achieving compliance, and aided the

14 OTG in analyzing Defendants’ compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

15

16

As of March 31, 2018, the OIG determined that the Department had achieved

17 substantial compliance with twelve (12) and partial compliance with twenty (20) of

the forty-nine (49) provisions. In this reporting period the OIG reduced the
19 20 Defendants’ compliance ratings for three (3) provisions from substantial to partial

21 compliance. The Department has achieved sustained compliance with twelve (12)

22 provisions. Five (5) of the forty-nine (49) provisions were documented as
23 24 “Completed” in the Agreement and, on January 11, 2017, the Parties agreed those

25 would not be subject to the OIG monitoring. These five (5) provisions are listed

26

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-6-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 61 Page ID #:5364

1 under the heading “Physical Accessibility,” in section C, paragraph 4, subsection a
2 through subsection e of the Agreement. 3
Several of the provisions that remain partially implemented require improved 4 5 coordination between the Custody Services Division and Correctional Health
6 Services (CHS), and may require the dedication of additional CHS training 7
resources. On May 1, 2017, Los Angeles County combined the provision of prisoner $
medical and mental health services under one consolidated health agency. Los

10 Angeles County Department of Health Services - Correctional Health Services is 11
now responsible for medical and mental health needs of Class Members and for 12 13 coordinating as necessary with the Custody Services Division to provide needed

14 accommodations. CHS currently has dedicated one (1) Registered Nurse I position 15
to assist CCSB in preparing proof of compliance documentation; however, the ADA 16 17 Nurse assigned lacks the authority to implement policy or to initiate training

18 consistent with the terms of the Agreement. In some areas, Department and CHS 19
collaboration has been effective in achieving compliance; however, several of the 20
21 provisions require more direct CHS involvement and the authority of involved CHS

22 personnel to implement compliance related reforms. 23
In order to verify compliance with some of the provisions that require medical 24
25 expertise, the Parties and the OIG agreed to consult a subject matter expert, Mindy

26 Aisen, M.D., Chief of Innovation and Research at Rancho Los Amigos

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-7-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 61 Page ID #:5365

1 Rehabilitation Center. Dr. Aisen has served as the Agreement’s subject matter 2 expert since February 2017 and has agreed to serve in this capacity through the

Agreement’s expiration. All references to “expert” below pertain to Dr. Aisen or her 4
designee.

6

Finally, on June 30, 2016, the Department implemented Custody Division

7 Manual (CDM) section 5-12/005.10, “Handling of Inmates with Mobility and/or
$

Sensory Impairment.” Unless otherwise noted, references to “policy” or “Johnson

10 policy” pertain to this CDM section. 11
IMPLEMENATION STATUS OF AGREEMENT PROVISIONS 12 13 SECTION A - Programming

14 Provision A.1 — Access to All Programming — Substantial Compliance as of
15 December 10, 2017
16

17

Under section A, paragraph 1 of the Agreement,

18

Defendants agree that Class Members have and will continue to have access

19

20

to all programming (including the same programming made available to

21

veterans) that non-mobility impaired inmates have in jail settings.

22 Among other requirements, the compliance measures for this provision require 23 24 Defendants to promulgate policy and to provide a list to the OIG that indicates that
25 for each sampled Class Member, within a selected time period, whether that Class

26 Member accepted, rejected or was denied programming. The documentation

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-8-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 61 Page ID #:5366

1 provided under Provision A. 1 is also used for proof of compliance with Provision 2 A.2 below.

As previously reported, the Department promulgated policy consistent with 4
this provision. The QIG selected and reviewed data from a representative sample of

6 Class Members who were in custody for two (2) one-week periods from May 1, 7
2017 - May 9, 2017, and September 4, 2017 - September 12, 2017. The Department $
provided supporting documentation on December 10, 2017.

10

Documentation showed that one hundred and three (103) of one hundred and

11 five (105) sampled Class Members, or ninety-eight (98) percent, received access to
12

13 programming. Moreover, the Department provided reasonable explanations for why

14 the additional two (2) Class Members did not receive access to programming. The 15
first Class Member was only in custody for a brief period and the second Class 16 17 Member was infirm and in need of extensive medical care during the Class

Member’s thirty-three (33) day incarceration. The OIG verified through site visits 19 20 and interviews that Class Members indeed have access to programming in the jails.
21 The Department has achieved substantial compliance with this provision.

22 Provision A.2 — No Disability-Based Disqualification from Programming —
23 Substantial Compliance as of December 10, 2017
24

25

26

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-9-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 61 Page ID #:5367

1

Under section A, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, “[m]obility impairment(s)

2 will not serve to disqualify Class Members from participating in programming in

which they are otherise eligible to participate.” The compliance measure for this 4
provision requires the Department to promulgate policy consistent with this

6 provision and to produce the same records as required by Provision A. 1 of the 7
Agreement. The Department promulgated policy consistent with this provision and $
provided documentation to the OIG on December 10, 2017.

10

None of the sampled Class Members were disqualified from participation in

11 12 Education Based Incarceration (EBI) programs. However, documentation provided

13 includes a “Disqualification List” within the Department’s ADA [Americans with

14 Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101] Weekly Report published by the EBI
15 16 Unit. This Disqualification list documents all Class Members disqualified from
17 programming during the time period selected by the 01G. Based on this list, six (6)

Class Members within the selected time period were disqualified from programming 19 20 out of three hundred and seventy-four (374) total Class Members. Explanations for
21 five (5) of the six (6) disqualifications were sufficient and ranged from security

22 classification to CHS personnel disqualification determinations based on medical or 23 24 mental health housing needs. One (1) Class Member was disqualified erroneously,
25 but none of the sampled Class Members were disqualified because of a disability.

26 The Department’s self-assessment findings are consistent with OIG observations

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-10-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 61 Page ID #:5368

1 during regular site visits and frequent discussions with Class Members; therefore,
2 Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with this provision.
3 Provision A.3 — Escorting to Programming — Substantial Compliance effective
4 December 10, 2017

6

Under section A, paragraph 3 of the Agreement,

7 Class Members will be escorted, to the extent necessary, to any program in
$

9

which they are otherwise eligible to participate, provided that program is

10

available in the facility in which the inmate is housed.

11 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate
12

13 policy and to provide documentation showing sampled Class Members’ attendance

14 at EBI programs. As previously reported, the Department promulgated policy

15 consistent with this provision.
16

17

On December 10, 2017, the Department provided its updated self-assessment

for this provision. Because the Department does not currently track information
19 related to programming escorts, the OIG reviewed records of sampled Class
20

21 Members which showed that all Class Members enrolled in FBI programs attended

22 scheduled classes. At Twin Towers Correctional Facility (TTCF) and Century
23 Regional Detention Facility (CRDF), programming takes place within Class
24

25 Members’ housing locations or in adjacent rooms, which limits the need for escorts

26 at those facilities. At Men’s Central Jail (MCI), however, programming typically

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-11-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 61 Page ID #:5369

1 occurs outside Class Members’ housing locations on a different floor, On December
2 5, 2017, representatives from the OIG shadowed CCSB personnel who conducted 3
interviews at MCJ to determine whether or not Class Members had escorts where 4
necessary. All Class Members interviewed reported that they consistently receive

6 escorts to programming. Representatives from the OIG conducted additional 7
interviews at TTCF, MCJ and CRDF which confirmed that Class Members are $
escorted to programs as necessary in all relevant housing locations. Defendants have

10 achieved substantial compliance with this provision. 11
Provision A.5(a) — Class Members Serve as Trusty on Same floor — Partial 12 13 Compliance

14

Under section A, paragraph 5 of the Agreement,

15 Defendants agree that Class Members may serve as trusties on the same floor
16

17

on which they are housed. Defendants agree that relevant Los Angeles

County Sheriffs (LASD) personnel will be trained to ensure compliance with 19
this term. 20 21 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate

22 policy consistent with this provision, train personnel accordingly and provide
23 24 prisoner worker records from each relevant housing location from a time period to

25 be selected by the 01G.

26

As previously reported, the Department promulgated policy consistent with

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-12-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 61 Page ID #:5370

1 this provision, including the Johnson policy and Population Management Bureau 2 (PMB) Unit Order #005. The Department utilized the Scheduling Management

System (SMS) to disseminate the Johnson policy to personnel at CRDF, MCJ and 4
TTCF and provided the OIG with rosters of all employees at each facility who

6 acknowledged their understanding of the policy. The rosters provided did not 7
indicate whether or not the listed employees worked in Class Members’ housing 8
locations, and nearly half of the four hundred forty (440) listed CRDF personnel

10 failed to acknowledge receipt of the policy. 11
The OIG selected and reviewed Class Member trusty records from 12 13 September 1, 2017 - September 30, 2017. The Department provided information

14 related to this provision on December 19, 2017, which included records from the 15
electronic Uniform Daily Activity Log (e-UDAL) system. The e-UDAL documents 16 17 trusty names, booking numbers, work location and shifts worked (day, evening or

1 night), among other information. Documents for that time period yielded one (1) 19
trusty record from CRDF, seven (7) trusty records for MCJ and six (6) trusty records 20
21 from TTCF. OIG personnel interviewed Class Member trusties and reviewed CCTV

22 footage to verify provided documentation and identified two (2) instances in which
23 the Department’s documentation was inaccurate.
24

25

The Department has made improvements in providing trusty opportunities to

26 Class Members. This has been verified through Department records and OIG

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-13-

REPORT

CV 08-035 15 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 61 Page ID #:5371

1 monitoring. The Department should verify the accuracy of the data provided and 2 ensure that personnel in relevant housing locations are trained in the Johnson policy

and in documenting trusty records in the e-UDAL. Defendants remain in partial 4 5 compliance with this provision.
6 Provision A.5(b) — Trusty Tasks — Sustained Compliance as of October 5, 2017 7
Under section A, paragraph 5 of the Agreement, “Defendants further agree to $
provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of the tasks that trusties regularly perform in
10 jail.” On October 13, 2016, the Department provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list 11
of tasks regularly performed by jail workers which is documented in Unit Order 12 13 #005, “Conservation Work Program Procedures.” Defendants have achieved
14 sustained compliance with this provision, and the OIG will no longer monitor 15
compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement. 16 17 Provision A.5(c) — Identify Jobs — Sustained Compliance as of December 2,

2017

19

20

Under section A, paragraph 5 of the Agreement, “Defendants further agree to

21 identify some of the specific jobs that Class Members may perform.” On June 26,

22 2016, the Department revised the policy relevant to this provision, Population 23 24 Management Bureau (PMB) Unit Order #005, “Conservation Work Program
25 Procedures.” PMB Unit Order #005 outlines twenty-two (22) jail worker

26 assignments for all prisoners, including Class Members, and states that reasonable

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-14-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 61 Page ID #:5372

1 accommodations shall be made to enable Class Members to participate. This Unit
2 Order has not been revised since the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation 3
Status Report and continues to satisfy the requirements of this provision. 4
On November 1, 2016, the Department consulted with the expert to evaluate

6 whether trusty jobs listed in PMB Unit Order #005 were appropriate for Class 7
Members and recommend possible accommodations that would increase trusty job $ 9 opportunities for Class Members. As previously reported, the Department agreed to
10 implement the expert’s recommendation that the Department provide shortened 11
handles on brooms, mops and dust pans for mobility impaired trusties. The OIG 12 13 verified that the Department provided shortened broom handles on brooms, mops
14 and dust pans at TTCF. 15
On February 6, 2018, the Department consulted with the expert to evaluate 16 17 two (2) jobs that were not assessed in the expert’s initial evaluation including steam

cleaning/pressure washing in common areas, restrooms and cells, and barber shop 19
services. The expert evaluated both job responsibilities and determined that steam 20
21 cleaning/pressure washing is not an advisable assignment for Class Members due to

22 safety concerns, cleanliness and time constraints. However, the expert determined
23 24 that accommodations could be made to enable trusties with disabilities to cut hair.

25 Thus far, there have been no Class Members with proper qualifications seeking jobs

26 as barbers but the Department has indicated that it will provide accommodations as

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-15-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:5373

necessary.

2

Lastly, in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report, the

OIG recommended that the Department reconcile PMB Unit Order #005 and CDM 4
section 5-01/020.00, “Inmate Worker Assignments,” to reflect the same list of trusty

6 jobs. The Department is in the process of incorporating a reference to PMB Unit 7
Order #005 to the CDM. Defendants have achieved sustained compliance with this $
provision, and the OIG will no longer monitor compliance with this provision for

10 purposes of this Agreement. 11
Provision A.6 — Notify Class Members of Programs — Substantial Compliance 12 13 as of January 22, 2018

14

Under section A, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, “Defendants agree to notify

15 Class Members of the programs available to them in either paper or electronic
16

17 format, or both.” The compliance measure for this provision requires the

18 Department to display posters containing the Assistive Device Leaflet (ADL) 19
information throughout relevant housing locations and to make the ADL accessible 20
21 to Class Members.

22

Between April 2017 and December 2017, OIG personnel conducted site visits

23 in the following areas:
24

25

• MCI on the 6000, 7000 and 8000 floors;

26

• TTCF module 232, pods A - F;

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-16-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 61 Page ID #:5374

1

• TTCF module 272, pods A - F; and

2

• CRDF.’

3 The Department continues to display posters containing the ADL information and

Class Members have self-service access to the leaflets in these locations.

6

The Department provided a self-assessment corresponding to this provision

7 on January 22, 2018, which indicated that the Department is also notifying all
$

9 prisoners, including Class Members, of the programs available to them through the

10 “Inmate Orientation Presentation” at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC). The 11
“Inmate Orientation Presentation” is shown to all prisoners on televisions located in 12
13 classification cells at the IRC. On March 13, 2017, the OIG verified that this video

14 contains information that notifies prisoners of programs available to them. On
15 16 March 14, 2017, the OIG verified that the “Inmate Orientation Presentation” is

17 being shown to prisoners at the IRC. Although the Department is not consistently

18 distributing the ADL at the IRC, the “Inmate Orientation Presentation” video serves
19 20 as adequate notification at that facility. At CRDF, Department personnel or trusties

21 distribute the ADL to Class Members during intake at the reception unit. Defendants

22 have achieved substantial compliance with this provision. 23

24

25 As reported in the Inspector General’s Second Implementation Status Report, CRDF does not have a
designated housing location for mobility impaired prisoners. Instead, those prisoners are housed in various
26 locations throughout the facility.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-17-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 18 of 61 Page ID #:5375

1 Provision A.7 — Notification in Town Hall Meetings — Partial Compliance

2

Under section A, paragraph 7 of the Agreement, “[n]otification of available

programs will also be provided during ‘town hail’ meetings at the Jail where 4 5 appropriate.” The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to
6 promulgate policy and to provide minutes from “town hail” meetings. As previously 7
reported, the Department promulgated policy consistent with this provision. 8
The Department reports that it has not rectified issues related to proper

10 documentation of “town hail” meeting minutes. The OIG is not confident that town 11
hail meetings are being held regularly, that they have been implemented consistent 12 13 with Department policy, or that they achieve the goals identified by the Citizens’

14 Commission on Jail Violence and the Department’s Commander Management Task 15
force to increase opportunities for staff to engage with prisoners and increase 16 17 respect. Defendants remain in partial compliance with this provision.

18 SECTION B — Physical Therapy and Outdoor Recreation
19 Provision B.1(a) — Access to Physical Therapy — Partial Compliance
20

21

Under section B, paragraph 1, subsection a of the Agreement, “Defendants

22 agree that Class Members will have access to physical therapy as prescribed by 23 24 LASD medical professionals.” The compliance measure for this provision requires
25 the Department to promulgate policy consistent with the provision and to provide

26 evidence that Class Members who were prescribed physical therapy within two (2)

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 19 of 61 Page ID #:5376

1 one-week periods selected by the OIG received the therapy.

2

CHS created policy M206. 13, “Mobility — Provider Evaluation,” that includes

language consistent with this provision. Documentation provided by the Department 4
reflects that eighty-six (86) percent of sampled Class Members received prescribed

6 physical therapy. Samples provided indicate that two (2) of the fourteen (14) Class 7
Members were prescribed physical therapy but neither received it. Both these $
prisoners resided at CRDF during the sample period. CRDF did not have an on-site

10 physical therapist or physical therapy room during the sample period, and the 11
Department reported that it was sending Class Members housed at CRDF to an 12 13 outside provider for physical therapy.

14

As reported in the Inspector General’s Second Implementation Status Report,

15 16 the Department indicated that it was in the process of converting an existing room at

17 CRDF into a physical therapy room. Eight (8) months later, on March 2, 2018, the

Department reported that it remained in the planning stages of converting an
19 20 existing room. On March 6, 2018, the OIG was advised by the Department that

21 CRDF would no longer be dedicating a physical therapy room, and reported instead

22 that an exam room in CRDF’s medical clinic would be utilized to provide physical
23 24 therapy. The OIG confirmed that on March 2, 2018, three (3) prisoners (non-Class

25 Members) received physical therapy from the contract physical therapist at CRDF in

26 a medical exam room.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-19-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 20 of 61 Page ID #:5377

1

The Department and CHS have made substantial progress in this area, but the

2 OIG has lingering concerns regarding the Department’s and CHS’s ability to

adequately identify patients and provide therapy to Class Members who require it. 4
The OIG is also awaiting the expert’s evaluation regarding the suitability of the

6 exam room at CRDF. Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this
7 provision.
8
Provision B.1(b) — Maintenance of Physical Therapy Room at MCJ and

10 Provision of Physical Therapy Room at TTCF — Substantial Compliance as of

11 February 23, 201$
12

13

Under section B, paragraph 1, subsection b of the Agreement,

14

Defendants shall continue to maintain and staff a physical therapy room in

15 MCJ and further agree to attempt to locate space in TTCF for a similar room
16

17

(essentially, a mini clinic) to provide physical therapy to Class Members once

they are moved into housing locations in that facility. 19
The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to maintain 20 21 existing therapy rooms and to provide schedules for physical therapists for two (2)

22 one-week periods to be selected by the 01G. The Department continues to maintain 23 24 physical therapy rooms at both TTCF and MCJ. The OIG confirmed that both
25 physical therapy rooms were being utilized regularly by physical therapists.

26

In the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report, the 010

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-20-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 21 of 61 Page ID #:5378

1 reported that the Department’s only physical therapist had recently left the 2 Department. Since then, the Department has hired two (2) physical therapists,

including one (1) full-time physical therapist at MCJ (hired on October 4, 2017) and 4
one (1) contract physical therapist (hired on January 17, 2018) to provide services at
6 TTCF, the Critical Treatment Center (CTC) and CRDF.

The OIG also reviewed the physical therapists’ schedules that the Department 8
provided on February 23, 2018, and on February 27, 2018, met with both physical

10 therapists and observed them treating prisoners at TTCF and MCJ. Defendants have 11
achieved substantial compliance with this provision. 12 13 Provision B.1(c) — Physical Therapy Availability — Sustained Compliance as of

14 February 21, 2018 15
Under section B, paragraph 1, subsection c of the Agreement, “Defendants 16 17 further agree to make a good faith effort to obtain additional resources to bolster the

18 availability of physical therapy for all [prisoners), including Class Members.” The 19
compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to provide the OIG 20
21 with a copy of the Department’s job bulletin for a physical therapist, evidence that

22 the bulletin was posted, as well as documentation of other good faith efforts made
23 24 by the Department to obtain additional resources for physical therapy.

25

As reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report,

26 the Department achieved substantial compliance with this provision on February 21,

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-21-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 22 of 61 Page ID #:5379

1 2017, by positing physical therapist bulletins on two (2) job recruitment websites. 2 Since then, the Department filled two (2) physical therapist positions, as reported

under Provision B. 1(b). The Department should continue to identify Class Members 4
who require physical therapy and add resources as necessary. Defendants have

6 achieved sustained compliance with this provision and the OIG will no longer 7
monitor compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement. $
Provision B.2 — Outdoor Recreation Time — Partial Compliance (previously

10 Substantial Compliance)

11 Under section 3, paragraph 2 of the Agreement,
12

13

The LASD will continue to count outdoor recreation time for Class Members

14

from when the [prisoners] arrive at the recreation area, not when they leave

15 their housing location. LASD shall develop and distribute unit order to ensure
16

17

that all LASD personnel are aware of this policy.

1$ The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate 19
policy and to provide Class Members a copy of the ADL, which includes language 20
21 consistent with this provision.

22

The Department has incorporated the required language into the ADL and had

23 24 provided a copy to the OIG on February 2, 2016. The Department also included

25 language in the Johnson policy that is consistent with this provision.

26

Between October 2017 and February 2018, OIG personnel conducted site

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-22-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 23 of 61 Page ID #:5380

1 visits at relevant housing locations at MCJ, TTCF and CRDF to determine whether 2 the policy was implemented. Department personnel interviewed from all shifts

during these site visits communicated their understanding of the policy and their 4
practice to begin counting outdoor recreation time when Class Members reach the

6 recreation area, not when Class Members leave their housing locations. However,
7 some personnel working overtime from patrol and from other facilities were not
$ aware outdoor recreation time begins when Class Members reach the recreation

10 area. 11
On March 14, 2018, OIG personnel reviewed Closed-Circuit Television 12 13 (CCTV) footage of outdoor recreation time for the above listed housing locations for
14 two (2) one-week periods including September 4, 2017 - September 11, 2017, and 15
November 20, 2017 - November 27, 2017. Upon review of the video, OIG personnel 16 17 verified that outdoor recreation began when Class Members arrived at the recreation

area for all of the relevant housing locations, with the exception of the newly-
19 constructed ADA module located in TTCF module 272. CCTV footage revealed
20
21 inconsistencies between the time the Class Members were allowed in the outdoor

22 recreation area and the e-UDAL entries. The Department should ensure that
23 personnel in TTCF module 272 accurately document the outdoor recreation times
24

25 and ensure that the outdoor recreation time begins when Class Members arrive at the

26 recreation area. Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this provision.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-23-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 24 of 61 Page ID #:5381

1 Provision B.3 — Rotation of Outdoor Recreation Time — Partial Compliance

2

Under section B, paragraph 3 of the Agreement, “[t]o the extent possible, and

3 taking into account operations and logistical considerations, the time of day Class
4
Members are offered outdoor recreation will rotate.” The compliance measure for

6 this provision requires the Department to promulgate policy consistent with this 7
provision and to provide records reflecting outdoor recreation times from each $
relevant housing location for a period of nine (9) months from January 2017 -

10 September 2017. The Johnson policy contains language consistent with this

11 provision.
12

13

The Department provided outdoor recreation schedules which indicated that

14 outdoor recreation time rotated at TTCF module 232, but not at TTCF module 272 15
and not at MCJ. The Department was not required to provide the same 16 17 documentation for CRDF since prisoners can access the outdoor recreation space

18 directly from the housing units at CRDF. On November 15, 2017, representatives
19 from the OIG spoke to Class Members at CRDF to ensure that CRDF provides
20
21 direct access to the recreation area at various times throughout the day. The OIG has

22 verified that the Department is rotating at least some outdoor recreation schedules. 23
Defendants remain in partial compliance with this provision. 24
25 Provision B.4 — Thermal Clothing — Partial Compliance

26

Under section B, paragraph 4 of the Agreement,

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-24-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 25 of 61 Page ID #:5382

1

Class Members who have been prescribed thermal clothing as a reasonable

2

accommodation for their disability so that they may participate in outdoor

recreation will be provided warm coats and/or thermal clothing. LASD shall 4

5

inform Class Members that they may request thermal clothing as a reasonable

6

accommodation, and shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all

7 LASD personnel are aware of this policy.
$

As previously reported, the Department represented to the OIG during the drafting

10 of the compliance measures that it would provide all Class Members with thermals,

11 without requiring a prescription.
12

13

The OIG has regularly monitored the Department’s provision of thermal

14 clothing to Class Members. As reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second 15
Implementation Status Report, MCJ did not have an adequate supply of thermal 16 17 pants. At CRDF, prisoners (including Class Members) had thermal clothing, but

described needing to barter with trusties in order to obtain thermal clothing. 19
The OIG has confirmed that MCJ is now providing thermal tops and bottoms 20
21 to Class Members and has an adequate supply of thermal clothing. Representatives

22 from the OIG visited TTCF on three (3) separate occasions and found that TTCF
23 24 continues to maintain an adequate supply and offer thermal clothing to Class

25 Members in modules 232 and 272. Representatives of the OIG visited CREW on

26 three (3) occasions during December 2017 and CRDF prisoners continue to report

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-25-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 26 of 61 Page ID #:5383

1 the need to barter with trusties for the provision of thermal clothing.

2

The OIG met with CRDF operations personnel regarding this issue on

March 7, 2018. CRDF personnel agreed to provide thermals to Class Members in 4
module 1200, where prisoners are medically evaluated prior to housing. However,

6 subsequent site visits on March 15, 2018, and March 1$, 201$, confirmed that 7
CRDF did not implement this solution. Therefore, Defendants remain in partial $ 9 compliance with this provision.

10 SECTION C — Physical Accessibility 11
Provision C.4(a) through C.4(e) — Housing Expansion for Class Members 12 13 Completed

14

As reported above, the Parties agreed on January 11, 2017, that these

15 provisions were “completed” and not subject to compliance monitoring.
16

17 Provision C.4(t) — Additional Grab Bars and Shower Benches — Partial

18 Compliance
19 Under section C, paragraph 4, subsection f of the Agreement, “Defendants are
20
21 required to install grab bars and shower benches in approximately thirty (30) cells

22 outside of TTCF modules 231 and 232.” Originally, the Department expected a 23
completion date within one hundred twenty (120) days after the Agreement’s 24
25 effective date; however, installation is still ongoing. The compliance measure for

26 this provision requires the Department to regularly update the OIG on the

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-26-

REPORT

CV 08-035 15 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 27 of 61 Page ID #:5384

1 construction status.

2

On February 24, 2016, the Department provided a list of shower benches and

grab bars that have been installed outside of TTCF modules 231 and 232. On 4
October 18, 2016, and October 25, 2017, the OIG inspected the facilities to verify

6 the bar and bench installations. The OIG determined that the Department installed 7
more than thirty (30) grab bars but only seventeen (17) benches. The Department 8
has promised to identify additional locations for the installment of benches. To date,
10 the Department has not provided documentation to indicate that installations comply 11
with ADA requirements. Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this 12 13 provision.
14 Provision C.4(g) — Construction of Accessible Beds — Partial Compliance 15
Under section C, paragraph 4, subsection g of the Agreement, “Defendants 16 17 are required to construct approximately ninety-six (96) accessible beds at TTCF

module 272.” Originally, the Department expected a completion date within twenty19
four (24) months after approval of funding by the Board of Supervisors. The 20
21 compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to regularly update

22 the OIG on the construction status.
23 The Department completed construction at TTCF module 272 on May 30,
24

25 2017, and began populating the floor with Class Members on June 8, 2017. The OIG

26 verified on February 28, 2018, that TTCF module 272 continues to house Class

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-27-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 28 of 61 Page ID #:5385

1 Members. The Department provided documentation that all ninety-six (96) beds in 2 the housing module meet ADA requirements. However, the accompanying toilet and

shower modifications have not been approved for compliance with ADA 4
5 requirements. Defendants remain in partial compliance with this provision.

6 Provision C.5 — Construction Plans — Sustained Compliance as of November 7,

7 2017
8

9

Under section C, paragraph 5 of the Agreement,

10

Construction plans for the facilities to be constructed in the TTCF will be

11 shared with the Class Counsel for review and input. Class Counsel will not,
12

13

however, have the authority to veto any portion of the plans.

14 On November 7, 2017, Plaintiffs had a meeting with the Department, which the OIG 15
attended, where Plaintiffs reviewed the construction plans. Defendants have 16 17 achieved sustained compliance with this provision. The OIG will no longer monitor

18 compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement.
19 SECTION D — Use of Mobility Devices
20
21 Provision D.1 — Initial Decisions and Ongoing Evaluations Made by LASD

22 Medical Professionals — Partial Compliance
23 Under section D, paragraph 1 of the Agreement,
24

25

Initial decisions and ongoing evaluations regarding Class Members’ need, if

26

any, for the use of a mobility assistive device are and will continue to be

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-28-

REPORT

CVO$-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 29 of 61 Page ID #:5386

1

made by LASD medical professionals.

2 As previously reported, the OIG confirmed that the Department and CHS

promulgated policy consistent with this provision. The OIG is verifying through 4 5 consultation with the expert that evaluations meet the accepted medical standard of
6 care. The expert will make these determinations in conjunction with her chart 7
reviews under Provision D.2. Defendants remain in partial compliance with this $
provision.

10 Provision D.2 — Secondary Reviews — Partial Compliance 11
Under section D, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, 12
In an event a Class Member disputes a decision made by LASD Medical

14

Professionals regarding the need, if any, for a mobility assistive device, the

15 Class Member may receive a secondary review of the determination regarding
16

17

[their] need for a mobility assistive device and or the type of device

18

requested.

19 (a) The secondary review will be conducted by the Chief Physician or
20

21

[their] designee; and

22

(b) The secondary review will include an independent evaluation.

23 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to provide
24

25 summaries and dispositions of grievances filed by Class Members requesting a

26 secondary review. However, as previously reported, grievances were ultimately

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-29-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 30 of 61 Page ID #:5387

1 deemed unreliable as a means to assess compliance with this provision.

2

As reported under Provision H.3, CHS currently lacks the ability to track

secondary reviews using Cemer, the medical records database. Instead, CHS opted 4
to manually track secondary reviews, relying on the ADA Nurse to manually

6 consolidate information from a variety of sources. On March 13, 2017, OIG 7
monitors met with the Department and CH$ to discuss this tracking system. As 8
reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report, OIG

10 monitors discussed with the Department and CHS the imperative need to train CR5

11 personnel consistent with this provision.
12

13

The OIG has not yet been provided with policy or training materials to

14 evidence progress in this area. Once the Department or CHS can prove that medical 15
personnel are providing secondary reviews, the expert will evaluate whether all 16 17 reviews comport with the accepted medical standard of care (see discussion of

Provision D. 1 above and the Inspector General’s Second Implementation Status 19
Report). Defendants remain in partial compliance with this provision. 20 21 Provision D.3 — Assistive Device Leaflet — Partial Compliance

22

Under section D, paragraph 3 of the Agreement, Defendants are required to

23 “create and distribute” the ADL advising Class Members of their rights “pertaining
24

25 to determinations regarding their need, if any, for mobility assistive devices.” The

26 compliance measures for this provision require the Department to promulgate policy

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-30-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 31 of 61 Page ID #:5388

consistent with this provision and to distribute ADL information at relevant housing 2 locations.

On April 12, 2017, the Department provided the OIG with CHS Policy 4
M206. 13, “Mobility — Provider Evaluation,” which requires CHS personnel to

6 provide Class Members with an ADL after their initial evaluations for assistive 7
devices. On February 28, 2018, the OTG interviewed CHS personnel at the IRC, $
including a nurse supervisor, none of whom were aware that nursing personnel were

10 required to distribute the ADL. On February 28, 2018, the OIG determined that IRC 11
line personnel have a supply of the ADL near the “Booking front” area. However, 12 13 personnel interviewed, including three (3) Department supervisors, were not aware
14 that Department personnel should be distributing the leaflet. At CRDF, Department 15
personnel or trusties distribute the ADL to Class Members during intake at the 16 17 reception unit.

While the Department has displayed posters regarding programs available to 19
Class Members, neither the Department nor CHS are following their respective 20 21 policies regarding the distribution of the ADL. Defendants remain in partial

22 compliance with this provision.
23 Provision D.4 — Tracking Complications — Substantial Compliance as of
24

25 April 12, 2017

26

Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this provision on April 12,

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-31-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 32 of 61 Page ID #:5389

1 2017. In the OIG’s Second Implementation Stattts Report, the OIG reported that 2 CR5 created a new policy requiring CR5 personnel to conduct “standardized

retrospective reviews” of complications common to wheelchair use. The OIG 4
reviewed the results of the first qualitative review, conducted in April 2017.

6

The review analyzed complications across four broad categories, including

7 falls, wounds, new pressure injuries and an “other” category. The “other” category
$

captures any complication experienced by Class Members which does not fit under

10 the prior three categories, including but not limited to urinary tract infections, upper 11
respiratory infections and stump injuries. The April 2017 assessment included the 12 13 review of seven hundred seventy-nine (779) Class Members, with a “W”

14 (wheelchair) or “U” (walker/crutch) classification in custody during the last quarter 15
of 2016. The results showed that sixteen (16) of the seven hundred seventy-nine 16 17 (779) Class Members reviewed experienced complications, including eleven (11)

1$ falls, two (2) new pressure injuries, and three (3) complications included in the
19 “other” category, all of which were identified as urinary tract infections. The
20
21 Department determined that two (2) of two (2) pressure injuries and two (2) of three

22 (3) urinary tract infections were complications experienced by paraplegic prisoners.
23 24 Thus, the CHS recommended future reviews for paraplegic prisoners twice per year.

25

Although twelve (12) months have passed since the Department achieved

26 substantial compliance with this provision, the OIG cannot make a sustained

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-32-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 33 of 61 Page ID #:5390

i compliance finding at this time because the Department is currently compiling 2 documentation related to this provision. In addition, due to the fact that this policy

instructs the Department to analyze all complications related to wheelchair use, the 4
expert’s consultation was not previously sought regarding which complications to

6 analyze. However, the OIG will consult with the expert regarding this policy and the 7
results of the Department’s most recent standardized retrospective review before 8
issuing a sustained compliance finding. If documentation and the expert’s analysis

10 are consistent with a sustained compliance finding, the OIG will issue a retroactive 11
compliance finding for this provision for April 12, 2018. 12 13 Provision D.5 — Wheelchair Seating Training — Sustained Compliance effective

14 December 13, 2017

15 Under section D, paragraph 5 of the Agreement,
16

17

Within sixty (60) days of the effective date, Defendants agree to investigate

18

the availability of, and seek the provision of, training for LASD medical

19 professionals from Rancho Los Amigos regarding wheelchair seating to
20

21

reduce complications commonly attributable to wheelchair use.

22 Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this provision on December 13, 23 24 2016, when the Clinical Physical Therapy Manager from Rancho Los Amigos
25 conducted training for jail medical personnel on proper wheelchair seating. Since

26 then, CHS implemented a quality control mechanism on issues related to wheelchair

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-33-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 34 of 61 Page ID #:5391

1 seating and complications commonly attributable to wheelchair use.

2

According to CHS policy M12.03, “Complications — Patients with Mobility

Impairments,” CHS will conduct standardized retrospective reviews related to 4 5 wheelchair seating every two (2) years for Class Members and semi-annually for

6 paraplegic prisoners. If the standardized retrospective reviews identify a need for 7
training related to wheelchair seating, the CHS will initiate additional training. $ 9 Defendants have achieved sustained compliance and the OIG will no longer monitor

10 compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement. 11
Provision D.6 — Publication of Guidelines for Tracking Complications — 12 13 Substantial Compliance as of February 8, 201$

14

Under section D, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, “Defendants’ policies and

15 guidelines for tracking complications common to individuals with mobility
16

17 impairments will be made public in all jail settings.” The compliance measure for

this provision requires the Department to promulgate policy consistent with this 19 20 provision and to notify Class Members of guidelines or policies for tracking
21 complications common to individuals with mobility impairments. The Department

22 provided the OIG with a self-assessment for this provision on February 8, 2018.

23

24

As reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report

25 under Provision D.4, CHS developed policy M12.03, “Complications Patients —

26 with Mobility Impairments,” which outlines procedures to analyze complications

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-34-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 35 of 61 Page ID #:5392

1 common to Class Members. The ADL states, “Jail medical professionals do

2 continuous quality improvement studies on a regular basis. Such reviews include

3 monitoring complications common to mobility [impaired prisoners].”
4

5

Between April 2017 and December 2017, OIG personnel conducted site visits

6 in the following areas:

7 MCJ on the 6000, 7000 and $000 floors;
8

9

• TTCF module 232, pods A - F;

10

• TTCF module 272, pods A - F; and

11

12

• CRDF.

13 OIG personnel confirmed on site visits that the Department continues to display the

14 posters containing the ADL information and that Class Members have self-service 15 16 access to the ADL. The provision’s requirement that the information be “made

17 public in all Jail settings” has been met and Defendants have achieved substantial

1$ compli. ance wi. th thi.s provision. 19 20 SECTION E — Wheelchairs and Prostheses

21 Provision E.1(a) — Wheelchair Maintenance — Substantial Compliance as of

22 February 8,2018
23

24

Under section E, paragraph 1, subsection a of the Agreement,

25

Defendants agree that wheelchairs that are medically prescribed will be

26

maintained in working order (including functional brakes and footrests as

27

CV 08-035 15 DDP

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-35-

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 36 of 61 Page ID #:5393

1

may be used unless otherwise prescribed by LASD Medical Professionals)

2

and will be serviced on a regular basis to the extent feasible.

The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate 4
policy consistent with this provision, provide data related to grievances about

6 wheelchair condition and provide corresponding maintenance logs. As previously 7
reported, the Department promulgated policy consistent with this provision. The $
OIG selected and reviewed data related to grievances about wheelchair conditions as

10 well as maintenance logs for two (2) one-week periods. The time period selected 11
was from May 22, 2017 - May 30, 2017, and September 25, 2017 - October 3, 2017. 12
The OIG has determined through observations and interviews on regular site

14 visits to TTCF, MCJ and CRDF that Department personnel are exchanging broken 15
wheelchairs for working wheelchairs upon verbal request by Class Members. These 16 17 requests and wheelchair exchanges are not tracked; however, the repairs of the

broken wheelchairs are tracked on the Department’s wheelchair maintenance log.
19 The OIG will work with the Department to identify an effective mechanism for
20
21 tracking wheelchair repair requests.

22

The wheelchair maintenance log provided contains a list of thirty-six (36)

23 broken wheelchairs for the relevant timeframes. Based on documentation provided,
24

25 thirty-four (34) of thirty-six (36) wheelchairs, or ninety-four (94) percent, were

26 serviced and thereafter maintained in working order. Defendants have achieved

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-36-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 37 of 61 Page ID #:5394

1 substantial compliance with this provision.

2 Provision f.1(b) — Maintenance of the Wheelchair Repair Shop — Sustained

3 Compliance as of September 20, 2017
4

5

Under section E, paragraph 1, subsection b of the Agreement, “[m]aintenance

6 will include the use of the preexisting wheelchair repair shop at the Pitchess 7
Detention Center.” On September 20, 2016, Defendants achieved substantial 8 9 compliance with this provision.

10

On October 6, 2017, OIG personnel interviewed the Wheelchair Repair Shop

11 civilian instructor. The OIG verified that the repair shop continues to operate five
12

13 (5) days per week from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm and is staffed with two (2) trusties.

14 Defendants have achieved sustained compliance and the OIG will no longer monitor 15
compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement. 16 17 Provision E.1(c) — Installing RFID Transmitters — Sustained Compliance as of

January 5,2018
19 Under section E, paragraph 1, subsection c of the Agreement, “Defendants
20
21 agree to track wheelchairs, their issuance and their conditions, using RFID2

22 transmitters on a pilot basis.” The compliance measure for this provision requires
23 the Department to semi-annually update the OIG on the status of the use of RFID
24

25

26 2 RFTD is a common term used to describe radio-frequency identification systems.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-37-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 38 of 61 Page ID #:5395

1 transmitters. Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this provision on 2 January5,2017.

The Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report states that in 4
order for Defendants to achieve sustained compliance, the Department must attach

6 documentation and information that reflects wheelchair movement captured by the 7
RFID transmitters. On December 18, 2017, and January 30, 2018, the Department $
provided the OIG with updates regarding the use of RFID transmitters to track

10 wheelchairs and documentation reflecting wheelchair movement. The Department 11
stated that the RFID transmitters do not accurately track wheelchair movement and 12 13 that the limited data fields do not allow for the tracking of wheelchair issuance,

14 condition and repairs. According to the Department, the REID transmitters were 15
only able to locate twelve (12) of the approximately one hundred twenty (120) 16 17 wheelchairs at TTCF on November 15, 2017.

18

On December 18, 2017, the Department presented to the OIG an alternative

19 method of tracking wheelchairs, their issuance and their conditions in lieu of RFID
20

21 transmitters. The Department now utilizes a spreadsheet that contains more detailed

22 information than could be kept using the RFID transmitter data system. This 23 24 document will track personal wheelchairs and wheelchairs with movable armrests,
25 will be updated daily by the ADA Nurse and will include an update alert every two

26 (2) weeks. The OIG has determined through interviews and document review that

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-38-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 39 of 61 Page ID #:5396

1 this alternative implementation is sufficient and sustainable. Defendants have 2 achieved sustained compliance and the OIG will no longer monitor compliance with

this provision for purposes of this Agreement. 4
Provision E.1(d) — Wheelchairs with Moveable Armrests — Partial Compliance

6 as of February 6,201$

7 Under section F, paragraph 1, subsection d of the Agreement,
$

9

Defendants further agree that wheelchairs with movable armrests may be

10

provided to Class Members who require them if a custody safe option can be

11 located at a comparable price to wheelchairs the LASD currently purchases.
12

13

Defendants agree to explore the availability of such wheelchairs and welcome

14

any suggestions Plaintiffs may have.

15 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to provide to the
16

17 OIG “a brief summary of the Department’s efforts to explore the availability and

feasibility of purchasing custody safe wheelchairs with movable armrests.” The 19
compliance measure further requires the Department to provide brief summaries of 20 21 its efforts to explore the availability and feasibility of purchasing custody safe

22 wheelchairs with movable armrests.
23 The OIG confirmed that on February 6, 2018, the Department purchased
24

25 wheelchairs with removable, but not movable, armrest. The wheelchairs had not

26 been delivered as of March 20, 2018. In the next reporting period, the OIG will

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-39-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 40 of 61 Page ID #:5397

1 provide updates to the Parties and the Court regarding delivery of chairs ordered as 2 well as an assessment from the expert regarding their appropriateness for Class

Members. Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this provision. 4
Provision E.2 — Return of Personal Wheelchairs — Substantial Compliance as of

6 February 13, 2018 7
Under section E, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, “Personal Wheelchairs are $
currently and will continue to be stored and returned to Class Members upon release

10 from custody.” The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department 11
to provide property receipts for personal wheelchairs for a randomly selected 12 13 representative sample of Class Members released from custody.

14

As reported in the Second Implementation Stattts Report, the first sample

15 provided by the Department, based on two (2) one-week periods, was too small to
16

17 support a compliance finding, so the OIG expanded the time frame for this

18 provision. In partnership with AAB, the Department provided information based on

19 a period of six (6) months for this provision, from January 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017.
20

21

The self-assessment provided by the Department on February 13, 2018,

22 shows that ninety-two (92) percent of sampled Class Members received their 23 24 wheelchairs upon release from custody. The Department excluded one (1) Class
25 Member from its sample analysis because the prisoner had been released from Los

26 Angeles County to the custody of another jurisdiction.

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-40-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 41 of 61 Page ID #:5398

1

The OIG met with line and operations personnel at the IRC on March 14,

2 2018, and received additional information related to “in-custody releases.”3 All

personnel interviewed stated that some custody agencies refuse to take personal 4 5 belongings, including wheelchairs, when taking custody of prisoners from the Los
6 Angeles County jails. The OIG also completed an inventory of personal wheelchairs 7
that were being stored at the IRC in order to verify that all chairs were assigned to 8
Class Members who were then in custody. On March 18, 2018, the OIG completed a

10 similar inventory at CRDF. The OTG confirmed that the Department’s self 11
assessment was accurate and that some agencies refuse to take personal wheelchairs 12 13 when assuming custody of a Class Member.

14

Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with this provision.

15 However, the OIG recommends that the Department coordinate with agencies
16

17 assuming custody of Class Members to ensure that prisoners’ property transfers with

18 them or to ensure that Class Members’ families are aware that designated family 19
members can retrieve prisoners’ property at the IRC or CRDF upon their release. 20
21 Provision E.3 — Policy Regarding Assistive Devices — Sustained Compliance

22 effective December 2, 2107
23 Under section E, paragraph 3 of the Agreement, Defendants are required to
24

25
In-custody releases occur when a prisoner is taken from LASD custody into the custody of another local,
26 state or federal law enforcement agency or when a prisoner is released directly to health care facility.

27

2

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-41-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 42 of 61 Page ID #:5399

1 “codify in written policies and procedures existing practices governing the release of 2 Class Members who need assistive devices but do not have personal assistive

devices available to them upon release.” 4
As reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report,

6 Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this provision on December 2, 7
2016. On that date, the Department shared unit orders from CRDF and the IRC $
governing the release of persons who require assistive devices. On December 2,

10 2017, representatives from the OIG conducted interviews with personnel in CRDF’s 11
property window and storage area and confirmed that personnel were familiar with 12 13 CRDF Unit Order #5-25-030, “Release of Inmates with Mobility Impairments.” On

14 March 13, 2018, the OIG confirmed that personnel assigned to the TRC property 15
window and storage area were familiar with IRC Unit Order #5-01/0 11.00, “Release 16 17 of Inmates with Special Needs or Mobility Impairments.”

18

On March 14, 2018, OIG monitors reviewed video related to the release of

19 Class Members from custody at the IRC. All video reviewed confirmed that the
20

21 Department provided assistive devices for Class Members who needed them upon

22 release between January 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018. Defendants have achieved
23 24 sustained compliance and the OIG will no longer monitor compliance of this

25 provision for purposes of this Agreement.

26

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-42-

REPORT

CVO8-O3515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 43 of 61 Page ID #:5400

1 Provision E.4 — Return of Prostheses within Twenty-Four (24) Hours — Partial 2 Compliance

Under section E, paragraph 4 of the Agreement, “[c]onsistent with existing 4
LASD policy, Defendants will ensure that all prostheses are returned to Class

6 Members within twenty-four (24) hours if not determined to pose a security risk.” 7
The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate 8
policy consistent with this provision and to analyze a sample of Class Members who

10 utilize wheelchairs for two (2) one-week periods to be selected by the 01G. 11
The Department has promulgated two (2) policies consistent with this 12 13 provision including the Johnson policy and CDM section 5-03/080.00, “Medical

14 Appliances.” On March 13, 2018, OIG monitors interviewed personnel at IRC 15
Booking Front, where medical devices are first evaluated, and determined that all 16 17 relevant personnel were familiar with the requirements of CDM section 5-03/080.00

18 and the Johnson policy requirements related to this provision. On March 18, 2018, 19
OIG monitors interviewed personnel at CRDF’s reception area and determined that 20 21 CRDF personnel were also familiar with the requirements of the policies.

22

The Department did not provide a self-assessment related to this provision. In

23 previous discussions with the OIG, the Department indicated that it identified issues
24

25 related to proper documentation under this provision. The Department is working to

26 document its implementation of this provision and has achieved partial compliance.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-43-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 44 of 61 Page ID #:5401

1 SECTION F — ADA Coordinators 2 Provision F.1 — ADA Duties — Partial Compliance

Under section F, paragraph 1, of the Agreement 4
The LASD will staff Jail Settings with one (1) or more ADA coordinator(s).

6

Defendants will dedicate sufficient resources toward the ADA coordinator(s)

7 position to ensure that necessary duties are being carried out in an appropriate
8

9

fashion.

10 The provision further enumerates six (6) ADA Coordinator duties, including the 11
following: training personnel working in areas that house Class Members; 12 13 interfacing with medical personnel to ensure reasonable accommodations for Class

14 Members; and ensuring that “ADA” grievances are handled according to 15
Defendants’ policy and the terms of the Agreement. Further, the provision states that 16 17 ADA coordinators’ duties will include “[r]eviewing, investigating and resolving

18 inmate grievances on which the existing ‘ADA’ box is checked.” 19
The compliance measures for this provision require the Department to 20
21 provide a log of complaints received by the Department’s ADA team email group

22 that contains the grievance filing and resolution dates as well as summaries of the 23 24 grievances and their resolutions. The documentation provided by the Department
25 and CHS reflect that ADA coordinators and medical personnel are involved in the

26 resolution of ADA complaints sent by the OIG, American Civil Liberties Union and

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-44-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 45 of 61 Page ID #:5402

1 other third parties. The log also reflects ADA coordinators’ direct involvement 2 resolving ADA medical issues. The log, however, does not include any grievances

that the Department received directly from Class Members in facilities, where the 4
“ADA” box was checked.

6

To determine whether ADA coordinators were reviewing ADA-related

7
grievances received directly from prisoners, the OIG conducted interviews with 8

personnel assigned to the Department’s grievance teams4 and reviewed grievance-

10 related documentation provided by the Department and CHS to show compliance 11
under section G of this Agreement (“Grievance Form”). The OIG determined that 12 13 many ADA-related grievances received directly from prisoners do not reach ADA
14 coordinators and are instead submitted by line staff directly to medical personnel for 15
resolution. At least two (2) grievances involving non-medical issues were 16 17 improperly forwarded to medical personnel for resolution and were ultimately not

resolved.5 At this time, it does not appear that ADA coordinators are “interfacing” 19

20

21 Each facility has a designated grievance team, consisting of deputies, custody assistants and at

least one (1) sergeant, who manage the facilities’ processing of prisoner grievances.

22 At least (2) grievances were not returned to facility Watch Sergeants as required by CHS policy

23 M12.04, “Grievances - Health Care and Against Staff.” In the first instance, a Class Member requested that wristband information be updated to reflect that the Class Member was now using a

24 walker (a “U” designation on the wristband). When medical personnel received this request, they

scheduled the Class Member for a new evaluation, instead of forwarding the grievance to the 25 facility Watch Sergeant. The documentation reflects that the Class Member received additional

26

medical care but there was no information regarding the wristband issue. In another grievance, a Class Member requested to speak to an “ADA caseworker” (presumably the ADA Coordinator),

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 46 of 61 Page ID #:5403

1 with medical personnel pursuant to this provision to resolve ADA-related grievances 2 received directly from prisoners and to ensure that Class Members receive necessary

accommodations. 4
The Department should implement a system so that ADA-related grievances

6 received directly from prisoners receive the same level of attention and oversight as 7
the third-party ADA-related grievances. Defendants remain in partial compliance 8
with this provision.

10 Provision F.2 — ADA Coordinator(s) Authority — Sustained Compliance as of

11 October 31, 2017
12

13

Under section F, paragraph 2 of the Agreement,

14

The ADA coordinator(s) shall have authority to make recommendations

15 regarding reasonable accommodations to Class Members including, when
16

17

necessary, the authority to bring issues to the attention of LASD executives

18

(including, without limitation, the Chief of the Custody Division) for

19 resolution.
20

21 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to promulgate

22 policy consistent with this provision.

23

24

As previously reported, the Johnson policy includes language consistent with

25 (...continued)
26 and the grievance was left unresolved.

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-46-

REPORT

CV 08-035 15 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 47 of 61 Page ID #:5404

1 this provision. To ensure that the Department is complying with the policy, 2 representatives from the OIG interviewed ADA coordinators at all facilities that

house Class Members and confirmed that ADA coordinators possess and exercise 4
authority to make recommendations and are able to bring issues to the attention of

6 Department executives.
7 In October 2017, a new Division ADA Coordinator was assigned to the
$ Medical Services Bureau who has taken the lead in successfully implementing

10 several Agreement related reforms. Defendants have achieved sustained compliance 11
and the OIG will no longer monitor compliance with this provision for purposes of 12 13 this Agreement.

14 Provision F.3 — Training ADA Coordinators — Partial Compliance (previously

15 Substantial Compliance)
16

17

Under section F, paragraph 3 of the Agreement,

Plaintiffs will assist in training the ADA coordinator(s). The ADA

19 coordinator(s) will be assigned and trained within sixty (60) days of the
20

21

effective date.

22 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to provide
23 training records for ADA coordinators, including rosters and curriculum, to the 01G.
24

25

As previously reported, Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this

26 provision on November 29, 2016 by hosting two (2) trainings, the first in September

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-47-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 48 of 61 Page ID #:5405

1 2015 and the other in November 2016, for each of the eight (2) total ADA

2 coordinators. The Department recorded the training in order to train future ADA

3 coordinators.
4

5

Since the Inspector General’s Second Implementation Statits Report, the

6 Department has assigned a new Division ADA Coordinator and new facility ADA
7 coordinators at most facilities. OIG personnel interviewed the ADA coordinators
8 and determined that Department training is insufficient. Although the Department

10 has held several ADA training meetings and provided training rosters, it has failed 11
to provide all ADA coordinators with the ADA training pursuant to the Agreement. 12 13 The OIG identified several ADA coordinators who held ADA coordinator positions

14 for more than a year who had not received the videotaped training until the OIG

15 inquired. One (1) ADA Coordinator indicated they were “self-taught.”
16

17

The Department should institute an effective and sustainable process by

which new ADA Coordinators receive training prior to assuming ADA coordinator
19 responsibilities. Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this provision.
20
21 SECTION G — Grievance Form

22 Provision G.1 — Grievance Form Shall Include an “ADA” Box — Sustained
23 Compliance as of April 22, 2016
24

25

Defendants achieved sustained compliance with this provision on April 22,

26 2016. The OIG will discontinue compliance monitoring of this provision for

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-48-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 49 of 61 Page ID #:5406

1 purposes of the Agreement.

2 Provision G.2 — “ADA” Designation of ADA-related Grievances — Partial

3 Compliance
4

5

Under section G, paragraph 2 of the Agreement,

6

All grievances involving mobility assistive devices and the physical

7 accessibility of the Jail shall be designated “ADA” grievances even if the
8

9

inmate who filed the grievance did not check the “ADA” box.

10 The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department and CHS to 11
promulgate policy consistent with the provision, to provide a list of ADA-related 12 13 grievances received during a time period selected by the QIG, and to show that

14 those grievances were properly designated as “ADA” grievances. OIG personnel 15
selected and reviewed documentation from November 2017. Information produced 16 17 under this provision may also apply to Provision G.4, discussed below, which

18 requires that ADA-related grievances are not designated as “basic” grievances.
19 The Department created several policies related to this provision, including
20
21 the Johnson policy and CDM section 8-03/030.00, “ADA-Related Requests and

22 Grievances.” The Department’s self-assessment indicates that ADA-related 23
grievances fall under three (3) separate designations within the Custody Automated 24
25 Reporting and Tracking System (CARTS) including “Medical Services,” “ADA

26 (Medical)” and “ADA.” The self-assessment showed that twenty-six (26) percent of

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-49-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 50 of 61 Page ID #:5407

1 ADA-related grievances were designated as “ADA (Medical)” or “ADA.” The 2 remaining seventy-four (74) percent were designated as “Medical Services”

grievances. Medical personnel process both “Medical Services” and “ADA 4 5 (Medical)” grievances, while custody personnel process “ADA” grievances. This

6 multiple category system has created some confusion and seems to be resulting in 7
untimely and/or insufficient responses to Class Member grievances, as discussed 8
under Provision F. 1. There also seems to be confusion or disagreement regarding the

10 best way to respond to ADA-related grievances and whether they are best handled 11
by custody or medical personnel. Though custody and medical coordination has 12 13 improved significantly since the creation of CHS, and continues to improve as

14 reforms are implemented, these issues highlight insufficient coordination in 15
addressing prisoners’ ADA-related needs. Defendants have achieved partial 16 17 compliance with this provision.

18 Provision G.3 — Grievance Response Time — Partial Compliance 19
Under section G, paragraph 3 of the Agreement, “[t]he response time for 20
21 ‘ADA’ grievances will be no more than that allowed under the standard grievance

22 policy.” The compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to
23 24 promulgate policy consistent with this provision and provide to the OIG a randomly

25 selected representative sample of ADA-related grievances within time frames

26 selected by the 01G.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-50-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 51 of 61 Page ID #:5408

1

The Department created four (4) policies consistent with this provision,

2 including CDM policy #8-03/005.00, “Inmate Grievances,” CDM policy #8-

03/030.00, “ADA-related Requests and Grievances,” CDM policy #8-04/040.00, 4
“Time Frames” and CHS policy M12.04, “Grievances — Health Care and Against

6 Staff.” These policies require a response time of fifteen (15) days for all non7
emergency ADA-related grievances and five (5) days for all emergency grievances. $
The Department provided the OIG with a spreadsheet that indicates the Department
10 or CHS responded to ninety-two (92) percent of sampled grievances within fifteen 11
(15) days. The Department provided source documents for some information 12 13 contained in the spreadsheet; however, the OIG has requested and is waiting on
14 additional source documents regarding medical grievance processing. This 15
documentation is necessary to verify the spreadsheet data provided and to make a 16 17 compliance finding for this provision.

Documentation provided indicates that response timeframes were only 19
analyzed based on a fifteen (15) day response timeframe and do not include data or 20
21 analysis of emergency grievance response timeframes. When prisoner complainants

22 check the “Emergency” box on the Department’s grievance form, personnel are 23 24 required to promptly notify a sergeant who must notify the facility watch
25 commander and ensure that appropriate action is taken. The watch commander or

26 designated sergeant may downgrade grievances to non-emergent, but must notify

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-51-

REPORT

CVO$-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 52 of 61 Page ID #:5409

1 the prisoner that the grievance will be handled as a non-emergent grievance and 2 reflect that determination in the CARTS. Downgraded grievances may then be

resolved within the non-emergency grievance fifteen (15) day timeframe. 4

5

CHS policy does not explicitly differentiate between emergency and non-

6 emergency grievances. However, CHS policy M12.04, “Grievances — Health Care 7
and Against Staff’ requires that all health care grievances be analyzed within $ 9 twenty-four (24) hours to determine whether there is an urgent or emergent medical

10 condition that requires immediate attention. If not, response time for medical

11 grievances is fifteen (15) days, as with LASD policy.
12

13

The OIG determined that approximately half of the sampled grievances were

14 originally marked “Emergency” by Class Members, but were processed as non15
emergency grievances without proper documentation of custody or medical

17 personnel decisions to downgrade them. Also, as stated above, some “ADA”

grievances which should have been addressed by custody personnel were 19
improperly forwarded to medical personnel and did not receive timely or 20
21 appropriate responses.

22

While the Department and CHS have made tremendous efforts to repair the

23 24 broken grievance system and have made significant progress, the Department and

25 CHS continue to receive an overwhelming number of grievances which are

26 inaccurately marked “Emergency” by prisoner complainants. Though many of these

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-52-

REPORT

CV 08-035 15 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 53 of 61 Page ID #:5410

1 grievances do not constitute emergencies, the Department and CHS must provide 2 source documentation that indicates both agencies are processing grievances

consistent with respective policies. Defendants have achieved partial compliance 4
with this provision.

6 Provision G.4 — “ADA” Grievances Not Designated as “Basic” Grievances —

7 Substantial Compliance as of March 16, 201$
$

9

Under section G, paragraph 4 of the Agreement, “ADA’ grievances will not

10 be designated as ‘basic’ grievances.” The compliance measure for this provision 11
requires the same data as was provided under Provision G.2, discussed above. The 12 13 Department circulated policy related to this provision, including the Johnson policy

14 and multiple sections within CDM Volume 8, “Inmate Grievance Manual.” 15
The Department and CHS provided documentation related to this provision 16 17 on March 16, 2018, which confirms that the Department designates all ADA-related

1$ grievances into three specialized categories discussed above including “Medical 19
Services,” “ADA (Medical)” or “ADA” grievances. While these designations may 20
21 be problematic in some instances, none of the sampled grievances were designated

22 as “basic” grievances. Therefore, Defendants have achieved substantial compliance
23 with this provision.
24

25 Provision G.5 — Keep All ADA-related Grievances — Substantial Compliance as

26 ofMay4,2017

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-53-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 54 of 61 Page ID #:5411

1

Under section G, paragraph 5, “Defendants will keep copies of all ‘ADA’

2 grievances, for purposes of monitoring in this matter.” Defendants achieved

3 substantial compliance with this provision on May 4, 2017. The OIG will make a
4
sustained compliance finding on May 4, 2018, twelve (12) months from the OIG’s

6 substantial compliance determination.
7 SECTION II — Accommodations
$ Provision 11.1 — Reasonable Accommodations — Partial Compliance

10

Under section H, paragraph I of the Agreement,

11 Defendants agree that Class Members shall receive reasonable
12

13

accommodations when they request them and as prescribed by LASD medical

14

professionals. Accommodations may include, but are not limited to:

15 assignment to lower bunks, changes of clothing; extra blankets; allowance of
16

17

extra time to respond to visitor calls and attorneys visits; shower benches;

assistive devices to travel outside of a housing module; and assignment to a
19 cell with accessible features.
20
21 As previously reported, the Johnson policy includes language consistent with the

22 terms of this provision. However, the Department is working to reconcile its other 23
policies with the Johnson requirements. Necessary revisions include CDM section 24
25 5-06/0 10.05, “Allowable Inmate Property — Male Inmates,” CDM section 5-

26 06/010.10, “Allowable Inmate Property — Female Inmates,” and CDM section

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-54-

REPORT

CV 08-035 15 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 55 of 61 Page ID #:5412

5.07/010.00, “Contraband Defined,” all of which restrict the number of allowable 2 blankets and sets of extra clothing.

Despite conflicting Department policy, the OIG has verified that Department 4
personnel are familiar with the Johnson policy’s requirement that Class Members

6 receive reasonable accommodations. Between April 2017 and December 2017, OIG

7 personnel conducted site visits in the following areas:
$

9

• MCJ on the 6000, 7000 and 8000 floors;

10

• TTCF module 232, pods A - F;

11 • TTCF module 272, pods A - F; and
12

13

• CRDF’s.

14

Most of the personnel interviewed reported having been briefed on the policy

15

16 or having received training in the Jail Operations Continuum course in the

17 Academy. However, some personnel were working overtime from patrol and from

other facilities and were not aware of the policies. Personnel regularly assigned to 19 20 posts outside of Custody Services Division reported that they had not been trained in
21 the Johnson policy and were not aware of many of the accommodations to which

Class Members are entitled.

23

24

The Department must implement an effective mechanism to train all

25 personnel on the Johnson policy and ensure that assistive devices and other

26

reasonable

.
accommodations

are

.
provided

as

.
prescribed.

In

addition,

the

Department

27

CVO8-03515DDP

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-55-

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 56 of 61 Page ID #:5413

1 should revise its contraband policy to include language that specifies that mobility 2 impaired prisoners are allowed to have extra blankets and extra clothing. Defendants

remain in partial compliance with this provision. 4
Provision 11.2 — Accessibility of Information Reflecting Orders by LASD

6 Medical Professionals — Sustained Compliance as of November 3, 2017

7 Under section H, paragraph 2 of the Agreement,
$

9

Information reflecting orders by LASD Medical Professionals for

10

accommodations for Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so

11 that they may be implemented in housing areas.
12

13 The Department was not required to conduct a self-assessment for this provision.

14 Instead, OIG monitors conducted interviews of Department personnel at relevant 15
housing locations to determine whether personnel could access the 1C12 screen used 16 17 by custody personnel to ascertain Class Members’ accommodation orders.

18

Throughout the monitoring period, OIG personnel have observed that

19 20 deputies at relevant housing locations between MCJ, TTCF and CRDF are familiar

21 with the IC12 screen and how to access Johnson related information. One hundred

22 (100) percent of personnel interviewed were able to do so, which exceeds the 23 24 compliance standard of eighty-five (85) percent. Therefore, Defendants have
25 achieved sustained compliance with this provision and the OIG will no longer

26 monitor compliance with this provision for purposes of this Agreement.

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-56-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 57 of 61 Page ID #:5414

1 Provision 11.3 — Tracking Mobility Assistive Device Requests — Partial

2 Compliance

3 Under section H, paragraph 3 of the Agreement,
4

5

Defendants agree to explore the feasibility of adding a tab to the current

6

medical records system (as part of upgrades), to track mobility assistive

7 device requests and assessments by LASD Medical Professionals of Class
$

9

Members.

10 The Department and CHS have researched the feasibility of adding a tab to Cerner. 11
As reported in the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Status Report, the 12 13 Department and CHS met with the OIG on April 12, 2017, and proposed a solution

14 to upgrade Cerner to track secondary review requests. Since then, neither the 15
Department nor CHS have provided additional information on implementation 16 17 progress or whether the upgrade idea has been abandoned altogether. The OIG will

1$ be meeting with the Department and CHS in April to discuss its efforts to explore 19
the feasibility of this upgrade. Defendants remain in partial compliance with this 20
21 provision.

22 SECTION I — Notification of Rights
23 Provision 1.1 — Roadmap to Custody — Sustained Compliance as of June 2, 2017
24

25

Defendants achieved sustained compliance with this provision on June 2,

26 2017. The OIG will no longer monitor compliance with this provision for purposes

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-57-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 58 of 61 Page ID #:5415

1 of this Agreement.

2 SECTION J — Trainin% 3
Provision J.1 — Training — Partial Compliance (previously Substantial 4 5 Compliance)

6

Under section J, paragraph 1 of the Agreement, “{w]ithin 60 days of April 22,

7 2015, Defendants will begin providing reasonable training to Jail personnel
$

(including medical personnel) consistent with the terms of this Agreement.” The

10 compliance measure for this provision requires the Department to provide training

11 rosters, curriculum, syllabi and attendance rosters to the 01G.
12

13

Defendants achieved substantial compliance with this provision on March 21,

14 2017. On March 21, 2018, the Department provided the following documentation 15
related to this provision: 16

17

• An agenda, schedule and syllabus for “De-Escalation and Verbal

Resolution Training” (DeVRT), which has an ADA component, and

19

20

attendance rosters for DeVRT trainings that occurred between

21

January 3, 2017, and November 9, 2017;

22

• An agenda, attendance rosters (including custody and medical

23

24

personnel from CRDF, MCI, TTCF and CC SB) and a PowerPoint

25

presentation from a training held on May 9, 10 and 11, 2017, about

Johnson related matters, such as ADA-related grievances, the ADL,

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-58-

CV 08-03515 DDP

REPORT

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 59 of 61 Page ID #:5416

1

returning medical appliances, Town Hall meetings and thermal

2

clothing; and

3 A syllabus, attendance rosters and a PowerPoint presentation for
4

5

training, “ADA in Custody (Accommodations for Inmates with

6

Disabilities)” offered on January 2 and 3, 2017, as well as February 27,

7 2018.
$

The OIG has confirmed that appropriate personnel attended the trainings and

10 that appropriate ADA topics were covered. However, because the Department is
11 deficient in several areas related to Johnson training and policy compliance (as
12
13 discussed throughout this report in compliance findings for provisions A.5(a), D.2,

14 F.3 and H. 1), Defendants have achieved partial compliance with this provision. 15
SECTION K — Transportation 16
17 Provision K.1 — Transportation in Accessible Vans — Substantial Compliance as

18 ofMayll,2017
19 Under section K, paragraph 1 of the Agreement, “Class Members who use
20

21 wheelchairs or other mobility aides are and will continue to be transported in

22 accessible vans and will be secured during transport” Defendants achieved
23 substantial compliance with this provision on May 11, 2017. The OIG will make a
24

25 sustained compliance finding on May 11, 2018, twelve (12) months from the OIG’s

26 substantial compliance determination.

27

28

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-59-

REPORT

CV 08-03515 DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 60 of 61 Page ID #:5417

1

Conclusion

2

Since the Inspector General ‘s Second Implementation Stattts Report,

Defendants have made notable progress toward compliance with the Agreement. 4
However, some facilities or housing locations trail others in implementation of

6 certain provisions, such as TTCF module 272 with the rotation of outdoor recreation
7 times under Provision B.3 or CRDF with the distribution of thermal clothing under
$
Provision 3.4. Some provisions with which the Department has achieved less than

10 substantial compliance are linked to larger systemic issues which affect compliance

11 across the Custody Division, including:
12

13

• Training: The Department and CHS must dedicate additional resources

14

toward training personnel consistent with this Agreement.

15 o Department personnel must ensure that deputies at all relevant
16

17

housing locations are familiar with requirements of the Johnson

policy and that personnel adhere to those requirements (see
19 Provision 3.2 and 3.3, for example). ADA coordinators can and
20

21

should take an expanded role in training custody personnel

22

consistent with the Johnson policy.

23

24

o CHS personnel must ensure that medical personnel understand the

25

requirements of this Agreement, and issue remedial training where

26

necessary (see Provision D.2 and 1.1, for example).

27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-60-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 233 Filed 04/30/18 Page 61 of 61 Page ID #:5418

1

• Grievances: The Department and CHS need to establish a properly

2

functioning grievance system to adequately identify operational and other

3 issues to meet the needs of Class Members. While the Department’s
4

5

grievance system has been improved in recent months, the system

6

generally remains unreliable. ADA coordinators (as discussed below) can

7 and should assume a greater role in the processing and resolution of ADA-
8

9

related grievances.

10

• ADA Coordinators: The Department’s ADA coordinators must be

11 appropriately trained (see Provision F.3) and interface with Department
12

13

and medical personnel toward the resolution of ADA-related grievances

14

(see Provision F. 1 and Section G “Grievances” generally). An expanded

15 oversight role in the grievance process would allow ADA coordinators to
16

17

better identify trends related to Class Members’ experiences in custody

1$

and bring them to the attention of command staff where necessary.

19

20

The Department is working to address issues related to the areas above, and

21 the OIG will continue to work with the Department and CHS to identify ways for

22 the Department to implement the terms of this Agreement. The Department has 23 24 made substantial progress in this reporting period and the OIG anticipates similar

25 progress in the next reporting period. The OIG will continue to provide regular

updates to the Parties and the Court in this matter 27

2$

INSPECTOR GENERAL’S THIRD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

-61-

REPORT

CVO8-03515DDP

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:5421

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 56 Page ID #:5422

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 56 Page ID #:5423

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 56 Page ID #:5424

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 56 Page ID #:5425

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 6 of 56 Page ID #:5426

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 7 of 56 Page ID #:5427

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 8 of 56 Page ID #:5428

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 9 of 56 Page ID #:5429

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 10 of 56 Page ID #:5430

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 11 of 56 Page ID #:5431

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 12 of 56 Page ID #:5432

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 13 of 56 Page ID #:5433

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 14 of 56 Page ID #:5434

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 15 of 56 Page ID #:5435

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 16 of 56 Page ID #:5436

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 17 of 56 Page ID #:5437

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 18 of 56 Page ID #:5438

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 19 of 56 Page ID #:5439

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 20 of 56 Page ID #:5440

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 21 of 56 Page ID #:5441

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 22 of 56 Page ID #:5442

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 23 of 56 Page ID #:5443

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 24 of 56 Page ID #:5444

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 25 of 56 Page ID #:5445

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 26 of 56 Page ID #:5446

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 27 of 56 Page ID #:5447

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 28 of 56 Page ID #:5448

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 29 of 56 Page ID #:5449

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 30 of 56 Page ID #:5450

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 31 of 56 Page ID #:5451

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 32 of 56 Page ID #:5452

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 33 of 56 Page ID #:5453

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 34 of 56 Page ID #:5454

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 35 of 56 Page ID #:5455

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 36 of 56 Page ID #:5456

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 37 of 56 Page ID #:5457

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 38 of 56 Page ID #:5458

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 39 of 56 Page ID #:5459

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 40 of 56 Page ID #:5460

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 41 of 56 Page ID #:5461

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 42 of 56 Page ID #:5462

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 43 of 56 Page ID #:5463

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 44 of 56 Page ID #:5464

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 45 of 56 Page ID #:5465

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 46 of 56 Page ID #:5466

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 47 of 56 Page ID #:5467

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 48 of 56 Page ID #:5468

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 49 of 56 Page ID #:5469

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 50 of 56 Page ID #:5470

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 51 of 56 Page ID #:5471

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 52 of 56 Page ID #:5472

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 53 of 56 Page ID #:5473

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 54 of 56 Page ID #:5474

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 55 of 56 Page ID #:5475

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 235 Filed 04/26/19 Page 56 of 56 Page ID #:5476

 
 Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:5506

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:5507

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:5508

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:5509

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:5510

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:5511

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:5512

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 8 of 43 Page ID #:5513

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 9 of 43 Page ID #:5514

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 10 of 43 Page ID #:5515

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 11 of 43 Page ID #:5516

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 12 of 43 Page ID #:5517

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 13 of 43 Page ID #:5518

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 14 of 43 Page ID #:5519

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 15 of 43 Page ID #:5520

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 16 of 43 Page ID #:5521

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 17 of 43 Page ID #:5522

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 18 of 43 Page ID #:5523

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 19 of 43 Page ID #:5524

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 20 of 43 Page ID #:5525

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 21 of 43 Page ID #:5526

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 22 of 43 Page ID #:5527

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 23 of 43 Page ID #:5528

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 24 of 43 Page ID #:5529

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 25 of 43 Page ID #:5530

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 26 of 43 Page ID #:5531

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 27 of 43 Page ID #:5532

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:5533

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 29 of 43 Page ID #:5534

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:5535

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:5536

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 32 of 43 Page ID #:5537

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 33 of 43 Page ID #:5538

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 34 of 43 Page ID #:5539

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 35 of 43 Page ID #:5540

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 36 of 43 Page ID #:5541

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 37 of 43 Page ID #:5542

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 38 of 43 Page ID #:5543

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 39 of 43 Page ID #:5544

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 40 of 43 Page ID #:5545

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 41 of 43 Page ID #:5546

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 42 of 43 Page ID #:5547

Case 2:08-cv-03515-DDP-SH Document 245 Filed 03/31/20 Page 43 of 43 Page ID #:5548

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 1 of 33
(SHx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−03515−DDP−SH

Peter Johnson et al v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department et al Assigned to: Judge Dean D. Pregerson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman Related Case: 2:75−cv−04111−DDP Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Date Terminated: 03/24/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Peter Johnson on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

represented by Benjamin M Gipson DLA Piper LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067−4704 310−595−3139 Fax: 310−595−3439 Email: ben.gipson@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory A Martin Winston & Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−615−1918 Fax: 213−615−1750 TERMINATED: 10/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda Ruth Bird Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paula D Pearlman Department of Fair Employment and Housing Legal Division 2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758 213−439−6799 Fax: 888−382−5293 Email: Paula.Pearlman@dfeh.ca.gov

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 2 of 33
TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Brian Diaz Disability Rights California 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−213−8000 Fax: 213−213−8001 Email: richard.diaz@disabilityrightsca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R Smerek Winston and Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−1543 213−615−1735 Fax: 213−615−1750 Email: ssmerek@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda N Walker Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−443−5319 Fax: 213−443−5400 Email: amanda.walker@wilmerhale.com TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Anna Segobia Masters Winston and Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Ave Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−615−1700 Fax: 213 165 1750 Email: anna.masters@teledyne.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy Virginia Keeny Hadsell Stormer Kenny Richardson & Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: vkeeny@hskrr.com TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: cdai@hskrr.com TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Dan Stormer Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 3 of 33
Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Helen Cho Eckert Sheppard Mullin LLP 333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071−1406 213−617−4409 Fax: 213−443−2801 Email: helenhayan@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Jessica G Price ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 323−640−6888 Fax: 213−417−2233 Email: Jessica.Price@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Ulin Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 777 South Figueroa Street 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017−5844 213−243−4000 Fax: 213−243−4199 Email: john.ulin@arnoldporter.com TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Kevin Michael Bayley 2339 Galbreth Road Pasadena, CA 91104 213−537−5229 Email: kevin@askewity.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren K Teukolsky Baltodano & Baltodano LLP 733 Marsh Street Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 322 3412 Fax: 805 322 3413 Email: lt@bbemploymentlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Maronel Barajas Disability Rights Legal Center 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 1520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 626−389−8277 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: maronel.barajas@drlcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar Law Office of Matthew Strugar 3425 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 323−696−2299

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 4 of 33

Email: matthew@matthewstrugar.com TERMINATED: 06/20/2011

Michelle Uzeta 710 South Myrtle Avenue No 306 Monrovia, CA 91016 626−765−7625 Email: uzetalaw@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S Shane Sagheb Sagheb Law & Mediation Services 5950 Canoga Ave. Suite 130 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 8184891511 Email: shane@ssslams.com TERMINATED: 05/13/2011

Shawna L Parks Law Office of Shawna L. Parks 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. Ste. 107 #347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 323.389.9239 Fax: 323.389.9239 Email: sparks@parks−law−office.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2012

Tiffany Green Disability Rights Legal Center 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 213−736−1031 TERMINATED: 03/12/2012

Umbreen Bhatti Disability Rights Legal Center 800 South Figueroa Street Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−252−7406 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: umbreen.bhatti@lls.edu TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Donald Peterson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory A Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda Ruth Bird

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 5 of 33
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Brian Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda N Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Anna Segobia Masters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy Virginia Keeny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Dan Stormer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Helen Cho Eckert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Jessica G Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Ulin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren K Teukolsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 6 of 33

Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011

Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S Shane Sagheb (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/16/2010

Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012

Tiffany Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2012

Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael J Curfman on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory A Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melinda Ruth Bird (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 7 of 33
Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda N Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Anna Segobia Masters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy Virginia Keeny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Cornelia Ho−Chin Dai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Dan Stormer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Helen Cho Eckert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Jessica G Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Ulin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2009
Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren K Teukolsky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Tiffany Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2012
Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 8 of 33

TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andre Butler

represented by Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011

Melinda Ruth Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Brian Diaz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012

Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Derrick M White

represented by Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 9 of 33

Plaintiff Joe Gonzalez

Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011
Melinda Ruth Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Brian Diaz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 10 of 33

Plaintiff Columbus Grigsby

Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011
Melinda Ruth Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Brian Diaz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin Michael Bayley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R Smerek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin M Gipson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maronel Barajas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2011
Melinda Ruth Bird (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 11 of 33

Richard Brian Diaz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Umbreen Bhatti (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department a public entity
Defendant Lee Baca as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles
Defendant

represented by Justin W Clark Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: jclark@lbaclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210−1219 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: pbeach@lbaclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Philip Allen Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 100 West Broadway Suite 1200 Glendale, CA 91210 818−545−1925 Fax: 818−545−1937 Email: mpa@lbaclaw.com TERMINATED: 10/09/2014
represented by Justin W Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul B Beach (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2014

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 12 of 33

County of Los Angeles a public entity

represented by Justin W Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul B Beach (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Joynt Office of County Counsel Los Angeles County 500 West Temple Street Room 605 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−6755 Fax: 213−626−2105 Email: kjoynt@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/09/2014

Tiana J Murillo Office of the County Counsel County of Los Angeles 500 West Temple Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−893−6755 Fax: 213−680−2165 Email: tmurillo@counsel.lacounty.gov TERMINATED: 09/08/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael D. Antonovich as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles TERMINATED: 07/15/2008

Defendant
Yvonne B. Burke as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles TERMINATED: 07/15/2008

Defendant
Don Knabe as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles TERMINATED: 07/15/2008

Defendant
Gloria Molina as Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles TERMINATED: 07/15/2008

Defendant
Zev Yaroslavsky as Supervisors of the County of Los

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 13 of 33
Angeles TERMINATED: 07/15/2008

Date Filed 05/29/2008
05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/29/2008 05/30/2008
06/09/2008
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Michael D. Antonovich, Yvonne B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (et) (ds). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Michael D. Antonovich, Yvonne B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky. (et) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
3 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (et) (ds). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
4 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (et) (ds). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
6 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Related Case(s): CV75−4111 DDP (at) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
2 STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts falls not only upon the attorneys in the action, but upon the Court as well. To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, Fed. R. Civ. P.1, all counsel are hereby ordered to familiarize themselves with the Fed. R. Civ. P., particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, the Local Rules of the Central District of California, this Courts Order for Jury Trial, and this Courts Order for Court Trial. (ps) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
7 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV75−4111 DDP. Case transfered from Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to Judge Dean D. Pregerson for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV08−3515 DDP (JTLx).Signed by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (at) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Motion set for hearing on 6/30/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
9 DECLARATION of Mark Rosenbaum in support of MOTION to Certify Class 8 and Exhibits Attached Hereto filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
10 DECLARATION of Dan Stormer in support of MOTION to Certify Class 8 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
11 DECLARATION of John Ulin in support of MOTION to Certify Class 8 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
12 DECLARATION of Shawna Parks in support of MOTION to Certify Class 8 and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Exhibits in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−H, # 2 Exhibits I−J)(Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon County of Los Angeles served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 14 of 33

06/09/2008 06/09/2008
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008

statute, upon Riggins: Deputy City Clerk; Gonterman: Clerk; "Doe": Receptionist. Due Dilligence declaration No. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Lee Baca served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Porreca: Operations Ass't. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Porreca: Operations Ass't. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Michael D. Antonovich served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Jessie Riggins: Deputy City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
17 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Yvonne B. Burke served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Jessie Riggins: Deputy City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration not returned. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Don Knabe served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Jessie Riggins: Deputy City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration not returned. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Zev Yaroslavsky served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Jessie Riggins: Deputy City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration not returned. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, upon Gloria Molina served on 5/30/2008, answer due 6/19/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal statute, upon Jessie Riggins: Deputy City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration not returned. Original Summons not returned. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
21 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Motion set for hearing on 6/30/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
22 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
23 COMPENDIUM OF DECLARATIONS re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 , MOTION to Certify Class 8 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Decl. of P. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit B: Decl. of Peterson, # 3 Exhibit C: Decl. of Curfman, # 4 Exhibit D: Decl. of Anthony, # 5 Exhibit E: Decl. of Bingley, # 6 Exhibit F: Decl. of Ceballos, # 7 Exhibit G: Decl. of Driver, # 8 Exhibit H: Decl. of Finn, # 9 Exhibit I: Decl. of Gomez, # 10 Exhibit J: Decl. of R. Johnson, # 11 Exhibit K: Decl. of C. Reyes, # 12 Exhibit Decl. of L. Reyes, # 13 Exhibit M: Decl. of Stuart, # 14 Exhibit N: Decl. of Taylor, # 15 Exhibit O: Decl. of Tranquilino, # 16 Exhibit P: Decl. of Tribble, # 17 Exhibit Q: Decl. of Turner, # 18 Exhibit R: Decl. of Ward, # 19 Exhibit S: Decl. of Welch, # 20 Exhibit T: Decl. of White, # 21 Exhibit U: Decl. of

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 15 of 33

06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008
06/12/2008 06/12/2008 06/13/2008
06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/23/2008

Williams)(Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
24 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
25 DECLARATION of Helen Eckert in support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
26 DECLARATION of Dr. Brie Williams in support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 , MOTION to Certify Class 8 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
27 DECLARATION of Logan Hopper in support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 , MOTION to Certify Class 8 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Part 1 of 2), # 4 Exhibit C (Part 2 of 2), # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
28 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Early Discovery filed by plaintiff Peter Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Letter from Lauren Teukolsky to Paul Beach, dated 6/6/08, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B LASD PRA Request)(Green, Tiffany) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
29 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (FILED ON 06−09−08) 8 and the PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (FILED ON 06−09−08) 21 are hereby continued from June 30, 2008 to July 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
30 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Michael D. Antonovich, Yvonne B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavskyto EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Early Discovery 28 (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
31 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Michael D. Antonovich, Yvonne B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
32 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman, re Declaration (Motion related) 25 , Request for Judicial Notice,, Request for Relief, 24 , Declaration (Motion related) 9 , Memorandum in Support of Motion 22 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 27 , Declaration (Motion related) 11 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Violations of ADA and related claims 21 , Declaration (Motion related) 10 , MOTION to Certify Class 8 , Motion Related Document,,, 23 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 12 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 26 served on 6/9/2008. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
33 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: wrong event: notice (other); correct event: Certificate of interested party. RE: Notice (Other) 31 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lc) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
34 ORDER Denying plaintiffs EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Early Discovery 28 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearings and Briefing Schedules on Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification from July 14, 2008 to 30 Days or More filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 16 of 33

06/24/2008
06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 07/11/2008 07/15/2008 07/18/2008 07/22/2008 07/23/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008 09/24/2008 10/10/2008

Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
36 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dean D Pregerson. Counsel are referred to the courts website for additional information. It is not necessary to clear motion date with court clerk prior to filing the motion. Court hears motions only on Mondays at 10:00 AM. The Court requires non−blue backed courtesy copies of only the following manual and electronic filed documents: (1) All noticed motions and related documents; and (2) All ex parte applications and related documents. Said courtesy copies are to be delivered directly to Room 244−J. (lc) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
37 ORDER granting defendant ex parte 35 to continue hearings and briefingschedules on Plaintiffs Motions for Preliminary Injunction 21 and forClass Certification 8 : The hearing on these motions is continued to Monday, 8/25/08, at 10:00am. Defendants Oppositions shall be filed on or before 8/11/08. Plaintiffs Replies shall be filed on or before 8/18/08 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
38 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearings and Briefing Schedules on Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification from July 14, 2008 to 30 Days or More 35 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
39 DECLARATION of John Ulin In Opposition To EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearings and Briefing Schedules on Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification from July 14, 2008 to 30 Days or More 35 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Eckert, Helen) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
40 STIPULATION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS Michael D. Antonovich, Yvonne B. Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky filed by DEFENDANTS Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
41 ORDER upon Stipulation 40 dismissing defendants Don Knabe; Gloria Molina; Zev Yaroslavsky; Michael D. Antonovich and Yvonne B. Burke in their officialcapacities. The remaining Defendants shall have until five days after the Courtenters this stipulation to file their responses to the Complaint by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
42 NOTICE Notice of Unavailability filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
43 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles.(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
44 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, ( Scheduling Conference set for 9/29/2008 03:30 PM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.) (sce) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
45 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Settlement Discussions and For Report to the Court filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Beach, Paul) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
46 ORDER STAYING LITIGATION PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND FOR REPORT TO THE COURT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (tad) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
47 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for September 29, 2008 at 3:30 p.m., is hereby VACATED. (lc) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
48 JOINT REPORT of TO COURT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Keeny, Christy) (Entered: 10/10/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 17 of 33

12/22/2008 12/23/2008
12/29/2008 12/30/2008
01/05/2009 01/13/2009 02/19/2009 02/27/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 03/19/2009 03/30/2009 03/30/2009

49 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Status Report; Request for Lift of Stay; Request for Scheduling Conference filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Proposed Order Lifting Stay and Setting Scheduling Conference)(Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
50 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: 1 PDF of 2 different types of document under one event: status report which does not submit any request to the Judge. Correct event: Request, select relief: lift stay and hearing. Clerk notes a proposed order was correctly submitted as a separate attachment. RE: Status Report, 49 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lc) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
51 NOTICE filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. Defendants' Status Report (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
52 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Wrong Event: Notice (other); Correct specific event: Status Report RE: Notice (Other) 51 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lc) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
53 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that a Status Conference is set for 1/13/2009 11:00 AM. (lc) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
54 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer. Court informed counsel that one of the Judge's law clerk is married to an attorney employed by plaintiff's firm. Counsel propose a resolution of this issue.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (sce) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
55 MINUTES OF (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion a STATUS CONFERENCE RE: CONFLICT is hereby set for 2/27/2009 at 10:00 A.M. (sch) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
56 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: CONFLICT held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court and counsel confer re case status. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (sch) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
57 STATUS REPORT RE CONFLICT AND WITHDRAWAL OF HADSELL STORMER FIRM filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
58 STATUS REPORT Plaintiff's Report to the Court Re Conflict and Withdrawal of Hadsell Stormer Firm; Proposed Order Filed Concurrently Herewith filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
59 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Report to the Court Re Conflict and Withdrawal of Hadsell Stormer Law Firm filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Plaintiff's Proposed Order re Conflict and Withdrawal of Hadsell Stormer Firm)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
60 ORDER REQUIRING WITHDRAWAL OF HADSELL STORMER FIRM AND FOR SUBMISSION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSELS INVOICES TO THE COURT IN SEALED ENVELOPES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (tad) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
61 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Keeny, Christy) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
62 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Christy Virginia Keeny counsel for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman.Virginia Keeny is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plainitiffs Peter Johnson, et al. (Keeny, Christy) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 18 of 33

03/30/2009 03/30/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/14/2009 06/01/2009 06/03/2009 06/05/2009
06/08/2009
07/06/2009

63 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Dan Stormer counsel for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman.Dan Stormer is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiffs Peter Johnson, et al. (Stormer, Dan) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
64 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Lauren K Teukolsky counsel for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman.Lauren Teukolsky is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, et al. (Teukolsky, Lauren) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
65 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Benjamin Gipson in place of attorney Helen Cho Eckert filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
66 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Shane Sagheb in place of attorney John Ulin filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
67 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Gregory A. Martin in place of attorney Amanda Walker filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
68 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 65 Request to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Benjamin M Gipson for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, and Michael Curfman, in place of Attorney Helen Cho Eckert. Attorney Helen Cho Eckert terminated (sch) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
69 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson Granting REQUEST to Substitute attorney Shane Sagheb in place of attorney John Ulin 66 . (tad) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
70 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson granting 67 Request to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Gregory A Martin for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, and Michael Curfman in place and stead of Attorney Amanda N Walker. Attorney Amanda N Walker terminated (sch) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
71 REQUEST to Lift Stay on Case re Litigation pending settlement proceeding. Plaintiffs' Status Report; Request For Scheduling Conference filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
72 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Lift Stay re: On Litigation Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Shawna Parks filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
73 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Lift Stay re: On Litigation Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Shawna Parks 72 filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
74 REPLY filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Lift Stay re: On Litigation Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Shawna Parks 72 , Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 73 Declarations of Jennifer Lee and Melinda Bird (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
75 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER LIFTING STAY OF CASE 72 :To balance the interests of both parties, the Court orders that the stipulated stay will automatically expire on July 9, 2009. This thirty−day delay is intended to give Defendants time to file any Rutherford−related motion; however, the stay will expire on July 9, 2009 whether or not any such motion has been briefed and heard by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
76 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: In Rutherford v. Block (Case No. CV 75−4111), Defendants have filed a Motion for

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 19 of 33

07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/27/2009 07/30/2009 07/31/2009
07/31/2009

Enforcement of 1989 Stipulation and Order. That Motion seeks an order requiring the ACLU to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiffs in Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (Case No. CV 08−3515). Because that motion affects Johnson, the Court finds that the Johnson plaintiffs must have the opportunity to oppose the motion as well. The Court therefore orders Defendants to file a related motion in Johnson. The Court orders the following briefing schedule for that motion: Defendants shall file their Motion in Johnson by Monday, July 13. Plaintiffs shall file their Opposition by Monday, July 20. Defendants shall file their Reply by Monday, July 27. The hearing date on that motion shall be August 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. On its own motion, the Court orders that the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery 158 and Defendant's Motion to for Enforcement of 1989 Stipulation and Order 166 , both filed in Rutherford v. Block, shall be continued to Monday, August 3, 2009. In accordance with the Local Rules,the deadline for the parties to file their Reply papers in both motions shall be continued to Monday, July 27, 2009 (lc) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
77 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to To Amend Complaint , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Declaration of Shawna L. Parks filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
78 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce 1989 Rutherford v. Block Stipulation and Order filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
79 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Leave to To Amend Complaint , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; Declaration of Shawna L. Parks 77 filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
80 Opposition Opposition re: MOTION to Enforce 1989 Rutherford v. Block Stipulation and Order 78 filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Declaration)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
81 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Enforce 1989 Rutherford v. Block Stipulation and Order 78 filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
82 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court and counsel confer re case status. Court Reporter: None Present. (sch) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
83 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The Court notes the parties have engaged in constructive dialogue regarding the issues raised in the motions, therefore, the MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 77 (FILED ON 07−13−09) and the MOTION TO ENFORCE 1989 RUTHERFORD V. BLOCK STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED BY DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, LEE BACA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 78 (FILED ON 07−13−09) set for August 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., are hereby VACATED. (sch) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
84 AMENDED MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) 18 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (FILED ON 07−13−09) is hereby GRANTED 77 . The Court notes the parties have engaged in constructive dialogue regarding the issues raised in the motion, therefore, the MOTION TO ENFORCE 1989 RUTHERFORD V. BLOCK STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED BY DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, LEE BACA, COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES (FILED ON 07−13−09) 78 set for August 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., ishereby VACATED. (lc) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 20 of 33

09/01/2009 09/01/2009
09/03/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009
05/11/2010 05/13/2010 05/13/2010 05/26/2010 05/27/2010
06/02/2010 06/02/2010
06/10/2010 06/23/2010

85 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Melinda R Bird counsel for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Changing firm name to Disability Rights California. Changing e−mail to melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org. Filed by plaintiff Peter Johnson, et al. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
86 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Signature omitted RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 85 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (ak) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
87 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Melinda R Bird counsel for Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. Changing firm name to Disability Rights California. Changing e−mail to melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org. Filed by plaintiff Peter Johnson, et al. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
88 JOINT REPORT of To Court re Parties' Meetings filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael Curfman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
89 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Wrong event: Misc (Report); Correct Specific Event: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. RE: Report 88 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lc) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
90 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Matthew D Strugar on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Curfman, Peter Johnson (Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
91 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Matthew D Strugar on behalf of Plaintiff Donald Peterson (Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
92 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to To Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Michael Curfman, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
93 Joint REQUEST for Hearing Status and/or Scheduling Conference filed by Plaintiff Michael Curfman, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson. Request set for hearing on 6/23/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Strugar, Matthew). (Entered: 05/26/2010)
94 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint REQUEST for Hearing Status and/or Scheduling Conference 93 . The following error(s) was found: Erroneous hearing date set before Judge has ordered date. This erroneous hearing ONLY has been termed by the court. Missing proposed orderwhich should have been submitted as a separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
95 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson upon Stipulation 92 Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the complaint. (lc) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
96 ORDER SETTING Scheduling Conference by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. This matter is set for a scheduling conference on 6/28/2010 at 11:00 am in Courtroom 3, before the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson. The conference will be held pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b). In addition, the Joint Request 93 , filed on 5/26/10 is vacated as moot. See document for further details. (nhac) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
97 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Michael Curfman, Andre Butler, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Derrick M White (lc) (lc). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
98 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 21 of 33

06/24/2010 06/28/2010
06/29/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 10/27/2010 10/28/2010
11/10/2010 11/12/2010

99 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report 98 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
100 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer re case status. Court sets trial dates. (Refer to the SCHEDULING ORDER to be issued hereafter.) The Court hereby ORDERS the parties' respective experts to meet and confer in person, jointly tour Men's Central Jail, and prepare a Joint Report addressing the contentions setforth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The Joint Report shall be filed by October 29, 2010. A STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT is set for November 15, 2010 at 3:30 p.m.Court Reporter: none. (lc) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
101 SCHEDULING ORDER pursuant to FRCP 16(b): Counsel must agree on date for the disclosure of expert witness reports pursuant to FRCP 26(a)2; Initial disclosures: 7/12/10 by mail; Discovery cut−off : 1/31/11; Expert witness disclosures: 2/15/11; Rebuttal expert witness disclosures: 3/4/11; Last day to file Dispositive Motions: 4/15/11; Final Pretrial Conference: 5/16/11 11:00 PM; Court Trial: 6/7/11 9:00 AM; by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
102 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 97 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.(Allen, Matthew) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
103 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, (Allen, Matthew) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
104 Joint REQUEST to Extend Time to To File Joint Expert Report and Continuing Status Conference filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Request set for hearing on 12/13/2010 at 03:30 PM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Extend Deadline)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
105 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint REQUEST to Extend Time to To File Joint Expert Report and Continuing Status Conference 104 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event Relief selected: extend discovery matter (used only re discovery matters); pdf is request 2 reliefs. The correct event reliefs are: 1) extend time to file and 2) continue. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
106 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Joint REQUEST to Extend Time to To File Joint Expert Report and Continuing Status Conference 104 , The deadlines and hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled( Status Conference continued to 12/13/2010 03:30 PM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.) Joint Report extended to 12/6/10. (sce) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
107 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Motion set for hearing on 12/13/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 1), # 2 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 2), # 3 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 3), # 4 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 4), # 5 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 5), # 6 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 6), # 7 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 7), # 8 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 8), # 9 Appendix Compendium of Evidence (Part 9), # 10 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification)(Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 22 of 33

11/15/2010 11/16/2010
11/16/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010
11/22/2010 11/22/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010

108 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT (COURT ORDERED 06−28−10) and the MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANDRE BUTLER, MICHAEL CURFMAN, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, DERRICK M. WHITE 107 (FILED ON 11−12−10) shall be heard on the original date of December 13, 2010 at the new time of 11:00 a.m. (sch) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
109 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Stephen R Smerek counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. S. SHANE SAGHEB will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.S. SHANE SAGHEB is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Derrick White (Smerek, Stephen) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
110 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Stephen R Smerek counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Adding STEPHEN R. SMEREK as attorney as counsel of record for All Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson and Derrick White (Smerek, Stephen) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
111 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION from DECEMBER 13, 2010 to JANUARY 3, 2011 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
112 ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 111 : The hearing on Plaintiffs Motion 107 is continued from December13, 2010 to January 3, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.; Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion is continued from November 22, 2010 to December 6, 2010; and Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion is continued from November 29, 2010 to December 20, 2010. In addition, the STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT (COURT ORDERED 06−28−10) is continued to January 3, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
113 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Mark D Rosenbaum counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Curfman, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson. Adding Jessica G. Price as attorney as counsel of record for Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, and Michael Curfman for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, and Michael Curfman (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
114 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 113 . The following error(s) was found: Case number is incorrect or missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (vh) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
115 OPPOSITION to re: MOTION to Certify Class 107 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
116 DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Certify Class 107 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
117 DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF LOGAN HOPPER OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Certify Class 107 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 12/06/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 23 of 33

12/06/2010 12/08/2010
12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 01/03/2011
01/11/2011
01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/12/2011

118 DECLARATION of CAPTAIN STEVEN SMITH, SERGEANT JEROME RYAN, DAWN ABARCA AND JUSTIN W. CLARK re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 115 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
119 JOINT EXPERT REPORT of Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Expert Report filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Status Report, # 2 Exhibit B Part 1 to Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit B Part 2 to Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Expert Report)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
120 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify Class 107 filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
121 DECLARATION of Shawna L. Parks in support of MOTION to Certify Class 107 filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E, # 2 Exhibit F through G, # 3 Exhibit H through I, # 4 Exhibit J through L)(Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
122 OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF re: MOTION to Certify Class 107 (Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to the Declarations Submitted by Defendant in Support of Their Opposition to Class Certification) filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
123 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify Class 107 (Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to the Inmate Declarations) filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
124 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify Class 107 (Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Logan Hopper Submitted with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification) filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
125 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT and the MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANDRE BUTLER, MICHAEL CURFMAN, JOE GONZALEZ, COLUMBUS GRIGSBY, PETER JOHNSON, DONALD PETERSON, DERRICK M. WHITE 107 are hereby continued from January 3, 2011 to January 12, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
126 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Certify Class 107 of Newly Issued Supplemental Authority filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Exh A to Pltfs Request For Judicial Notice of Newly Issued Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion For Class Certification)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
127 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department RE PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT REPORT AND REPORT OF MICHAEL GIBBENS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
128 REPORT of Plaintiffs' Report to Court re Expert Reports filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Pltfs Report to Court re Expert Reports)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
129 MINUTES OF Status conference re settlement and Motion Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS filed by plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White is taken under submission. Counsel shall file a Stipulation with a

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 24 of 33

01/28/2011 02/07/2011 02/18/2011 03/14/2011 03/15/2011
03/15/2011 03/15/2011 03/22/2011
04/25/2011 04/25/2011

[Proposed] Order re: RETENTION OFA SPECIAL MASTER not later than January 26, 2011.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
130 STIPULATION for Order re: retention of special master filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
131 Joint STIPULATION for Order For Retention of Special Master/Neutral filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Stipulation re Retention of Special Master/Neutral)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
132 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 131 :The currently−scheduled trial and pretrial dates are continued as follows: Non−Expert Discovery Cut−off May 16, 2011; Expert Witness Disclosure June 15, 2011;Expert Witness Rebuttal Disclosure July 5, 2011; Close of Expert Discovery July 29, 2011; Last Day to File Dispositive Motions August 15, 2011; Final Pretrial Conference September 12, 2011 11:00 a.m.;10 Day Court Trial October 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
133 STIPULATION for Order AUTHORIZING EACH PLAINTIFFS' IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION filed by DEFENDANT Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) Modified on 3/15/2011 (sch). [STRICKEN PER 3−15−11 ORDER]. (Entered: 03/14/2011)
134 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that the document entitled STIPULATION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EACH PLAINTIFFS' IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION, filed on March 14, 2011, docket number 133 was electronically filed incorrectly by not sending a PDF of the stipulation and a Word or WordPerfect copy of the [proposed] order to the chambers email address and therefore ordered STRICKEN from the docket. Counsel shall review the electronic filing procedures and re−file the document forthwith. (sch) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
135 STIPULATION for Order AUTHORIZING EACH PLAINTIFFS' IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
136 ORDER ON STIPULATION RE: AUTHORIZING EACH PLAINTIFFS IN−CUSTODY DEPOSITION 135 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson : Each Plaintiffs deposition may proceed while they are incarcerated. (lc) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
137 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE due to Unavailability of Judicial Officer filed. The previously assigned Magistrate Judge is no longer available. Pursuant to directive of the Chief Magistrate Judge and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the case has been returned to the Clerk for reassignment. This case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman for any discovery and/or post−judgment maters that may be referred. Case number will now read CV 08−03515 DDP (SHx). (rn) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
138 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery From Defendant County of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Motion set for hearing on 5/16/2011 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman. (Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
139 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Discovery From Defendant County of Los Angeles 138 re Plaintiffs' First, Second and Third Sets of Requests For Production of Documents and failure to Produce Deponents filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Strugar in Support of Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute, # 2 Exhibits A through H to Strugar Declaration, # 3 Exhibit I through P to Strugar Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Q through CC to Strugar Declaration, # 5 Declaration of Clark to Joint Stipulation re Discovery

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 25 of 33

05/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 05/10/2011 05/10/2011 05/10/2011 05/11/2011 05/11/2011 05/11/2011

Dispute, # 6 Exhibit 1 to Clark Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 2 to Clark Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 3 to Clark Declaration, # 9 Declaration of Kwan to Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute, # 10 Declaration of Dyer re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute)(Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
140 SUPPLEMENT MEMORANDUM RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NOS. 138 AND 139) filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
141 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery From Defendant County of Los Angeles 138 filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
142 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery from defendant County of Los Angeles, set for hearing on May 16, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. is hereby continued to May 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. re: MOTION to Compel Discovery From Defendant County of Los Angeles 138 (lmh) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
143 APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendants subjecting class members to discipline for their failure or inability to get out of their wheelchair filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support Of Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit A−D to Memorandum, # 3 Proposed Order)(Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
144 OPPOSITION opposition to re: APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendants subjecting class members to discipline for their failure or inability to get out of their wheelchair 143 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Declarations and Exhibit)(Beach, Paul) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
145 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendants subjecting class members to discipline for their failure or inability to get out of their wheelchair 143 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Beach, Paul) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
146 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Granting Ex Parte Application to Compel Site Inspection filed by plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Matthew Strugar In Support Of Ex Parte Application To Compel Site Inspection, # 2 Exhibit A−F to Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application to Compel Site Inspection)(Gipson, Benjamin) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
147 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman: re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Granting Ex Parte Application to Compel Site Inspection 146 . The court clerk has been directed to inform defense counsel to file an Opposition to plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Compel Site Inspection, with a mandatory copy to chambers by no later than 1:00 p.m. today (May 11, 2011). (sbu) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
148 OPPOSITION opposition to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Granting Ex Parte Application to Compel Site Inspection 146 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Johnson, # 2 Exhibits A & B, # 3 Exhibits C & D)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
149 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky, This matter is being handled by Magistrate Judge Zarefsky in Magistrate Judge Hillmans absence. Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion to Compel Site Inspection is denied without prejudice. Entitlement to ex parte relief has not been shown. In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989); Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The Court makes no ruling

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 26 of 33

05/11/2011
05/12/2011 05/13/2011
05/13/2011 05/16/2011 05/27/2011 06/10/2011 06/10/2011 06/13/2011 06/14/2011
06/20/2011

on the substance of the underlying dispute. Defendants request for sanctions is denied. 146 Ex Parte Application for Order (lmh) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
150 REPLY in Support of APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendants subjecting class members to discipline for their failure or inability to get out of their wheelchair 143 filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF JESSICA PRICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER)(Price, Jessica) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
151 ORDER DENYING Application For Temporary Restraining Order 143 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Having failed to demonstrate that he is disabled, Alexander cannot show a likelihood of success on his ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims or a danger of irreparable harm stemming from violations of those statutes. Accordingly, the Application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Defendants request for sanctions is DENIED. (sch) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
152 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney S Shane Sagheb counsel for Plaintiff Peter Johnson. Changing Sanchez & Amador, LLP to 660 S. Figueroa St, Ste. 2250, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Changing sagheb@sanchez−amador.com to (213) 955−7201. S. Shane Sagheb, Esq. will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.S. Shane Sagheb is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Attorney S. Shane Sagheb (Sagheb, S) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
153 STIPULATION to Continue MAY 17, 2011 HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NOS. 138, 139) BY AT LEAST ONE WEEK filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
154 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties, the May 17, 2011 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Docket Nos. 138, 139) is hereby continued by at least one week to May 31, 2011, at 2:00. re Stipulation to Continue, 153 (lmh) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
155 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, The May 31, 2011 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Docket Nos. 138, 139) is hereby taken off calendar. Counsel are directed to contact the Courts Clerk, Sandra Butler at 213−894−6487 should a hearing be necessary. re: MOTION to Compel Discovery From Defendant County of Los Angeles 138 (lmh) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
156 STIPULATION to Continue TRIAL DATE AND CERTAIN PRETRIAL DEADLINES filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
157 STIPULATION for Discovery as to ISSUES; PROPOSED ORDER THEREON filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
158 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, re Stipulation for Discovery 157 (sbu) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
159 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation Continues the following dates 156 : The expert witness disclosure: November 30, 2011; The rebuttal expert witness disclosure: December 21, 2011;The close of expert discovery: January 13, 2012; The dispositive motion filing cutoff:January 30, 2012; The Final Pretrial Conference: February 27, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.;. The Trial (by Court, 10 days):March 20, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.; The discovery cutoff date is not continued by this order, but the discovery agreed to by the parties in the discovery stipulation to be filed with Magistrate Hillman may proceed nonetheless. (lc) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
160 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Matthew D Strugar counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby,

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 27 of 33

06/21/2011 07/22/2011 07/25/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 08/09/2011 08/10/2011 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 01/09/2012 01/31/2012 03/07/2012

Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White.Matthew D. Strugar is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Matthew D. Strugar (Strugar, Matthew) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
161 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
162 STIPULATION to Continue DEPOSITION SCHEDULE from JULY 18, 2011 to AUGUST 17, 2011 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
163 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: They deadline for the completion of the depositions referenced in the Courts June 13, 2011 Order (Docket No. 158) is continued from July 18, 2011 to August 17, 2011. re Stipulation to Continue 162 (lmh) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
164 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff Johnson, et al. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
165 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Paula D Pearlman counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff Johnson, et al. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
166 STIPULATION to Continue DEPOSITION SCHEDULE Re: Order, 163 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
167 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The deadline for the completion of the depositions referenced in the Courts June 13, 2011 Order (Docket No. 158) is continued from August 17, 2011 to September 1, 2011. re Stipulation to Continue 166 , Order 158 (lmh) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
168 STIPULATION to Continue DEPOSITION SCHEDULE Re: Order, 167 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
169 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The deadline for the completion of the depositions referenced in the Courts August 10, 2011 Order (Docket No. 167) is continued from September 1, 2011 to September 22, 2011. re Stipulation to Continue 168 (lmh) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
170 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Certain Pre Trial Deadlines; Request for Ruling of Class Certification Motion filed by plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
171 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation to Continues the following deadlines 170 : expert disclosure: 2/2/12; rebuttal expert witness disclosure: 2/22/12; close of expert discovery: 3/30/12; final pretrial conference: 7/2/12 11:00 AM; Court trial: 7/24/`2 9:00. (lc) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
172 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White.Shawna L. Parks is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson et al. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 28 of 33

03/09/2012 03/12/2012 03/15/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012 04/03/2012
04/10/2012 05/29/2012 06/08/2012
08/28/2012

173 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Certain Pretrial Deadlines filed by plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bayley, Kevin) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
174 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Paula D Pearlman counsel for Plaintiff Peter Johnson.Tiffany A. Green is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson et al. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
175 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Adding Maria Michelle Uzeta as attorney as counsel of record for Peter Johnson et al. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
176 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Melinda Ruth Bird counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Changing address to 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Changing fax number to 213−213−8001. Filed by plaintiff Johnson, et al. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
177 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin Michael Bayley counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Changing address to 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Changing fax number to 213−213−8001. Filed by plaintiff Johnson, et al. (Bayley, Kevin) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
178 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 173 1. The close of expert discovery, presently set for March 30, 2012 is continued to June 22, 2012;2. The dispositive motion filing cutoff, presently set for March 9, 2012is continued to June 8, 2012;. The Final Pretrial Conference, presently set for July 2, 2012, is continued to September 24, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.; The Trial (by Court, 10 days), presently set for July 24, 2012, is continued to October 16, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.; Further, the Court orders the following new dates for the briefing schedule for dispositive motions:1. Oppositions to dispositive motions will be due no later than July 11, 2012; 2. Replies to oppositions will be due no later than July 27, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
179 APPLICATION of Registered Legal Services Attorney Umbreen Bhatti to practice before the Court filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Order of RLSA to Practice Before the Court)(Bhatti, Umbreen) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
180 STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Certain Pretrial Deadlines filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Continuing Dates)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
181 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation continues the following dates 180 :. The close of expert discovery: September 7, 2012; The dispositive motion filing cutoff: September 21, 2012; The Final Pretrial Conference: February 11, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.; The Court Trial: March 5, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the parties stipulation, the following briefing schedule for dispositive motions is set: Oppositions to dispositive motions will be due no later than October 5, 2012; Replies to oppositions will be due no later than October 22, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
182 STIPULATION to Continue TRIAL DATE AND CERTAIN PRETRIAL DEADLINES Re: Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,, 181 filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 29 of 33

09/07/2012
09/21/2012 10/15/2012 12/18/2012 01/22/2013 01/23/2013
03/19/2013 05/02/2013 05/06/2013 11/06/2013 11/26/2013 07/03/2014 07/11/2014

183 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation continues trial date and certain pretrial deadlines 182 :1. The close of expert discovery, presently set for September 7, 2012, is continued to February 7, 2013; 2. The dispositive motion filing cutoff, presently set for September 21, 2012, is continued to February 21, 2013; 3. The Final Pretrial Conference, presently set for February 11, 2013, is continued to July 22, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.; 4. The Court Trial presently set for March 5, 2013, is continued to August 6, 2013 9:00 a.m. (lc) Modified on 9/7/2012 (lc). (Entered: 09/07/2012)
184 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Filed by plaintiffs Peter Johnson, et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
185 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: As reflected on the record, Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No. 107 ) is GRANTED. (jre) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
186 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
187 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Certain Pretrial Deadlines from August 6, 2013, etc. to October 22, 2013, etc. filed by Plaintiff Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Continuing Dates and Deadlines)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
188 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 187 1. The close of expert discovery, presently set for February 7, 2013 is continued to May 2, 2013; 2. The dispositive motion filing cutoff, presently set for February 21,2013, is continued to May 16, 2013; 3. The Final Pretrial Conference, presently set for July 22, 2013 at 11:00 a.m., is continued to October 7, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.; and 4. The Trial (by Court, 10 days), presently set for August 6, 2013 at9:00 a.m., is continued to October 22, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
189 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Melinda Ruth Bird counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White.Kevin Bayley is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Peter Johnson et al. (Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
190 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Certain PreTrial Deadlines from 10/22/2013 to 3/25/14 Re: Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,, 188 , Stipulation to Continue, 187 filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
191 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation to Continues the following dates 190 : close of expert discovery: 11/1/13; dispositive motion filing cutoff: 11/22/13; final pretrial conference: 3/10/14 11:00 AM. Court Trial: 3/25/14 9:00 AM. (lc) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
192 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Peter Johnson. Adding Richard Diaz as attorney as counsel of record for Peter Johnson for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
193 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Peter Johnson. Michelle Uzeta is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Peter Johnson. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
194 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:A brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, re: status of settlement shall be filed by defense counsel not later than July 14, 2014. (lc) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
195 STIPULATION to Continue DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF STATUS REPORT RE: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS from July 14, 2014 to July 18, 2014 filed by

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 30 of 33

07/14/2014 08/27/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014
09/03/2014
09/03/2014 09/22/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014

DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
196 ORDER that he deadline for the submission of a status report regarding settlement negotiations is continued from July 14, 2014 to July 18, 20 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
197 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:THE COURT NOTES the STATUS REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS was not filed on July 18, 2014 as ordered. Therefore, a STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT is hereby set for Monday,September 22, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel shall appear in person. (lc) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
198 Notice of Electronic Filing re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set/Reset Hearing 197 e−mailed to Attorney Gregory A Martin at gmartin@winston.com bounced due to invalid email. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ir) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/28/2014)
199 Notice of Electronic Filing re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set/Reset Hearing 197 , Text Only Bounced Notice of Electronic Filing E−mail 198 e−mailed to Attorney Anna Segobia Masters at amasters@winston.com bounced due to invalid email. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to anna.masters@teledyne.com. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ir) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/28/2014)
200 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Richard Brian Diaz counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Adding Richard Diaz as attorney as counsel of record for Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael J. Curfman, Andre Butler, Columbus Grigsby, Derrick M. White, Joe Gonzalez for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael J. Curfman, Andre Butler, Columbus Grigsby, Derrick M. White, Joe Gonzalez. (Attorney Richard Brian Diaz added to party Andre Butler(pty:pla), Attorney Richard Brian Diaz added to party Joe Gonzalez(pty:pla), Attorney Richard Brian Diaz added to party Columbus Grigsby(pty:pla), Attorney Richard Brian Diaz added to party Derrick M White(pty:pla))(Diaz, Richard) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
201 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Richard Brian Diaz counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Paula Dee Pearlman is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson, Michael J. Curfman, Andre Butler, Columbus Grigsby, Derrick M. White, Joe Gonzalez. (Diaz, Richard) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
202 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court set the following dates: AN ADDITIONAL STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT:October 6, 2014 11:30 AM; FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: February 2, 2015 11:00 AM; COURT TRIAL: February 10, 2015 9:00 AM.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
203 STIPULATION to Continue OCTOBER 6, 2014 STATUS CONFERENCE filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
204 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 203 the hearings originally scheduled have been rescheduled: re Stipulation tThe October 6, 2014 status conference is continued to Wednesday, October 8, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. (lc) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 31 of 33

10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/09/2014 10/16/2014 10/23/2014 11/14/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014
02/11/2015 03/02/2015

205 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Stephen R Smerek counsel for Plaintiffs Michael J Curfman, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson. Gregory A. Martin is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Donald Peterson, Peter Johnson and Michael J. Curfman. (Smerek, Stephen) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
206 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court and counsel confer re case status. Court Reporter: None Present. (lom) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
207 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Justin W Clark counsel for Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Filed by Defendants Leroy Baca, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Matthew P. Allen is no longer Attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reasons indicated in the G−123 Notice.. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
208 STIPULATION for Order REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
209 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 208 The parties shall jointly file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in this matter by November 14, 2014, which will be set for hearing on Monday, November 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
210 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement; and Order Directing Notice to the Class and Scheduling a Fairness Hearing; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Motion set for hearing on 11/24/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melinda Bird, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A−1, # 4 Exhibit A−2, # 5 Exhibit A−3, # 6 Exhibit A−4, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Exhibit F, # 12 Exhibit G, # 13 Exhibit H, # 14 Exhibit I, # 15 Exhibit J, # 16 Exhibit K, # 17 Exhibit L, # 18 Exhibit M, # 19 Exhibit N, # 20 Exhibit O, # 21 Exhibit P, # 22 Exhibit Q, # 23 Exhibit R, # 24 Exhibit S, # 25 Proposed Order)(Smerek, Stephen) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
211 MINUTES OF MOTION Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: RE MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 210 . Court and counsel confer as reflected on the record. The matter is granted with an order to be issued hereafter.Court Reporter: Maria Busti. (lc) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
212 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT,DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND SCHEDULING A FAIRNESS HEARING by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: By March 2, 2015, the parties shall file a motion for final approval of the settlement including all valid and timely objections to the settlement and any responses thereto. The Court shall conduct a Fairness Hearing on March 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of adjudging final approval of the settlement. The Named Plaintiffs shall file a Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys Fees no later than March 2, 2015. Defendants shall file a Notice of Non−Opposition to the Fees Motion no later than March 9, 2015. The February 2, 2015 Final Pretrial Conference and February 10, 2015 trial are hereby vacated. (lc) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
213 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, ORDERING Letter submitted by Plaintiff Peter Johnson received on 2/9/15 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: LR 83−2.5 no letters to the Judge. (lc) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
214 NOTICE filed by plaintiff Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Melinda Bird, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Richard Diaz, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 32 of 33

03/02/2015
03/04/2015
03/09/2015 03/23/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 05/27/2015 06/05/2015 06/08/2015
12/15/2015 01/06/2016

Declaration of Richard Diaz, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Richard Diaz, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Richard Diaz, # 6 Declaration Declaration of Sergeant John Mahaffey, # 7 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Class Settlement, # 8 Exhibit A to Proposed Order−Settlement Agreement)(Bird, Melinda) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
215 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Motion set for hearing on 3/23/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Richard Diaz Declaration, # 2 Declaration Melinda Bird Declaration, # 3 Declaration Jessica Price Declaration, # 4 Declaration Stephen Smerek Declaration, # 5 Declaration Barrett S Litt Declaration, # 6 Declaration Laurence W Paradis Declaration, # 7 Proposed Order)(Diaz, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
216 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other), 214 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Civil Events − select Motions and Related Filings, select Motion − select order, schedule the hearing date and time, attach the document and the proposed order.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
217 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Attorney Fees 215 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Clark, Justin) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
218 MINUTES OF FAIRNESS HEARING (COURT ORDERED 11−24−14) AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES HEARING 215 held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson:The Fairness Hearing is conducted and motion is granted with an order to be issued hereafter.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
219 ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200,000.00 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
220 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (lc) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
221 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Richard Brian Diaz counsel for Plaintiff Peter Johnson. Filed by PLAINTIFF PETER JOHNSON. (Diaz, Richard) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
222 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by PLAINTIFF Peter Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, # 2 Proposed Order DISMISSING CASE)(Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
223 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJDUDICE, WITH RETENTION OF JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT IF NECESSARY by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, (see, Docket No. 210.2), the above−captioned action is dismissed with prejudice with the Court retaining jurisdiction over this action to enforce, if necessary, compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. (vv) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
224 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles. Adding Karen Joynt as counsel of record for Defendants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS. (Attorney Karen C Joynt added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
225 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles. Adding Tiana J. Murillo as counsel of record for County of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

Case: 2:08-cv-3515 As of: 11/28/2018 06:00 PM PST 33 of 33

09/08/2016 10/06/2016 01/05/2017
06/30/2017 12/08/2017 12/14/2017 12/14/2017
04/30/2018

226 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Karen C Joynt counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles. Tiana J. Murillo is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Joynt, Karen) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
227 STATUS REPORT Inspector General's First Implementation Status Report filed by Miscellaneous Office of the Inspector General. (Beltz, Cathleen) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
228 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Maronel Barajas counsel for Plaintiffs Andre Butler, Michael J Curfman, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Derrick M White. Changing address to (626) 389−8277. Filed by Plaintiff Maronel Barajas. (Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Andre Butler(pty:pla), Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Joe Gonzalez(pty:pla), Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Columbus Grigsby(pty:pla), Attorney Maronel Barajas added to party Derrick M White(pty:pla))(Barajas, Maronel) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
229 STATUS REPORT Inspector General's Second Implementation Status Report filed by Miscellaneous Office of the Inspector General. (Beltz, Cathleen) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
230 STIPULATION for Order Extend the Settlement Term filed by defendant Lee Baca, County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Clark, Justin) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
231 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GRANTING Stipulation Extending the Settlement Term. (pg) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
232 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Stipulation to Extend Settlement Term 230 . The Court orders as follows: The three−year term of the settlement (as set forth in Section IX Duration of Agreement, Docket No. 210.2 Exhibit A), shall be extended by one (1) year, to April 22, 2019. All other provisions of the settlement agreement are unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect. The Office of the Inspector Generals (OIG) next report to the Parties and the Court shall be due in April, 2018, on a date to be coordinated between the Parties and OIG. (shb) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
233 STATUS REPORT filed by Miscellaneous Office of the Inspector General. (Beltz, Cathleen) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

 
 PETER JOHNSON, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., U.S.D.C. CASE NO. CV 08 - 03515 DDP (SHX) - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. Recitals A. This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter, "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between, on the one hand, Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Michael Curfinan, Andre Butler, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, Derrick White, individually and on behalf of the Plaintiff Class (as defined below) collectively, "Plaintiffs"); and Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD"), a public entity; Leroy Baca-John Scott, in his official capacity as Sheriff ofthe County of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles (collectively, "Defendants"), on the other hand. Hereinafter, Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to as "the Parties. " B. This Agreement resolves the lawsuit filed on May 29,2008, entitled Johnson, et al. v. County ofLos Angeles, et al., United States District Court of the Central District of California Case Number CV 08-03515 DDP (SHx) (hereinafter, "Action") alleging that Defendants have discriminated against inmates with mobility impairments in the Los Angeles County Jail system, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; California's Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54 et seq, California Government Code § 11135, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants deny all of the allegations against them. C. By entry into this Agreement, the Parties intend to resolve all claims that were actually, or could have been, raised in the Action by Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class (as to injunctive relief only).
II. Definitions As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them
in this Section, which are consistent with the provisions of existing Federal and State law. Except to the extent explicitly stated to the contrary, any tern1 not expressly defined in this
1 Settlement Agreement

Section or elsewhere in this Agreement that has an expressly defined meaning under the ADA shall have the meaning ascribed to it under applicable law. All other terms shall be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
A. The term "Effective Date" means the later of either the expiration of the deadline for any appeal of the District Court's order approving the Parties' settlement and no appeal having been filed or, in the event any appeal is filed, the date the appeal is resolved and the District Court's order is affirmed.
B. The term "Jail" or "Jail Settings" means any LASD jail facility used to permanently house inmates with mobility impairments, which is presently Men's Central Jail ("MCJ") and the Twin Towers Correctional Facility ("TTCF") . For purposes of providing notice of this Agreement detailed in Section IV - D below, "Jail Settings" includes the Inmate Reception Center.
C. The term "Medical Professional" means physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and/or registered nurses.
D. The terms "Class," "Plaintiff Class," or "Class Members" mean all present and future detainees and inmates with mobility impairments who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance witll federal and state disabilities laws.
E. The term "Class Counsel" means Disability Rights Legal Center ("DRLC"), the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California ("ACLU"), Disability Rights California ("DRC") and Winston & Strawn, LLP.
III. Goals of the Agreement A. The objective of the Parties in enteling into this Agreement is to ensure that Defendants provide Class Members with non-discriminatory and meaningful access to programs, services, and activities available to non-mobility impaired inmates in all Jail Settings. B. Nothing stated within this Agreement, nor the fact of this Agreement, shall be construed in this Action or any other proceeding as an admission of Defendants' liability, which Defendants expressly deny, of any of the claims or allegations in the Action.
2 Settlement Agreement

NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
IV. Settlement Approval A. Following approval by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and execution of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will immediately move the Court for an Order granting preliminary approval ofthis Agreement, and setting a hearing for Final Approval of this Agreement. Defendants will not oppose this motion. B. The Court will hold a hearing to establish the fairness of the Agreement and to decide whether there will be Final Approval. This hearing will take place at a date to be set by the Court. C. The Parties will negotiate and draft a proposed notice to the Class, which shall include the terms of this settlement and their right to object thereto. The Parties will make any edits or modifications to the draft notice should such edits or modifications be directed by the Court. The proposed notice shall be attached to and incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit A-I. D. The Parties shall develop a plan for posting the notice. At a minimum, the notice plan shall include the following: (1) posted notice in all Jail Settings operated by Defendants; (2) posted notice on DLRC's and DRC's web sites, and (3) posted notice on the LASD 's website. All postings will be in accessible formats. The Parties will provide alternate format copies of the notice upon request. Notice will be posted/disttibuted by the Parties within three (3) working days of the date of the Court's Order granting Preliminary Approval, and shall remain posted for no less than thirty (30) days. The Parties will submit declarations to the Court as part of the motion for Final Approval confirming notice has been issued according to this paragraph. E. Any Class Member may object to the proposed Agreement by submitting their objection to Class Counsel in writing, via regular or electronic mail, or by leaving a message with their objection via telephone, TTY and/or Video Relay Service on a toll free number to be established by Class Counsel ("Objections") no later than a date set
3 Settlement Agreement

by the Court in this case after preliminary approval of the Agreement. All Objections will be provided to Defendants' Counsel and filed with the Court. Only Class Members that have properly submitted objections to this Agreement will have the right, if they seek it in their Objections, to present objections at the fairness hearing. F. The County shall provide notice as required by the Class Action Faimess Act to appropriate officials as required by that Act.
v. Injunctive Relief
A. Programming I. Defendants agree that Class Members have and will continue to have access to all programming (including the same programming made available to veterans) that non-mobility-impaired inmates have in Jail Settings. 2. Mobility impairment(s) will not serve to disqualifY Class Members from participating in programming in which they are otherwise eligible to participate. 3. Class Members will be escorted, to the extent necessary, to any program in which they are otherwise eligible (0 participate in, provided that program is available in the facility in which the inmate is housed. 4. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create an obligation on the pal1 of Defendants to transport Class Members to another facility to participate in a particular program. 5. Subject to security classification and eligibility requirements, Defendants agree that Class Members may serve as trustys on the same floor on which they are housed. Defendants agree that relevant LASD personnel will be trained to ensure compliance with this term. Defendants further agree to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the tasks that trustys regularly perform in the Jail. Defendants further agree to identifY some of the specific jobs that Class Members may perform. 6. Defendants agree to notify Class Members of the programs available to them in either paper or electronic format, or both.
4
Settlement Agreement

7. Notification of available programs will also be provided during "town hall" meetings held at the Jail where appropriate.
B. Physical Therapy and Outdoor Recreation I. Plaintiffs dispute whether the LASD has properly equipped and staffed an area within the Jail to provide physical therapy. Notwithstanding this dispute, the Parties agree as follows: a. Defendants agree that Class Members will have access to physical therapy as prescribed by LASD medical professionals. b. Defendants shall continue to maintain and staff a physical therapy room in MC] and further agree to attempt to locale space in TTCF for a similar room (essentially, a mini clinic) to provide physical therapy to Class Members once they are moved into housing locations in that facility. c. Defendants further agree to make a good faith effort to obtain additional resources to bolster the availability of physical therapy for all imnates, including Class Members. 2. The LASD will continue to count outdoor recreation time for Class Members from when the inmates an·ive at the recreation area, not when th ey leave their housing location. LASD shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all LASD personnel are aware of this policy. 3. To the extent possible, and taking into account operational and logistical considerations, the time of day Class Members are offered outdoor recreation will rotate. 4. Class Members who have been prescribed thermal clothing as a reasonable accommodation for their disability so that they may participate in outdoor recreation will be provided wann coats and/or themlal clothing. LASD shall inform Class Members that they may request thermal clothing as a reasonable accommodation, and shall develop and distribute a unit order to ensure that all LASD personnel are aware of this policy.
5 Settlement Agreement

C. Physical Accessibility I. Presently, Class Members are housed on the 7000 and 8000 floors ofMCJ, physical improvements to which have been made to make these housing areas suitable for individuals with mobility impairments. Class Members are also housed in Module 232 ofTTCF, which was modified as described below. The Parties agree that the areas of MCJ currently used to house Class Members may continue to be used as housing for the class (with the exception of class members who use wheelchairs in their housing locations and do not require medical housing). Defendants agree that they shall not make any material physical alterations to the areas that presently house Class Members in MCJ without providing advance notice to counsel for the Class. 2. Defendants have already completed certain construction to improve the physical accessibility of the Jail including, without limitation, the construction of accessible restrooms in the Inmate Reception Center, the installation of accessible toilets and showers in various locations on the 7000 and 8000 floor of MCJ, and the installation of grab bars in various areas of the Jail. 3. Housing for Class Members will be gradually expanded from MCJ to newly constructed, ADA compliant housing location s in the TTCF as described below. 4. The housing expan sion for Class Members in TTCF will occur in the following phases: a. Phase 1: Identify appropriate locations in TTCF for the construction of accessible housing modules. Modules 231 , 232, and 272 were identified; i. Projected Completion Date: Complete.
b. Phase 2 - A: Inmate Processing Pilot Project to evaluate impact of repUlposing Modules 231 /232 (which are currently used as medical overflow) ; i. Projected Completion Date: Complete.
6 Settlement Agreement

c. Phase 2 - B: Closing of Module 231 and the construction of accessible housing including: the installation of 24 accessible toilets, the construction of 6 accessible showers, the installation of 6 new stainless steel frames in the upper tier showers; i. Projected Completion Date: Complete.
d. Phase 2 - C: Reopening of Module 231 as medical overflow for IRC processing; i. Projected Completion Date: Complete.
e. Phase 3: Repurposing of Module 232 and construction of approximately 60 accessible beds and subsequent transfer of 60 inmates with mobility impairments to TTCF; i. Projected Completion Date: Complete.
f. Phase 4: Installation of grab bars and shower benches in approximately 30 cells in housing locations outside of Modules 231 and 232 to be determined by Defendants; i. Projected Completion Date: 120 days after the Effective Date.
g. Phase 5: Construction of approximately 96 accessible beds in Module 272 ofTTCF; ii. Projected Completion Date: Approximately 24 months after approval of funding, which will be sought by the Sheriffs Department but requires the approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
7 Settlement Agreement

5. Construction plans for the facilities to be constructed in the TTCF will be shared with the Class Counsel, for review and input. Class Counsel will not, however, have the authority to veto any portion of the plans.

D. Use of Mobility Devices

1. Initial Decisions and Ongoing Evaluations: Initial decisions and ongoing

evaluations regarding Class Member's need, if any, for the use of a mobility

assistive device are and will continue to be made by LASD Medical

Professionals.

2. Secondary Review: In the event a Class Member disputes a decision made by

LASD Medical Professionals regarding the need, if any, for a mobility assistive

device, the Class Member may request and receive a secondary review of the

determination regarding his or her need for a mobility assistive device and/or the

type of device requested.

a. The secondary review will be conducted by the Chief Physician or

his/her designee; and

b. The secondary review will include an independent evaluation.

3. Complaint Procedure: Defendants have an existing grievance system in the Jail and

the grievance form has been modified to include an "ADA" box , which will

facilitate forwarding all "ADA" complaints to Defendants' ADA coordinators

(addressed in greater detail below). Within 90 days of the Effective Date, LASD

shall create and distribute a leaflet ("Assistive Device Leaflet") to be available at

the Jail to advise Class Members of their rights pertaining to detenninations

regarding their need, if any, for mobility assistive devices. Within 30 days of the

Effective Date, Plaintiffs shall provide LASD with proposed language for this

leaflet, which Defendants will have the opportunity to revise.

a.

At a minimum , the Assistive Device Leaflet shall include

infonnation regarding Class Member's right to:

8 Settlement Agreement

1. Be assessed and re-evaluated (in accordance with established medical standards) for the need for a mobility assistive device;
11. Obtain a secondary review of determinations regarding mobility assistive device need;
iii. File a grievance challenging a determination regarding the inmate's need, if any, for an assistive device; and
iv. Keep an assistive device while a secondary review and/or grievance regarding a decision concerning an assistive device is under review.
4. As set forth in this Agreement in Section "M" below, Defendants have policies and guidelines for tracking complications common to inmates with mobility impairments and Defendants agree to continue to track such complications using existing policies and guidelines. Defendants do not currently have the ability to run searches and provide statistics about assistive device usage to Plaintiffs' counsel, but may have this ability in the future once the LASD ' s medical records system is fully upgraded - this process is already underway. Defendants agree to provide statistics from the upgraded system, to the extent feasible, when the upgrades are completed.
5. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants agree to investigate the availability of, and seek the provision of, training for LASD medical professionals from Rancho Los Amigos regarding wheelchair seating to reduce complications commonly attributable to wheelchair use.
6. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants' policies and guidelines for tracking complications common to individuals with mobility impairments will be made public in all Jail Settings.
E. Wheelchairs And Prostheses
1. Defendants agree that wheelchairs that are medically prescribed will be maintained in working order (including functional brakes and footrests unless
9 Settlement Agreement

otherwise prescribed by LASD Medical Professionals) and will be serviced on a regular basis to the extent feasible. Maintenance will include the use of the wheelchair repair shop at the Pitchess Detention Center. Defendants agree to track wheelchairs, their issuance and their conditions, using RFID transmitters on a pilot basis. Defendants further agree that wheelchairs with movable annrests may be provided to Class Members who require them if a custody safe option can be located at a comparable price to wheelchairs the LASD currently purchases. Defendants agree to explore the availability of such wheelchairs, and welcome any suggestions Plaintiffs may have.
2. Personal wheelchairs are currently and will continue to be stored and returned to Class Members upon release from LASD custody.
3. Plaintiffs dispute whether Defendants have an appropriate policy regarding the release of Class Members who need assistive devices but do not have personal assistive devices available to them upon release. Without resolving any disputes about past practices: a. Defendants agree to codify in written policies and procedures existing practices governing the release of Class Members who need assistive devices but do not have personal assistive devices available to them upon release; and b. Defendants will provide thi s policy to Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.
4. Consistent with existing LASD policy, Defendants will ensure that all prostheses are returned to Class Members within 24 hours if not detelmined to pose a security risk.
F. ADA Coordinators 1. The LASD will staff Jail Settings with one or more ADA coordinator(s). Defendants will dedicate sufficient resources toward the ADA coordinator(s) position to ensure that necessary duties are being carried out in an appropriate
10 Settlement Agreement

fashion. The ADA coordinator(s) will be assigned to the Quality Assurance Unit of the Medical Services Bureau.
a. The duties of the ADA coordinator(s) will include: 1. Interfacing with LASD custody and medical staff to ensure that Class Members receive reasonable accommodations as prescribed by LASD Medical Professionals. 11. Reviewing, investigating, and resolving inmate grievances on which the existing "ADA" box is checked, or which have been designated ADA grievances, which will be forwarded to the ADA coordinator(s) for disposition and which will be retained consistent with the LASD's existing grievance policy; v. Answering and logging phone calls made to the LASD's ADA coordinator telephone number; v!. Training LASD personnel working in units that house inmates with mobility impairments; VII. Responding to imnate grievances in a manner consistent with LASD's existing grievance policy; and v. Responding to Class Counsel in writing to report the resolution of any inmate grievance that Class Counsel provided, orally or in writing, to the ADA coordinator. Ifresolution is not reached within 30 days of the report to the ADA coordinator, a status report on the grievance shall be provided to Plaintiffs counsel in writing every thirty 30 days until resolution is reached. The communications required by this section are in addition to, not in lieu of, the responses and communications required by LASD's existing grievance policy and pursuant to section vii, above.
2. The ADA coordinator(s) shall have authority to make recommendations regarding the provision of reasonable accommodations to Class Members including, when necessary, the authority to bring issues to the attention of LASD executives (including, without limitation, the Chief of the Custody Division) for resolution.
11 Settlement Agreement

3. Plaintiffs will assist in training the ADA coordinator(s). The ADA coordinator(s) will be assigned and trained within 60 days of the Effective Date.
G. Grievance Form 1. The LASD's grievance form does and will continue to include an "ADA" box. 2. All grievances involving mobility assistive devices and the physical accessibility of the Jail shall be designated "ADA" grievances even if the inmate who filed the grievance did not check the "ADA" box. 3. The response time for ADA grievances will be no more than that allowed under the standard grievance policy. 4. ADA grievances will not be designated as "basic" grievances. 5. Defendants will keep copies of all ADA grievances, for purposes of monitoring in this matter.
H. Accommodations 1. Plaintiffs dispute whether Defendants have provided Class Members with reasonable accommodations when requested. Regardless, Defendants agree that Class Members shall receive reasonable accommodations when they request them and as prescribed by LASD medical professionals. b. Accommodations may include, but are not limited to: assignment to lower bunks; changes of clothing; extra blankets; allowance of extra time to respond to visitor calls and attorney visits; shower benches; assistive device to travel outside of a housing module; and assignment to a cell with accessible features
2. InfoIDlation reflecting orders by LASD Medical Professionals for accommodations for Class Members shall be accessible to custody staff so that they may be implemented in housing areas.
3. Defendants agree to explore the feasibility of adding a tab to the current medical records system (as prui of upgrades), to track mobility assistive device requests and assessments by LASD Medical Professionals of Class Members.
12 Settlement Agreement

I. Notification of Rights I. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the Inmate Roadmap to Custody, which is used to notify Class Members of rules and regulations in the Jail, including their rights under the ADA.
J. Training 1. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants will begin providing reasonable training to Jail personnel (including medical personnel) consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 2. Plaintiffs agree to assist with the preparation of the subject training materials.
K. Transportation
1. Class Members who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids are and will continue to be transported in accessible vans and will be secured during transport.
L. Portability of Agreement
1. This Agreement will be in effect at any housing facility in which the LASD permanently houses Class Members unless compliance at such housing facility would result in undue financial or administrative burdens.
M. Monitoring I Continued Jurisdiction of the Court I. Consistent with the recommendations of the Citizen's Commission on Jail Violence, Defendants' compliance with the tenns of this Agreement shall be monitored by the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"). Defendants will ensure that the OIG provides reasonable and regular reports to the Parties and the Court, the contents of which will be developed in consultation with Class Counsel. The Parties agree to meet and confer after the estab lishment of the OIG to develop recommendations to the OIG about the contents of the OIG 's reports. Until the OIG assumes monitoring duties, Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Agreement will be monitored by the Assistant Sheriff of Custody Operations of the LASD and her staff.
13 Settlement Agreement

2. Defendants further agree that Class Counsel can have reasonable access to inmates and semi-annual meetings (or as required) with the OIG to receive updates regarding Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
3. Defendants will notify Class Counsel of any changes to the followingjail policies within thirty (30) days of the changes, and will provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with copies of the modified policies. a. Assistive devices and accommodations: I. Wheelchair policy (MCJ): 914-915 2. Medical Appliances (MSB): 1697-1 698 3. Medical Prostheses (MSB): 1702-1704 4. Medical Aids (CDM): 1757 5. Orthopedic Footwear (CDM): 4150 6. Custody Division Directive 20-008 (Formal), "Inmate Lower Bunk Assignments": 4158-4159 7. Medical Aids (CDM): 4228 8. Inmate Lower Bunk Assignments (CDM): 5541 9. Wheelchair Policy (MCJ): 5549-5550 10. Wheelchairs - Personal (MSB): 6859-6860 11. Medical Appliances (MSB): 6861-6862 12. Wheelchair Clean ing (MSB): 6869 13. Wheelchair Control and Monitoring (MSB): 6870-6872 14. CTC Policy and Procedure Manual - Wheelchair and Gurney Use: 6897-6899 15. Medical Appliance (Tower I): 6902-6904 16. Medical Appliance (Tower II): 69 11-6913 b. Tmstys I. Inmate Workers (MSB): 1650 2. Trusties (MSB): 1651 c. Intake and classification 1. Admission Criteria for Outpatient Housing (MCJ): 1633-1636
14 Settlement Agreement

2. Inmate Reception Center Health Screening - Male: 1637-1649 3. Medical Wristbands (MSB): 1705-1717 4. Admission/Transfer of Patients from IRC to MSB & MCJ
(8000,8100, 6050)(MSB): 1720-1724 5. Inmate Reception Center Clinic Temporary Medical Holding
Cell (MSB): 1727-1728 6. Pre-Screening (CDM): 1754 (refers to medical pre-screening at
IRC). 7. Medical/Mental Health Screening Form: 1765 8. Arrestee Medical Screening Form: 1766-1769 9. Inmate intake informational brochure: 4156-4157 10. Medical and/or Mental Health Expedite, Unit Order #99 (IRC):
5545-5547 11. Inmate Orientation (MC]): 5551-5552 d. Physical Therapy 1. CTC Policy and Procedure Manual - Physical Therapy: 1658-
1659 2. Physical Therapy (MSB): 4218-4219 e. Complaint Procedures 1. Handling an Americans With Disabilities Complaint (CDM):
1758 2. Inmate Complaint/Service Requests (CDM): 1759-1764 (same
as above) 3. Infonnational Bulletin: Procedures for Handling an Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) Complaint: 4151 4. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complaint Procedures:
4152-4153 f. General policies, forms and materials
1. Policy on Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability: 4170 2. ADA Training Materials: 4428-4447
15 Settlement Agreement

3. Sheriff's Bulletin #524 - Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Unit And Disability Etiquette: 5542
4. The Court will maintain jurisdiction for purposes of monitoring, as set forth below.
VI. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Payment to the Named Plaintiffs 1. No later than ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, Defendants will pay Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of$2,200,000. Defendants will 110t have any further obligation to pay any additional fees or costs beyond the amount listed in this section. Also, 110 later than ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs Peter Johnson, Donald Peterson, Michael Curfman, Andre Butler, Joe Gonzalez, Columbus Grigsby, and Derrick White $2,000 each ("the named Plaintiffs"). The aforementioned payments shall be made in the form of a warrant payable to the client trust account of the Disability Rights Legal Center ("DRLC"). 2. Payment of the amounts listed above are contingent upon the provision to Defendants by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel of completed W-9 forms or other related documentation for each payee. 3. The payments to each of the named Plaintiffs in Section V.l above are in full and final satisfaction of any and all cl aims for monetary damages by each of them. In addition, the named Plaintiffs hereby agree that the releases set forth in Section VII below shall apply to and bar any and all claims that they have for monetary damages.
VII. Dispute Resolution 1. The Parties will negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute relating to any interpretation or implementation of this Agreement. 2. In the event Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are not in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will notify Defendants of such noncompliance within 30 days of Plaintiffs becoming aware of any issues of alleged noncompliance or within 10 days of completing Plaintiffs' investigation of any alleged noncompliance. Notification will be in writing and will be provided to counsel for Defendants.
16 Settlement Agreement

3. Defendants will have thirty (30) days following receipt of the notification to respond to Plaintiffs concerning the alleged noncompliance. If appropriate, Defendants' response shall include the involved inmates' names, the names of the medical professionals involved, and a description of the steps taken to resolve the alleged noncompliance as to each incident or inmate.
4. Following Plaintiffs' receipt of Defendants' response, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve any remaining disputes regarding the alleged noncompliance differences. Plaintiffs agree not to file any motion to enforce this Agreement until this di spute resolution process has been completed and then only if the alleged noncompliance has not been corrected or deemed to be unfounded. Any motion to enforce this Agreement will be brought in the court in which this Action was filed.
5. In the event it becomes necessary for Class Counsel to incur costs and/or attorney's fees to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any enforcement litigation will be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, in accordance with the standards set fOllh in Christianberg Garment Company v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), not to exceed $20,000 (which is included in the amount to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel in Section VI above) for the duration of this Agreement.
VIII. Releases 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set forth herein, Plaintiffs, for themselves, the Class, their successors and their assigns, hereby release and discharge Defendants and their successors, assigns, officers, directors, and past and present agents, attomeys and employees ("Released Pallies"), from any and all claims for declaratory or injunctive relief raised in the Action. 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and in consideration of such payments, Plaintiffs and the Class hereby release and forever discharge the Released Parties from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations and liabilities that have arisen at any time for the duration of the term of this Agreement that were or could have been asserted in this Action conceming the events alleged in Plaintiffs' operative pleading, whether based on statute, regulation, contract, tort or other legal or
17 Settlement Agreement

equitable theory of recovery whatsoever, and whether known or unknown. This release includes a release of damages claims by the named Plaintiffs individually. However, nothing in this Agreement will be interpreted as a release by the Class of any claim for damages. 3. Plaintiffs and the Class expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits afforded by Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any similar law, and do so acknowledging the significance and consequence of such specific waiver of Section 1542. Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California states as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 4. Thus, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1542, and for the purposes of implementing a full and complete release, Plaintiffs and the Class expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is intended to include in its effect, without limitation, any claims which Plaintiffs and the Class do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of execution hereof, and that this Agreement contemplates the extinguishment of any such claim or claims. 5. Plaintiffs and the Class represent and warrant that (a) they have the full authority and capacity to make the agreements, covenants, and releases set forth in this Agreement, and (b) they are the owners of, and have not assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer, to any person or entity, any claim, as defined above, or any portion thereof or any interest therein, and (c) no other person or entity owns, holds, or has any interest in the claims, rights or causes of action described or released herein. 6. Plaintiffs and the Class represent and warrant that they have consulted with and have had the advice of Plaintiffs' counsel and that they are entering into this Agreement voluntarily, after independent investigation, and without fraud, duress, or undue influence.
18 Settlement Agreement

7. Plaintiffs and the Class represent and acknowledge that in executing this Agreement, they do not rely upon, and have not relied upon, any representation or statement made by any of the Defendants' past or present agents, representatives, or attorneys with regard to the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement.
8. In executing this Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Class acknowledge and agree that no representations, promises, agreements, offers or assurances, have been made by the County of Los Angeles or any of the Defendants regarding the actual or potential tax liability or consequences that may be assessed upon Plaintiffs, the Class, Plaintiffs' counsel, nor their assignees as a result of the monies paid to Plaintiffs or their counsel to resolve this action.
IX. Duration of Agreement 1. This Agreement shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the Effective Date, after which time its provisions will automatically terminate unless the Court determines that, based on applicable law and specific findings of fact, that it is necessary to extend the duration of this Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this Action for the purpose of enforcing, if necessary, compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties and their counsel will have standing to seek enforcement of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the Parties from seeking to reduce, or the Court reducing, the duration of this Agreement.
X. Court Approval And Dismissal I. This Agreement shall be of no force and effect unless and until it receives final approval by the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law, and its approval is upheld on any appeal there from. 2. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Class Counsel will file, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class, a Request For Dismissal with prejudice with the Court, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement as set forth above. The Request for Dismissal will expressly require that the Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing this Agreement; and the proposed Dismissal Order will expressly incorporate the terms ofthis Agreement.
19 Settlement Agreement

XI. Entire Agreement 1. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties. No modifications or limits will be binding on the Parties unless expressly provided for in this Agreement or made by a written agreement signed by all Parties. This Agreement expresses the complete and final understanding with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. The Parties hereto understand and agree that the terms of this Agreement supersede any prior discussions, understandings, or agreements between them related to the subject matter hereof.
XI. Counterparts 1. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original, but all of which, when taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.
XII. Interpretation 1. This Agreement will be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. The headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and will not be considered in its interpretation. Where required by context, the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and joint drafting so that any ambiguity will not be construed against any Party.
XIII. Severability 1. In the event any pOJiion of this Agreement is deemed to be unenforceable, or is in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Agreement will be enforced and will remain in full force and effect.
XIV. Additional Documents 1. To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to cany out the terms of this Agreement.
20
Settlement Agreement

XV. Authority to Enter into Agreement 1. Each signatory to this Agreement certifies that it, he or she is fully authorized by the party it, he or she represents to enter into the Agreement, to execute it on behalf of the party represented, and to legally bind that party thereto.
XVI. Agents for the Parties 1. Any and all notices and information required to be given to either party to this Agreement will be sent to the following agents:
Plaintiffs and the Class: Richard Diaz Disability Rights Legal Center 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017
21 Settlement Agreement

XVII. Signatures

The undersigned parties acknowledge that they have read this Settlement Agreement and that they fully know its contents, and that they execute this Settlement Agreement and make the settlement provided for herein voluntarily and of their own free will. Please read carefully.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned execute this Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms.

Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated:

By: Peter Johnson, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Donald Peter, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Michael Curfinan, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Andre Butler, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Joe Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Columbus Grigsby, on behalf of himself and the Class
By: Derrick White, on behalf of himself and the Class
22
Settlement Agreement

Dated: _ __ __

By: Jennifer Lehman Assistant County Counsel Law Enforcement Services Division, on behalf of Defendants

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __

By: _ _________________________

Richard Diaz Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class Disability Rights Legal Center

Dated: _ __ _ _ _ __

By: ___________________________
Attorneys for Defendants Paul B. Beach Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC

23 Settlement Agreement

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __

ssistant County Counsel aw Enforcement Services Division, on behalf of Defendants
By: ____________________________
Richard Diaz Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class Disability Rights Legal Center

/J-LI-/-Y_ Dated: _-=-1-(//--=-3:...;..1 I/ '

Attorneys for_ efen ants Paul B. Beach Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC

23 Settlement Agreement