Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Damian Hart, et al., , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 77-479-PHX-EHC (MS)

ORDER

The following motions are now pending before the Court:

1. Defendants' "Pre-hearing Memorandum and Renewed Motion for Order to Terminate the Amended Judgment" (Doc. # 906);

2. Plaintiff's "Order for Appointment of Experts" (Doc. # 930);

3. Plaintiff's "Motion for Partial Judgment" (Doc. # 946);

4. Defendants' "Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's 1/21/04 Order and to Require Specification of All Alleged Current and Ongoing

Constitutional Violations (if any) in the Maricopa County Jails" (Doc. #

950);

5. Plaintiff's "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) to Compel Defendants to Allow Expert Inspection" (Doc. # 958);

6. Plaintiff's "Motion to Exclude 'Supplemental Evidence' Submitted by Defendants" (Doc. # 969);

7. Plaintiff's "Motion for Protective Order" (Doc. # 981-1);

8. Plaintiff's "Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas" (Doc. # 981-2);

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Hart v. Arpaio, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1771 at * 2 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2001)

(unpublished).

- 2 -

9. Plaintiff's "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(B) to Compel Defendants to Produce Relevant Documents" (Doc. # 989);

10. Defendants' "Motion to Entry of Scheduling Order" (Doc. # 998);

11. Plaintiff's "Motion to Exceed Page Limit on Reply Brief [to Motion to Compel at Doc. # 989]" (Doc. # 1003);

12. Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Allow Class Counsel Access to Class Members" (Doc. # 1019);

13. Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Declarations of Class Members and

Former Class Members" (Doc. # 1026);

14. Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Address Certain Matters First Raised in Plaintiff's Reply [re: Motion to

Allow Counsel Access to Class Members]" (Doc. # 1027); and, 

15. Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Allow Class Counsel Access to Class Members" (Doc. # 1093).

The Court will address each motion in turn.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court will explain the procedural history of this case to the extent that

reiteration is necessary to resolve the instant motions. 

An Amended Judgment was entered in this case on January 10, 1995. [Doc.

# 705]. The Amended Judgment "imposes extensive obligations on the county,"

including "ongoing compliance, monitoring and reporting," and enforcement

mechanisms, relating to many facets of jail operations for pretrial detainees.1

However, it is clear from the Amended Judgment that "[t]he provisions, conditions

and procedures contained [therein] have been negotiated by the parties and do not

represent a judicial determination of any constitutionally-mandated standard

applicable to the jails." [Doc. # 75 at 2, ¶ 2]. On April 8, 1998, Defendants filed a

Motion to Terminate the Amended Judgment pursuant to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act's ("PLRA") termination provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3626. [Doc.

# 755]. The Court denied Defendants' motion on September 10, 1998. [Doc. # 774].

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Defendants filed an appeal (Doc. # 777), and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed and remanded to the this Court for further consideration pursuant to

Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987 (2000), a decision that issued only after the

Motion to Terminate was denied in District Court. 

At an October 29, 2001 hearing (set to address Plaintiffs' motion to conduct

discovery), the Court ordered Defendants to submit a memorandum addressing

those aspects of the Maricopa County jail operations that potentially raise

constitutional concerns covered by the Amended Judgment, and with respect to

these areas, whether the County is operating the jails in a way that maintains the

rights of pretrial detainees. [Doc. # 831]. 

A. Defendants' 2001 Memorandum

Defendants submitted their Memorandum on November 28, 2001 ("2001

Memorandum"). [Doc. # 832]. The 2001 Memorandum addressed the following

areas: (1) population, housing and multiple bunking; (2) living conditions and medical

care (including ventilation, lighting, noise control, temperature, sanitation, food and

general living conditions); privileges (including access to reading materials, religious

services, mail, telephone, visitation and television); (3) and access to legal materials.

Plaintiffs responded to the 2001 Memorandum. [Doc. # 833 ("Response")].

In their Response at footnote 1, Plaintiffs stated that they "agree that the Defendants

have properly identified the subject areas of the Amended Judgment that implicate

constitutional concern. In fact, the Defendants have grouped many Amended

Judgment subjects in the four categories and have, therefore, covered almost

everything that has been dealt with in the Amended Judgment." [Id. at 2]. Plaintiffs

explicitly referenced in the Response the issue of adequate shelter, including

plumbing, washing facilities, hygiene and clean clothes and bedding, but note that

without discovery, they cannot confirm whether Defendants are complying with the

policy directives cited by Bill Williams in the Memorandum. [Id. at 5-6]. Plaintiffs did

not reference outdoor exercise specifically in their Response, however. Plaintiffs

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

conclude their Response by requesting an evidentiary hearing regarding

housing/overcrowding issues, and discovery as to the remaining issues. In their

Reply, Defendants contended that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, and that

the Court should not authorize any discovery. [Doc. # 834].

In its September 12, 2002 Order, the Court recognized that "Plaintiffs agree

that Defendants have properly identified the subject areas of the Amended

Judgment that implicate constitutional concern." [Doc. # 840]. The Court allowed

Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery, including the depositions of Bill Williams, Trina

Lambert, and an employee at the Sheriff's Office who may have information similar

to that possessed by Trina Lambert. [Id. at 4]. The Court also required Plaintiffs to

submit, by November 1, 2002, a report indicating whether they seek further

discovery and their position regarding termination of the Amended Judgment. [Id.].

B. Plaintiffs' 2002 Report

Plaintiffs filed their Report on November 1, 2002 ("2002 Report"). [Doc. #

852]. Plaintiffs specifically addressed overcrowding, psychological and medical

care, living conditions (padlocks on cells, physical violence toward inmates,

punishment without a hearing, access to legal materials, courts and counsel, and

telephone and visitation privileges). Plaintiffs did not directly address plumbing

issues or outdoor recreation in their Report. In the Report's conclusion, Plaintiffs

requested to review the grievances reviewed by Bill Williams, gain access to six

months of recorded phone calls, and access to the Madison Jail to inspect the cells

that are padlocked. [Id. at 16-17]. Plaintiffs reserved the right supplement the Report

once their review was completed. [Id. at 16]. 

The 2002 Report's conclusion also contains, in detail, the issues for which

Plaintiffs believed a hearing was necessary:

1. Population, housing, multiple bunking (overcrowding);

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 These categories would later become known as the "five issue areas."

- 5 -

2. Medical care (staffing, denial of medication, and grievance review results);

3. Living conditions (inmate safety (padlocked cells and physical violence), and the special meal program and punishment for alleged rule violations);

4. Access to legal materials, court, and counsel (writing materials, attorney visitation, telephone system (recording of privileged calls, time restraints

on calls, collect calls)); and, 

5. Privileges (telephone (collect calls) and visitation (insufficient staff)). 

[Id. at 17].2

 Plaintiffs averred that they are entitled to an evidentiary hearing on those

issues that they do not concede to be in compliance with constitutional minimum

standards, and that the burden of proving that there are no ongoing constitutional

violations is on Defendants under Gilmore, supra. [Id.].

Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' 2002 Report. [Doc. # 857]. Defendants

first argued that Plaintiffs should not be granted access to inmate grievances

because of confidentiality concerns, and because "[r]eview [of] these approximate[ly]

35,000 grievances is also not likely to provide relevant and useful information." [Id.

at 3]. Defendants averred that the grievances are not proof of mistreatment, and are

instead evidence that inmates are afforded due process. [Id.]. Defendants also

claimed that production of the grievances would be overly burdensome. [Id. at 4].

As to transcripts of recorded telephone calls, Defendants argued that principles of

comity should prevent Plaintiffs from pursuing claims collateral to those already

being litigated in Superior Court. [Id. at 4]. Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiffs

access to the Madison Street Jail to inspect padlocked cells.

Defendants then proceeded to address the five areas of concern contained

in Plaintiffs' Report, claiming that no evidentiary hearing is necessary as to any

issue. Defendants did not address, however, plumbing or outdoor exercise issues

in their response to the 2002 Report.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 5 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 No transcript for this hearing is in the Court's file.

4

 The motion is not contained in the file.

- 6 -

Plaintiffs filed a Reply reiterating the issues for which a hearing is necessary.

[Doc. # 867]. However, although Plaintiffs refer generically to "living conditions," the

Reply does not state that plumbing issues or access to outdoor recreation were

among the specific issues to be addressed at any hearing.

On March 4, 2003, the Court set a hearing on the Motion to Terminate. [Doc.

# 872]. In that Order, the Court ordered the parties to be prepared to discuss at oral

argument what issues may require an evidentiary hearing. [Id. at 2]. The Court

conducted the hearing on April 14, 2003, and took both the Motion to Terminate, as

well as discovery issues, under advisement. [Doc. # 876].3

 The Court also stated

that it was considering appointment a special master. [Id.].

C. The 2003 Proceedings Regarding Appointment of a Special Master and Preparation for an Evidentiary Hearing

Two months after the Court mentioned that it was considering appointment of

a special master, Plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of special master. [Doc.

# 878].4

 In their response to the motion, Defendants outlined their informal efforts

to accommodate the appointment of a special master prior to the filing of Plaintiffs'

motion for appointment. [Doc. # 881]. Defendants attached the April 25, 2003 letter

from Plaintiffs' counsel, in which Plaintiffs' counsel states that the subjects Plaintiffs

wished to pursue at an evidentiary hearing were those raised in Plaintiffs' Reply to

the Joint Response of Defendants to Plaintiffs' Report (Doc. # 867). [Doc. # 881,

Exh. B]. Defendants attached another letter dated May 20, 2003, in which Plaintiffs

outline 5 issues for hearing: (1) jail population and housing conditions; (2) medical

services including psychiatric and psychological services; (3) padlocked cells and

the disciplinary process (procedure and punishment, including special meals); (4)

access to legal materials (including writing materials); access to counsel (including

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 6 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 These five issue areas are almost identical to those contained in

Defendants' response to the motion for special master.

- 7 -

visitation and telephone calls); and, (5) telephone and visitation privileges. [Id., Exh.

E].5

 Plaintiffs filed a Reply, which did not dispute Defendants' conclusion. [Doc. #

882].

On September 2, 2003, the Court held a hearing regarding appointment of a

special master. [Doc. # 888]. The Court decided not to appoint a special master,

and instead indicated that he would hold a two-day evidentiary hearing. [Id. at 4].

Addressing the five issue areas, the District Judge stated that he was not "prepared

to say at the minute" "whether all of those might involve constitutional violations."

[Id.]. The Judge then opined that each side should submit a memorandum prior to

the hearing about these five issues and "what they perceive the factual situation to

be with respect to those circumstances." [Id. at 5]. 

The Judge noted at the hearing that he was not going to "get into" reviewing

inmate grievances. [Id. at 6]. The Judge further stated that Plaintiffs should be able

to obtain information from Defendants regarding the number of prisoners, the

number of jail cells, and other information about jail population numbers including

whether inmates had access to day rooms and "whether there's some requirement

for times out of cells, exercise, things like that." [Id. at 5, 8]. The Judge refused to

get into a discussion about the exact details of what Defendants should present at

the evidentiary hearing, stating to defense counsel that "I don't want to have another

six months identifying what we're doing, Mr. Birnbaum. You've been in this case

how long?" [Id. at 14]. However, the Court did specify, for example, that the

Defendants should be prepared to present what their policies and procedures are

pertaining to, for example, the provision of health care. [Id. at 15]. When counsel for

Plaintiffs raised the issue of being able to test what Defendants say at the hearing,

the Court stated that "[w]ell, we'll start out and see what they tell us, and then if

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 7 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

there's some problem about testing them, then we can do that." [Id. at 17].

On September 25, 2003, the Court formally granted Plaintiff's Motion for

Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. # 852). [Doc. # 889]. In his Order, the District Judge

ordered that "any notices, with respect to issues to be addressed at the Evidentiary

Hearing, be filed by [dates]." [Id.]. The Court then set the evidentiary hearing for

dates in November 2003. 

D. The Pre-Hearing Memoranda

As ordered, both Defendants and Plaintiffs filed pre-hearing memoranda. In

their Memorandum ("Defendants' 2003 Pre-Hearing Memorandum"), Defendants

referred to outdoor exercise and plumbing issues, but only as they pertained to

overcrowding. [Doc. # 906 at 17]. In their Memorandum ("Plaintiffs 2003 PreHearing Memorandum"), filed 7 days after Defendants Memorandum was filed,

Plaintiffs outlined the topics for which they seek a hearing:

1. Housing conditions a. overcrowding

b. inadequate supervision

c. inmate suicides

d. prisoner-on-prisoner violence

e. lockdowns and restricted diets 

f. lack of basic sanitation

g. lack of physical exercise

h. security overrides due to lack in staffing

i. incorrect classification of inmates

j. prisoners sleeping on the bare floor in intake areas

k. padlocked cells

2. Medical, Dental and Psychiatric Care a. lack of staffing

b. failure to receive prescribed medication

c. tooth extraction as a substitute for proper dental care

d. inadequate medical screening at intake and inadequate notification of access to health care

e. use of mechanical restraints and segregation for mentally ill patients, including segregating patients naked on bare cement

floors

f. inadequate identification and care of suicidal inmates

g. failure to keep adequate medical records

h. prescribing psychiatric medicines for prolonged periods of time without follow-up i. failure to procure an inmate's prior mental health history

j. inadequate control of contagious diseases

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 8 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 The Court summarizes only those portions of witness' testimony that the

Court deems relevant to the motions at hand.

- 9 -

3. Access to legal services a. failure to provide writing materials to indigent inmates

b. failure to provide access to counsel because of inadequate staffing

c. requiring inmates to call counsel collect

d. monitoring and taping of confidential phone calls

e. opening of legal mail

f. failure to provide access to a telephone during business hours

g. failure to provide contact visits with counsel

[Doc. # 920].

E. The November 2003 and January 2004 Evidentiary Hearings

The District Judge began hearings on the Motion to Terminate on November

25, 2003. [Doc. # 924].6

 At the hearing, the Judge addressed briefly the standard

for terminating a consent decree pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3636(b), including which

party bears the initial burden of proof under the statute. [Id. at 10-16]. The Court

then proceeded to allow Defendants to present witness testimony regarding current

conditions for pretrial detainees in the Maricopa County jail system. 

Defendants first presented the testimony on Dr. Gale Steinhauser

("Steinhauser") regarding medical and mental health care in the jail system. [Id. at

21-88]. Steinhauser testified that the 8 physicians and 8 mid-level providers

(physician's assistants and nurse practitioners) provide all necessary and adequate

care for inmates. [Id. at 37]. As to psychiatric staff, Steinhauser stated that 7.3

psychiatrists are working on the "front line," but that two openings remained. [Id. at

38]. Steinhauser also testified that two psychologist positions are funded, but that

at that time, one position remained to be filled. [Id. at 39]. Steinhauser concluded

that when these two positions are filled, staff and funding is adequate to provide

medically necessary psychiatric care, prescribe medications, and to monitor and

follow up on care. [Id. at 39]. Steinhauser further concluded that the staff of 60 RNs

and 32 LPNs is an adequate number of staff. [Id. at 44]. Lastly, Steinhauser

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 9 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

averred that 40 medical assistants, 10 or 12 patient care assistants, and 20

counselors are currently funded. [Id. at 44].

The testimony of Bill Williams ("Williams"), Deputy Chief of Custody for the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, followed. [Id. at 89-172]. Williams testified as to

the current make-up of jail facilities within the system, including each facility's

capacity, the average length of stay of pretrial detainees, details as to how pretrial

detainees are booked into the Madison Street Jail ,and housing arrangements at the

Towers, Estrella and Durango jails. Williams then discussed future plans to open

new facilities, including a new intake area at the new 4th Avenue Jail in July of 2004,

and the closing of the intake area of the Madison Street Jail. Williams further

testified that in the second phase of realignment of pretrial detainees, detainees

would be moved from the Durango Jail to the newly constructed Lower Buckeye Jail.

As for plans to accommodate further, future increases in pretrial detainees, Williams

averred that Maricopa County plans to renovate portions of the Madison Street Jail,

and to construct an entirely new facility in place of the current Durango Jail. Williams

testified that the current "Master Plan" would provide for enough facilities to last

through the year 2012. 

In response to the Court's concern that any opinion regarding facilities to be

constructed in the future would be advisory, counsel for Defendants countered that

he was merely trying to demonstrate that even if there is a problem, the solution has

been "funded, constructed, and is coming on line." [Id. at 124]. Williams then

testified as to several other aspects of jail operations, including: padlocks and lockdown procedures, whether the medical needs of inmates are being met, the

"nutriloaf" special meal program for addressing disciplinary matters, mail privileges,

laundry and inmate hygiene, accommodation of special dietary needs, access to

library services (including legal materials and supplies), grievance procedures, how

inmate violence is addressed, exercise, visitation, and telephone privileges

(including legal calls).

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 10 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

Upon completion of the testimony by Steinhauser and Williams, counsel for

Plaintiffs sought a 60-day continuance to cross-examine the witnesses due to,

among other obstacles, reviewing large amounts of discovery. [Id. at 173]. Counsel

for Defendants then requested that the Court require Plaintiffs to provide the Court

a pre-hearing summary prior to presenting their case. [Id. at 181]. Counsel for

Plaintiffs suggested to the Court that the assistance of experts was in order to help

prepare Plaintiffs' case. [Id.]. In response to Plaintiffs' request, the Court stated that

Plaintiffs could file a motion regarding experts, but that the motion should explain as

to what the experts would testify to. [Id. at 182]. Plaintiffs filed a motion for

appointment of experts on December 12, 2003. [Doc. # 930].

Cross-examination of Steinhauser and Williams occurred on January 22,

2004. [Doc. # 941]. Steinhauser testified that the jail was on probation at the time

the jail received accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional Health

Care ("NCCHC") in 2000, and that the report indicating that some of the essential

NCCHC standards were not being met has not been submitted to either the Court

or Plaintiffs. [Id. at 11]. Steinhauser further stated that although the jail was "still

having trouble meeting [the] 14 day physical" requirement under the NCCHC

standards, initial screening still takes place to identify problems if they exist. [Id. at

13-15].

In an effort to determine how many doctors are necessary to meet the mental

health care demands of pretrial detainees, Plaintiffs' counsel pressed Steinhauser

to arrive at a percentage of inmates with "major psychiatric disorders." Steinhauser,

however, was unable to provide counsel an exact figure. [Id. at 16-34]. Plaintiffs'

counsel then explored with Steinhauser documented occurrences of violations of

state regulations regarding mental health care in individual cases. [Id. at 36-37].

Steinhauser acknowledged that incidents do occur, but that action plans are usually

put into place to make sure that appropriate personnel are educated so that a similar

incident does not reoccur. [Id. at 37]. Steinhauser further testified that the timing of

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 11 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

medication and the staffing pattern to administer medication prior to court

appearances has been changed so that inmates no longer miss their medications

on those days. [Id. at 39]. On redirect, Steinhauser confirmed that although the jail

has been placed on probation by the NCCHC in the past, as part of the accreditation

process, the NCCHC reviewed the corrective and remedial actions taken by the jail.

[Id. at 54].

Plaintiffs also addressed how a co-pay system for health care may impede

access. [Id. at 49]. In response, Steinhauser stated that she is not aware of any

detainee being denied health care because of indigency. [Id. at 50]. Plaintiffs

concluded by inquiring on to the use of restraint chairs. [Id. at 53-54]. Defendants

conducted limited redirect. [Id. at 54-56].

Plaintiffs first cross-examined Williams as to the policy of padlocking cells. [Id.

at 56-65]. Plaintiffs then addressed issues related to overcrowding at the Durango

Jail (id. at 65-74; 93-94), as well as how detainees are housed at intake (id. at 74-

79). Plaintiffs briefly asked questions related to meals and roach infestations (id. at

79-81), and then turned to the issues of the average stay of pretrial detainees (id. at

81-85; 91-93) and the number of grievances filed, by category, between 2000 and

2002 (id. at 87-91). Williams was cross-examined as to the special meal program

in relation to due process and weight loss (id. at 95-100) and the provision of legal

materials (pencil and writing material) (id. at 100-102). Plaintiffs concluded their

cross-examination of Williams on the subject of restraint chairs. [Id. at 102-104].

F. Proceedings Addressing the Currently Pending Motions

Most of the currently pending motions were filed after the January 22, 2004

hearing. At a status hearing held on August 16, 2004, the Court questioned

Defendants as to the progress of opening the new facilities testified to by Williams.

[Doc. # 1014]. The Court further suggested to Plaintiffs that the Court was inclined

to terminate the Amended Judgment without prejudice to filing a new class action,

given that new jail facilities were beginning to come on line. [Id. at 9-10]. The Court

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 12 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

then discussed the matter of discovery and expert witnesses with Plaintiffs, and took

the pending motions under advisement.

On January 26, 2005, the assigned District Judge ordered that this case be

referred to the undersigned for determination of pending procedural, discovery and

other pretrial matters, as well as the preparation of a report and recommendation

regarding the ultimate disposition of the issues presented by Defendants' Motion to

Terminate. [Doc. # 1063].

II. Plaintiffs' "Motion for Partial Judgment" (Doc. # 946)

Defendants' "Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court's 1/21/04

Order and to Require Specification of All Alleged Current and

Ongoing Constitutional Violations" (Doc. # 950)

Plaintiff's "Motion to Exclude Supplemental Evidence" (Doc. # 969)

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment

1. Plaintiffs' Contention that Recreation and Plumbing Issues Were Not Addressed by Defendants at All at the Evidentiary

Hearing

In their Motion for Partial Judgment (Doc. # 946), Plaintiffs contend that

Defendants, in their case-in-chief, failed to address entirely that they comply with the

Constitution as to the following paragraphs of the Amended Judgment: ¶ 45 (prompt

removal of pretrial detainees from cells with inoperable toilets and sinks to a place

where such facilities are available); ¶ 47 (maintenance of a written plan for daily

housekeeping and regular maintenance of the jail, including toilets, shower and sinks

in good repair and cleaned properly); and, ¶¶ 84-86 (recreation time outside).

Plaintiffs, therefore, conclude that they are entitled to partial judgment on these

issues.

In their Response (Doc. # 952), Defendants aver that their presentation at the

November 2003 hearing addressed only those potential constitutional violations

identified by counsel for Plaintiffs' class prior to the hearing (population/housing,

medical services, padlocked cells, special meals, violence against inmates, access

to legal materials, access to counsel through visits and telephone calls, and general

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 13 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 The letters can be found at Doc. # 881, Exhibits B and E.

8

 Doc. # 902 at Exh. A.

9

 Doc. # 924 at 11. The assigned district judge advised defense counsel not

to push the argument as to whether the Amended Judgment was automatically

stayed by the PLRA.

- 14 -

telephone and visitation issues). Therefore, Defendants argue, they did not address

each and every section of the Amended Judgment. Defendants point out that April

and May 2003 letters authored by Plaintiffs counsel, which were later incorporated

into Defendants' proposed Order of Reference lodged August 1, 2003 (Doc. # 881),

framed the issues that Plaintiffs wanted addressed at the evidentiary hearing. [Id.

at 4].7 Defendants note that although Plaintiffs "criticized some sections of that

proposed Order of Reference, the plaintiff-class had no objections to section 9

(which set forth the issues as formulated by counsel for the plaintiff-class)." [Id. at

5]. Defendants further note that the Court, at the September 2, 2003 hearing on the

issue of appointing a special master (Doc. # 885), "made express reference to this

list of issues. . . ." [Id.]. Defendants argue that Mr. Jarvi again referred to this

category of hearing subjects in a September 16, 2003 letter8

 requesting information

in preparation for the upcoming evidentiary hearing. [Id.].

Defendants argue that the requirements in the Amended Judgment far exceed

what the Constitution requires, and cannot be used by Plaintiffs to show the

existence or non-existence of any current or ongoing constitutional violations at the

Maricopa County jails. [Id.]. Defendants argue, as they did before the District Judge

at the November 2003 hearing,9

 that the Amended Judgment is stayed and that "the

proper focus of a motion to terminate pursuant to the PLRA is upon whether there

are current and ongoing constitutional violations and, if so, what, if any prospective

relief remains necessary to correct the identified violation and satisfies the three-fold

statutory requirement that such relief 'extends no further than necessary to correct

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 14 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 Plaintiffs attach relevant portions of the NCCHC's "Standards for Health

Services in Jails" as an exhibit to their Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment.

- 15 -

the violation,' is 'narrowly drawn,' and is 'the least intrusive means to correct the

violation." [Id. at 5-6]. Defendants conclude by noting that if the Court finds that

these issues should be addressed, the Court should reopen proceedings so that

Defendants can demonstrate that no systemic problems exist that amount to a

constitutional violation. [Id. at 17].

In their Reply, Plaintiffs aver that they indeed informed Defendants of their

intent to raise the issue of plumbing and recreation in the November 21, 2003

Memorandum (Doc. # 920) filed in compliance with the Court's November 14, 2003

Order (Doc. # 905). [Doc. # 957]. Plaintiffs further aver that Rule 52(c) does not

allow Defendants to reopen their case to address shortcomings in their case-in-chief.

[Id. at 4]. 

2. Plaintiffs' Argument that Defendants' Evidence Presented At the Evidentiary Hearing Affirmatively Establishes Constitutional

Violations Exist

Plaintiffs also argue in their Motion for Partial Judgment that Defendants'

evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing affirmatively establishes constitutional

violations as to the following provisions of the Amended Judgment: ¶ 9.D. (no

housing of inmates in day rooms or other temporary facility); ¶ 9.F. (double bunking

only if two permanent bunks exist with access to a dayroom with no beds); ¶ 42

(sufficient bedding for reasonable sleeping comfort); ¶ 56 (proper screening at

reception); ¶ 57 (access to health care services that conform to NCCHC

standards)10; and, ¶ 72.C. (provision of a blanket and bed or mattress for detainees

incarcerated in the intake area over 24 hours). [Doc. # 946]. Plaintiffs argue that

under Gilmore, supra, Defendants carry the initial burden of proof in termination

proceedings, including proving that they comply with the U.S. Constitution in areas

covered by the Amended Judgment. [Id. at 4]. 

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 15 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 Plaintiffs cite three cases for the premise that the U.S. Constitution requires

a minimum number of jail psychiatric staff.

- 16 -

As to mental health care staffing (¶ 57 of the Amended Judgment), Plaintiffs

point out that Dr. Steinhauser testified at the evidentiary hearing that the jail was

short-staffed, with two positions waiting to be filled. [Id. at 7].11 Plaintiffs also aver

that Dr. Steinhauser admitted that initial health assessments (¶ 57 of the Amended

Judgment) are not conducted within 14 days, per the NCCHC "essential" standard

and contrary to the Ninth Circuit's holding in Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290

F.3d 1175, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2002). [Id. at 8]. As to sleeping conditions (¶¶ 9.D.,

9.F., 42, and 72.C of the Amended Judgment), Plaintiffs focus on Defendants'

testimony that pretrial detainees are required to sleep on pallets on the floor,

sometimes in day rooms. [Id. at 9]. Plaintiffs point out that the Amended Judgment

requires that pretrial detainees may not be housed in a day room or other temporary

housing of any kind, and that detainees must be provided a mattress and bed or

bunk under the Ninth Circuit's holding in Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d

1439, 1448 (9th Cir. 1989). [Id.].

Defendants counter in their Response that Plaintiffs are incorrect that NCCHC

standards are equivalent to constitutional requirements for health care. Instead,

Defendants contend, evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that no

deliberate indifference to medical and mental health care needs has occurred as to

pretrial detainees. As to the standard for deliberate indifference applicable to

Plaintiffs' class, Defendants aver that the "Court's focus must be on the facility's

medical program" and whether it "provides reasonable access to medical care–that

is, whether the jail has systemic deficiencies in staffing, facilities, or procedures that

make unnecessary suffering inevitable, or whether prison officials intentionally deny

a prisoner access to medical care or interfere with prescribed treatments." [Id. at 9-

10]. 

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 16 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

Defendants claim that the decision in Ruiz v. Johnson, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975,

987-998 (S.D. Tex. 2001) is instructive as to what constitutes a current and ongoing

constitutional violation in the provision of health care under termination proceedings

under the PLRA. [Id. at 10]. Defendants provide excerpts from that case detailing

what, in the opinion of that district court, were "deeply disturb[ing]" but yet

"insufficient to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to prisoners'

physical and mental health needs, as required to prove a violation of the Eighth

Amendment." [Id. (citation omitted)]. Defendants aver that if that court did not find

a constitutional violation, "the matters raised in Plaintiffs' Motion regarding

psychiatrist staffing and the provision of complete physicals to apparently healthy

inmates are trivial." [Id. at 11]. Defendants further aver that mental health staffing

levels exceed constitutional standards, and that Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment

ignores the fact that although vacancies occurred from time to time, Correctional

Health Services ("CHS") had "7.3 funded, front-line, licensed psychiatrists positions

(not including the Chief of Psychiatry). [Id.]. As to intake screening, Defendants

reiterate the Dr. Steinhauser's testimony stating that just because medical screening

is not conducted within 14-days (as per policy), care is not necessarily inadequate

because initial screening separates the apparently healthy from those with problems

that require a more immediate, thorough screening. [Id. at 14].

Defendants further counter that the sleeping conditions at the jail also do not

rise to the level of unconstitutionality, as inmates still in a holding cell after 24 hours

(which constitutes .1% of all inmates in intake) are moved to a cell containing a bed.

[Id. at 15]. Defendants note that the use of dayrooms and stackable, portable beds

are evidence of Defendants' efforts to deal, in their discretion, with a high jail

population in a constitutional manner. [Id. at 15-16]. Defendants note that a district

court in Delaware has found that sleeping on mattresses on the floor for less than

two weeks did not rise to a constitutional violation as long as the detainees are

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 17 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

provided adequate food, shelter and clothing, and that an Illinois district court has

held the same way regarding mattresses on the floor. [Id. at 16 (citations omitted)].

In their Reply, Plaintiffs reiterate their argument that Defendants' witness' own

testimony confirms that mental health care staffing is inadequate. [Id. at 6]. Plaintiffs

also reiterate that Defendants cannot rely on NCCHC accreditation to satisfy their

burden of proof. [Id. at 7]. Plaintiffs contend that intake screening must be

conducted by a qualified medical staff member within a reasonable time, and that Dr.

Steinhauser's admission that there is a longstanding failure to conduct screening

within the 14-days period establishes deliberate indifference. [Id. at 8-9].

Plaintiffs also argue in their Reply that Defendants admit that some pretrial

detainees are kept in the intake cells for over 24 hours, and that some prisoners are

required to sleep on the floor. [Id. at 9]. Further, Plaintiffs contend that Ninth Circuit

precedent has "condemned the practice of requiring prisoners to sleep on floor

mattresses." [Id. at 9-10].

B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Supplemental Evidence

In their motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court strike the supplemental

evidence submitted by Defendants on May 20, 2004 (Doc. # 964). [Doc. # 969]. 

In their May 20, 2004 submission, Defendants state that they are submitting

additional evidence on those issues not addressed in their evidentiary presentation

at the November 23, 2003 hearing, and which are the subject of Plaintiffs' Motion for

Partial Judgment. [Doc. # 964 at 1-2]. Defendants concurrently submit the affidavits

of Dr. Steinhauser and Bill Williams. [Doc. # 965, 966]. Dr. Steinhauser states in her

affidavit that the problems with sinks, toilets and showers are transitory in nature,

and are corrected in a way that does not create any serious risk to the health and

safety of inmates. [Doc. # 965 at 2]. Dr. Steinhauser further affies that those inmates

who are not subject to special confinement or procedures receive one hour of

exercise three times per week. [Id. at 2-3]. Williams' affidavit and exhibits provide,

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 18 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 19 -

in detail, statistics regarding the repair of plumbing problems, the provision of

outdoor exercise, and grievances filed thereon. [Doc. # 966].

Plaintiffs argue in their motion to strike that Defendants' submission is

unauthorized and improper, and that the Court should grant Plaintiffs' motion for

partial judgment. [Doc. # 969]. Plaintiffs aver that the proper way to submit the

evidence would have been through a motion to reopen, but that in the end, "such a

motion would have to be denied." [Id. at 4]. In the end, Plaintiffs argue, even if the

Court were to consider such information, Defendants fail to carry their burden that

they comply with the Constitution. [Id. at 6].

In their response to the motion to strike, Defendants reiterate the same

argument that neither the subject of toilets/sinks/showers, nor the provision of

outdoor exercise, were part of the "five questions" that were explicitly and impliedly

agreed upon throughout 2003 and prior to the November 23, 2003 evidentiary

hearing. [Doc. # 978]. Defendants state that the Court should deny the motion to

strike, and if necessary, allow Dr. Steinhauser and Williams to present testimony, as

well as cross-examination. [Id. at n.5].

Plaintiffs counter in their reply that Defendants fail in their response to explain

why they never sought to reopen the evidentiary hearing, and why it is proper to

reopen a case after a Rule 52(c) motion has been filed. [Doc. # 982]. Plaintiffs

reiterate that their November 21, 2003 Memorandum (Doc. # 920) specifically

alleged that plumbing at the jail was broken and malfunctioning, and that detainees

were not receiving necessary physical exercise. [Doc. # 982 at 3]. Plaintiffs aver that

if Defendants were somehow surprised by the this allegation, and needed more time

to prepare so that the issues could be presented at the evidentiary hearing,

Defendants should have moved for a continuance. [Id.]. Plaintiffs further state that

as early as May 2003, Plaintiff's counsel's letter informed Defendants that housing

conditions would be the subject of upcoming hearings. [Id. at 4]. Plaintiffs aver that

in addition to the May 2003 letter, Plaintiffs' counsel's September 16, 2003 letter

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 19 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 20 -

requested specific information from Defendants regarding outdoor exercise. [Id.].

Plaintiffs also refer the Court to Defendants' pre-hearing memorandum filed

November 14, 2003, in which Defendants describe the recreational facilities that will

be available once the new jails come on line. [Id. at 5].

C. Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance

On January 11, 2004, the Court issued an Order that took under advisement

the issue of the appointment of experts for Plaintiffs. [Doc. # 938]. In that same

Order, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to "file an outline of the specific concerns Plaintiffs

claim are at issue regarding the conditions in, and conduct at, the jails in question,

and how any condition or conduct rises to a constitutional violation." [Id. at 2]. The

Court appears to have requested the outline in order to, at least in part, determine

whether an expert should be appointed, and the extent to which the expert would

conduct his or her investigation. The Court's Order issued after the evidentiary

hearing in November 2003, but before Plaintiffs cross-examined Defendants'

witnesses. It is this outline that Defendants challenge in their motion to compel

compliance.

On February 12, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the court-ordered outline, with the caveat

that the outline may be incomplete because "defendants have repeatedly failed to

provide the periodic reports under the Amended Judgment, and have refused

Plaintiffs' requests for information that could lead to discovery of constitutional

violations." [Doc. # 944]. Plaintiffs aver in their outline that Defendants' "fall short

of constitutional requirements in numerous respects." [Id.]. As in their Motion for

Partial Pretrial Judgment, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants fail in many ways to

meet the mental and other health care needs of pretrial detainees, including:

adequate health care staffing levels; adequately or timely screen incoming prisoners

for communicable disease or other health care needs and to provide an adequate

system for prisoners to make their health care needs known; provide prescribed

medication and treatments and supervision of inmates on medication; provide

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 20 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 21 -

special diets; transfer to other medical facilities for specialized care; provide

adequate food (that is, feeding the nutriloaf to inmates for disciplinary violations);

adequate dental care; track and provide proper care to inmates at risk of self-harm

or suicide; place mentally ill patients in proper housing; certain use of restraint chairs

and four-point restraints. [Id. at 4-8]. 

As to "environmental health and safety," Plaintiffs also outline several

constitutional violations including: keeping detainees in holding cells for more than

24 hours without a bed, forcing detainees to sleep on the floor; and forcing detainees

to sleep on plastic pallets in dayrooms for extended periods of time. [Id. at 8].

Plaintiffs aver that these problems, in combination with overcrowding and poor

sanitation, pose "an unacceptable risk of injury or illness." [Id.].

Plaintiffs further state in their outline that toilets, sinks, showers and other

plumbing are often non-functional, and that the remaining, operational units are not

enough to service the large number of detainees. [Id. at 9]. Plaintiffs also contend

that facilities are infested with vermin, and that overcrowding results in an

unacceptable risk of death by fire (including as a result of padlocking cells). Plaintiffs

state that sanitation is entirely inadequate, "with garbage littering the tiers,

dayrooms, and other areas, creating a hazard to prisoner health and safety," and

"showers and toilets encrusted with scum" and "blocked drains creating pools of

standing water." [Id.]. Plaintiffs further aver that ventilation and air flow is

inadequate, which creates exposure to noxious fumes due to poor sanitation. [Id. at

10]. Plaintiffs state that food is often spoiled or improperly prepared, which places

inmates at risk of illness. [Id. at 10]. Lastly, Plaintiffs aver that "prisoners are denied

adequate physical exercise," including in some instances complete deprivation of

outdoor recreation during the duration of pretrial detention. [Id.].

Over two months later, on April 21, 2004, Defendants filed their Motion to

Compel Compliance with the Court's January 21, 2004 Order. [Doc. # 950]. In their

motion, Defendants request that the Court strike the February 11, 2004 outline.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 21 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 22 -

Defendants further request that the Court require Plaintiffs to provide a "specification

that is meaningful, detailed and factual for each alleged current and ongoing

constitutional violation at the Maricopa County Jails." [Id. at 2]. As part of that

specificity, Defendants request that: (1) each assertion of a constitutional violation

set forth with particularity the evidentiary basis for such a claim; (2) all discovery in

connection with the alleged constitutional violation be identified with particularity; (3)

Plaintiffs demonstrate why discovery is actually necessary; (4) produce the expert

report to Defendants; and, (5) allow the expert to be deposed. [Id.]. Defendants'

requests are based on their interpretation of the Court's January 11, 2004 Order as

requiring Plaintiffs to provide with specificity each alleged ongoing constitutional

violation accompanied by an explanation as to what facts support a claim that the

alleged violation is unconstitutional and systemic. [Id.]. 

As a result of Plaintiffs' failings, Defendants aver that the renewed motion filed

over two years ago remains pending, the November 2003 evidentiary hearing

remains unfinished, and, "neither the Court nor the Defendants have meaningful

information as to what specific conditions, policies or procedures are presently being

claimed by the plaintiff-class to constitute systemic, current and ongoing

constitutional violations, much less what evidence, if any, the plaintiff-class might

present regarding such alleged violations when the November 2003 hearing on the

Renewed Motion to Terminate again resumes." [Id. at 3]. Defendants conclude that

Plaintiff's outline is merely an attempt to have experts appointed so that they may

conduct a "fishing expedition." [Id. at 4]. Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs' caveat

that discovery has not been provided, and therefore Plaintiffs may not be able to

provide a full account of all ongoing and current constitutional violations. Defendants

counter that they have provided discovery. Defendants further aver that the

shortcomings in the February 11, 2004 outline demonstrate that Plaintiffs "know of

no systemic, current and ongoing constitutional violations at the Jails," and therefore

the Motion to Terminate should be granted and the case dismissed. [Id. at 5].

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 22 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 23 -

In their Response to the motion to compel compliance, Plaintiffs first note that

the Court did not authorize what is essentially a response to the February 11, 2004

outline, and that Defendants must have sought leave of Court to file such response.

[Doc. # 967]. Plaintiffs aver that Defendants' motion is meritless, as Plaintiffs cannot

provide more specific facts without discovery, and when they request discovery,

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are not entitled to specific discovery because the

case involves systemic problems. [Id. at 7]. Plaintiffs aver that any issue regarding

discovery is irrelevant to the February 11, 2004 outline, but that at any rate, Plaintiffs

should be entitled to discovery because they must prepare for an evidentiary

hearing. [Id. at 10]. Plaintiffs note that other district courts have allowed such prehearing discovery. [Id. at 10-11]. Defendants filed a Reply, in which they reiterate

their arguments that Plaintiffs should be required to state with more specificity the

claims that they seek to pursue, and that Plaintiffs do not require more discovery to

do so. [Doc. # 976]. 

D. Analysis

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Pretrial Judgment

"On a [Rule 52(c)] motion, the trial judge weighs the evidence, resolves

conflicts and determines where the preponderance lies. The motion may be granted

even if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, provided the court is convinced

that the evidence preponderates against the Plaintiff." Johnson v. United States

Postal Serv. and Nat'l Rural Letter Carriers Ass'n., 756 F.2d 1461, 1464 (9th Cir.

1985) (citations omitted). Put another way, "[a] judgment of partial findings may be

invoked when: (1) the party pursuing the claim has not demonstrated the elements

of the claim either in fact or in law; or (2) the evidence of the party pursuing the claim

has established one of the opposing parties' defenses as a matter of fact or law."

MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 52.50 (3d ed 2003). Under Rule 52(c), the Court

"may decline to render any judgment until the close of all evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P.

52(c). The Court, therefore, has discretion under Rule 52(c) to deny Plaintiffs'

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 23 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 24 -

Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment pending the presentation of Plaintiffs' evidence

regarding those provisions of the Amended Judgment that Plaintiffs contend rise to

the level of constitutional violations. 

As to the law applicable to Plaintiffs' claims, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution imposes a duty on Defendants to "provide human conditions

confinement," including providing adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

. . " Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1991). Eighth Amendment claims of

inhumane prison conditions must meet both an objective and a subjective

requirement. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub

nom. Sakai v. Smith, 514 U.S. 1065 (1995). That is, when an inmate asserts that

prison officials have failed to fulfill this duty under the Eighth Amendment, the inmate

must show that the deprivation is objectively sufficiently serious and that officials

were "deliberately indifferent" to these basic needs. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,

303-304 (1991); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Under the objective component, the

prison official's acts or omissions must deprive an inmate of 'the minimal civilized

measure of life's necessities.'" Allen, 48 F.3d at 1087 (citing Farmer, supra; Rhodes

v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Under the subjective component, "a prison

official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane

conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of

serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to

abate it." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. A prison official may be entitled to qualified

immunity, however, if: (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly

established, and (2) under that law, a reasonable official would have believed his

conduct to be lawful. Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205 (2001) for the premise that the

deliberate indifference and qualified immunity tests are separate inquiries). 

A supervisor may be found liable if either that person is directly involved in the

violation, or "if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 24 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 25 -

itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a

constitutional violation." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th

Cir. 1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074 (1992). However, a "lack of funds"

defense to deliberate indifference may be available to a supervisor unless it can be

shown that the supervisor "knows of, but disregards an appropriate and sufficient

alternative." La Marca v. Turner, 995 F2d 1526, 1541 (11th Cir. 1993). See also

Wilson, 501 U.S at 311; Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 858

(9th Cir. 1992) (holding generally that "federal courts have repeatedly held that

financial constraints do not allow states to deprive persons of their constitutional

rights").

"At least two routes can lead to the conclusion that a municipality has inflicted

a constitutional injury." Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. In the first instance, a plaintiff

may show that the municipality has either directly violated a constitutional right or

ordered its employees to do so. Id. In the context of municipal liability for acts of

deliberate indifference, "a municipality may not be held liable . . . unless 'the action

that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement,

ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's

officers' or if the constitutional deprivation was 'visited pursuant to governmental

'custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the

body's official decisionmaking channels.'" Redman, 942 F.2d at 1444 (citing Monell

v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). See also City

of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 390 n. 10 (1989). 

A plaintiff may also prevail against a municipality by demonstrating that

through its omissions, "the county is responsible for a constitutional violation

committed by one of its employees, even though the municipality's policies were

facially constitutional, the municipality did not direct the employee to take the

unconstitutional action, and the municipality did not have the state of mind required

to prove the underlying violation." Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186. Because a

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 25 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 26 -

municipality cannot be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior, however, "a

plaintiff must show that the municipality's deliberate indifference led to its omission

and that the omission caused the employee to commit the constitutional violation."

Id. (citing City of Canton, supra). "To prove deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must

show that the municipality was on actual or constructive notice that its omission

would likely result in a constitutional violation." Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1186 (citing

Farmer, supra). That is, "when the need to remedy the omission 'is so obvious, and

the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional right, . . . the policy

makers [of the county] can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent

to the need.'" Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1195 (citing City of Canton, supra). Fiscal

constraints on a municipality may not serve as a defense if alternative or interim

measures are available to reduce the risk of a constitutional violation. See generally

Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1584 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing LaMarca,

supra).

Pretrial detainees also possess a due process right to remain free from

restrictions that amount to punishment. Redman, 942 F.2d at 1440-41. "Because

pretrial detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to

prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment, however, [the Court applies] the

same standards." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). The

standards applicable to the specific claims of deliberate indifference (housing, etc.)

will be further elaborated infra. 

a. Housing

As to the housing of inmates in day rooms or other temporary facilities, double

bunking, and the provision of reasonable sleeping comfort (including the provisions

of a mattress and/or bed and a blanket after 24 hours in initial custody), Defendants

have recently opened the new intake areas of the 4th Avenue Jail, and the Lower

Buckeye facility. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the alleged housing conditions

still exist, even assuming such practices are unconstitutional. Further, Plaintiffs have

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 26 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12 Although the instant case involves claims by pretrial detainees of deliberate

indifference, and not convicted prisoners, the Court applies an analogous standard

under the Fourteenth Amendment process clause. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

535 n. 16 (1979); Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996).

- 27 -

not cited a case that stands for the specific premise that those pretrial detainees

detained in an intake area under 24 hours must be provided a bed under the U.S.

Constitution. Defendants have countered that their evidence establishes that those

pretrial detainees that remain in intake over 24 hours are provided a bed. 

Therefore, in light of the uncertainties surrounding the operation of the new

jails after Defendants' presentation at the evidentiary hearing, the Court cannot find

as a matter or fact or law at this juncture that Defendants' housing policies amount

to cruel and unusual punishment or violate pretrial detainees' due process rights.

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Pretrial

Judgment as to ¶ ¶ 9.D., 9.F., 42, and 72.C be denied.

b. The Provision of Medical and Mental Health Care

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment challenges two areas of the

provision of health and mental care at the jail. First, Plaintiffs aver that Dr.

Steinhauser has admitted that the mental health care unit was understaffed by one

psychiatrist, and that adequate care can be provided only when fully staffed.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not providing timely, initial health care

screening.

Under the burden of proof standard previously applied to proceedings in this

case, Defendants must initially demonstrate that the policies Plaintiffs challenge do

not manifest a "'deliberate indifference' to the medical needs of the inmates at the

jail" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.12 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976). "Prison or jail officials 'show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

if prisoners are unable to make their medical needs known to the medical staff. To

find deliberate indifference by the County, it must be shown that it "(1) had a policy

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 27 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 28 -

that posed a substantial risk of serious harm to [pretrial detainees]; and (2) knew that

its policy posed this risk." Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 at 837). "[The] duty to provide medical

care encompasses detainees' psychiatric needs." Cabrales v. County of Los

Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1988), vac'd, 490 U.S. 1987 (1989), opinion

reinstated, 886 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 (1990). "As a

practical matter, 'deliberate indifference' can be evidenced by 'repeated examples

of negligent acts which disclose a pattern of conduct by the prison medical staff' or

it can be demonstrated by 'proving there are such systemic and gross deficiencies

in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate population is denied

access to adequate medical care." Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir.

1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1217 (1984). See also Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d

42 (1st Cir. 2004) (upholding the district court's conclusion that denial of medical and

mental health services in Puerto Rican jails was "massive and systemic.").

i. Mental Health Care

The Court will recommend that the Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment be

denied as to Plaintiffs' mental health care averments (¶¶ 56-57 of the Amended

Judgment). While it is true that Dr. Steinhauser admitted on cross-examination that

adequate mental health care is provided if the unit is fully staffed and that at times

a staff vacancy may occur, the Court is not convinced at this juncture that one,

temporary staff vacancy, or the policies surrounding filling vacancies demonstrates

systematic, unconstitutional deliberate indifference to the serious mental health

needs of pretrial detainees. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiffs'

Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment as to ¶ 56-57 be denied.

ii. Medical Care

The Court will recommend that the Motion for Partial Pretrial Judgment be

denied as to Plaintiffs' medical care averments. Plaintiffs emphasize that the 1995

Amended Judgment requires compliance with NCCHC standards as to medical

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 28 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 29 -

screening (including a full physical within 14 days). However, the question before

the Court, post-PLRA, is whether the jail is complying with U.S. Constitutional

standards. The Court is not convinced that failure to adhere to NCCHC standards

regarding initial screening equates in every case, without evidence that violation of

the standard poses a substantial risk of serious harm, to a violation of the deliberate

indifference test set forth in Farmer v. Brennan, supra. See also Hoptowit v. Ray,

682 F.2d 1237, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating, in the context of alleged Eighth

Amendment violations, that "it is error to constitutionalize the standards of particular

groups [e.g., the American Correctional Association]"); Women Prisoners of the D.C.

Dept. of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910, 929 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, 520 U.S. 1196 (1997) (noting that those practices the American Correctional

Association may find unacceptable may still be constitutional under U.S. Supreme

Court jurisprudence). Plaintiffs have not provided evidence, either in fact or in law,

that NCCHC accreditation, even if NCCHC standards were the Constitutional norm,

requires that all pretrial detainees are provided a full medical evaluation within a 14-

day period when an initial, immediate screening procedure is used to identify those

detainees that require an immediate, full evaluation. The initial screening process,

albeit not a full evaluation, provides detainees a route to have their medical concerns

heard and acted upon. No evidence is currently before the Court that this screening

procedure has resulted in harm that equates to systematic deprivation of detainees'

"minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304

(1991). Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial

Pretrial Judgment as to ¶ 56-57 be denied.

c. Plumbing and Outdoor Recreation

18 U.S.C. § 3626 provides that:

(b) Termination of Relief.

(1) Termination of prospective relief.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 29 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 30 -

(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which

prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the

motion of any party or intervener–

. . . .

(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [enacted April 26,1996], 2 years

after such date of enactment. . . . . 

(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief. In any civil action with

respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to

the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was

approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary

to correct the violation of the Federal right.

(3) Limitation. Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes

written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, extends no further

than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the

prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct

the violation. . . . . 

18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)-(3). The Ninth Circuit has held that contested decrees (e.g.,

the Amended Judgment in this case) that predate the PLRA do not necessarily

"flunk" the standard contained in section 1326(b)(3) because "[d]istrict courts were

already bound to follow a nearly identical standard." Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1006.

However, a district court "cannot terminate prospective relief without determining

whether the existing relief (in whole or in part) exceeds the constitutional minimum."

Id. at 1007. 

As an initial matter, it is uncertain at best whether the Court can enter partial

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) based on Defendants' alleged

failure to address plumbing and outdoor recreation issues at the November 2003

evidentiary hearing. Although the Ninth Circuit has placed the burden of proof on the

party moving for termination, id. at 1007, both section 1326(b)(3), and the Ninth

Circuit's decision in Gilmore, make it clear that a district court "must inquire into

current conditions at a prison before ruling on a motion to terminate." Id. at 1008

(emphasis added). 

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 30 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 31 -

Further, upon remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court

consistently made it clear to the parties that the scope of inquiry in this case is

limited to whether "prospective relief remains necessary to correct the violation of

[a] Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of [a]

Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive

means to correct the violation." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). The Court has never

indicated that Defendants would be required to address, at an evidentiary hearing,

each and every provision of the Amended Judgment. Instead, on several occasions,

the Court has ordered that the parties file memoranda indicating which issues are

of constitutional concern that must be addressed through an evidentiary hearing.

 Even if plumbing and outdoor exercise were a proper subject of an

evidentiary hearing in this case, from a review of the procedural history of this case,

the specific constitutional issues relating to "housing conditions"–outdoor exercise

and plumbing–were never clearly raised by either party. In their November 2002

Report, Plaintiffs laid out, in detail, the issues for which they believed a hearing was

necessary. [Doc. # 852]. Plaintiffs did not state in their Report that they sought a

hearing on all the provisions of the Amended Judgment. In their November 2003

Pre-hearing Memorandum, Plaintiffs state in one sentence that there is a "[l]ack of

basic sanitation. Vermin infestation, including in food service facilities.

Broken/nonfunctioning plumbing. Sanitation and Safety are covered under

paragraphs 43 through 50 of the amended order." [Doc. # 920 at 9]. Plaintiffs further

aver, in one paragraph, that there is "[l]ack of necessary physical exercise; some

prisoners receive no outdoor exercise based on lack of staff. Pargraph[s] 84-86 of

the Amended Order provides for excise [sic]." [Id.]. 

The April and May 2003 letters from Plaintiffs' counsel regarding appointment

of a special master refer generically to "housing conditions," but do not refer to

outdoor recreation or plumbing problems specifically. None of the briefing regarding

the appointment of a special master filed in mid-2003 refers to these two topics. At

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 31 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 32 -

the hearing addressing appointment of a special master, the assigned District Judge,

in one sentence, briefly referred to access to outdoor exercise.

Although invited to specifically spell-out all issues to be addressed at the

evidentiary hearing, both sides failed to clearly do so in their pre-hearing

memoranda. Defendants cursorily refer to outdoor exercise and plumbing in their

November 14, 2003 memorandum, merely concluding that other district courts have

held that such conditions did not rise to a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs are

equally guilty of cursory treatment in their pre-hearing briefs of what has now

become the subject of multiple pages of post-hearing briefing. Plaintiffs state in two

short paragraphs in their pre-hearing memorandum that they believe outdoor

recreation and plumbing to be issues that Defendants must address. It should be

further noted that despite the assigned District Judge's admonishment that he would

only address issues of constitutionality pursuant to the PLRA, and that not every

issue contained in the Amended Judgment would or could be addressed under the

PLRA's mandate, the only support Plaintiffs offer in their pre-hearing memorandum

for their contention that these areas rise to a constitutional question is that the

Amended Judgment requires outdoor exercise and functioning plumbing. If Plaintiffs

felt that the issues of outdoor recreation and plumbing should have been addressed

at the November 2003 and January 2004 hearings, Plaintiffs could have provided

more detail so that both the Court and Defendants were apprized that Plaintiffs

intended to assert these unconstitutionality of these conditions.

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that as to outdoor recreation and

plumbing issues (¶¶ 47 and 84-86), Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment be denied.

The Court will also recommend that Defendants' supplemental evidence regarding

these issues to remain filed, and will recommend that Plaintiff's motion to exclude

such evidence be denied. Plaintiff shall present the issues of outdoor exercise and

plumbing at the evidentiary hearing for their case-in-chief.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 32 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 33 -

2. Defendants' "Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court's 1/21/04 Order and to Require Specification of All Alleged Current

and Ongoing Constitutional Violations" (Doc. # 950)

Plaintiffs' effort to specify issues for hearing appears to have begun by a letter

dated May 20, 2003, in which Plaintiffs stated to Defendants that they seek an

evidentiary hearing regarding:

1. jail population and housing conditions;

2. medical services including psychiatric and psychological services;

3. padlocked cells and the disciplinary process (procedure and punishment);

4. access to legal materials; and

5. access to counsel.

[Doc. # 881, Exh. E]. These areas of concern are now referred to by Defendants as

the "five issue areas." Plaintiffs provided a more detailed explanation of these

categories in their November 2003 Pre-hearing Memorandum. [Doc. # 920].

Unfortunately, this memorandum was filed four days prior to Defendants' evidentiary

presentation. It appears, however, that Defendants did at least attempt to present

evidence on all areas that were mentioned in Plaintiffs' November 2003 Pre-hearing

Memorandum, except for outdoor recreation and plumbing issues. See supra,

analysis.

Even though Plaintiffs had filed their November 2003 Pre-hearing

Memorandum, on January 20, 2004, the assigned District Judge, addressing

Plaintiffs' motion for experts, stated that "[t]he Court may deem it necessary at some

juncture to appoint an expert witness or witnesses concerning specific conditions at

Maricopa County jails. However, the issues are not sufficiently narrowed to permit

an informed selection of any expert witness at this time." [Doc. # 938]. In that same

Order, Court ordered that Plaintiffs file an "outline of the specific concerns Plaintiffs

claim are at issue regarding the conditions in, and conduct at, the jails in question,

and how any condition or conduct rises to a constitutional violation. . . ." [Id. at 2].

Plaintiffs filed their outline in February 2004. [See supra pages 20-21]. Like

the November 2003 Pre-hearing Memorandum, the February 2004 outline contains

a list of potential constitutional violations with citation to case law. However, the

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 33 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 34 -

February 2004 outline adds new claims of unconstitutionality and omits others that

were contained in the November 2003 Pre-hearing memorandum. Further, the

Court notes that the some of the issues contained in the February 2004 outline were

not addressed by Plaintiffs on cross examination, or in the motion for partial pretrial

judgment. 

In addition to the problem with inconsistencies, although Plaintiffs' November

2003 Pre-hearing Memorandum and February 2004 outline state the basic areas of

constitutional concern and contain case law citation, the documents fail to address

how a certain number of these issues are germane to litigation centered on the

systemic failures of the County to meet constitutional standards for pretrial

detainees. That is, while many of Plaintiffs concerns could be litigated in the context

of an individual § 1983 action, Plaintiffs do not explain how each of their concerns

relates to a county policy of deliberate indifference or failure to meet due process

requirements. For example, while Plaintiffs aver that Defendants fail to provide

timely access to competent health care providers, Plaintiffs do not specify whether

a policy exists governing the competency of providers and timing of health visits, and

how the county and/or its administrators fail to implement that policy. A policy may

systemically fail for a number of reasons (e.g., lack of staffing or budgetary

constraints), but in the context of this litigation, the Court will not entertain allegations

that relate more to isolated incidents better handled at the individual level. Plaintiffs'

vague averments impermissibly force the Court to speculate, when evaluating the

potential scope of expert and counsel access and discovery, how Plaintiffs intend to

prove their allegations that constitutional violations are occurring on a system-wide

basis. Further, certain areas of concern raised by Plaintiffs in their November 2003

Pre-hearing Memorandum and February 2004 outline are likely moot in light of the

recent opening of new jails. 

The Court, therefore, will grant Defendants' motion to compel compliance, and

will deny without prejudice (in part) Plaintiffs' motions regarding the appointment of

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 34 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13 The Ninth Circuit has recently held that this privilege does not exist under

federal law. See Agster v. Maricopa County, 406 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2005).

- 35 -

experts, expert access, discovery, and access by class counsel to current detainees,

and all other procedural motions associated with these motions. The Court will grant

Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery to the extent that all documents requested by

Plaintiffs for which Defendants have claimed the "self-critical analysis privilege" shall

be produced within 40 days of the filing of this Order.13 The Court will further compel

all inspection reports issued by any governmental agency as requested by Plaintiffs

in request number 4 and relating to medical or mental health care, or environmental

health and safety, for the years stated in the request. In addition, Defendants shall

be required to respond to Plaintiffs' letter regarding missing responses to a request

for production of documents relating to budget requests contained at exhibit 11 to

document number 1002.

The Court will require a further and final submission by the Plaintiffs of an

omnibus motion, within 60 days of the filing of this Order, that provides the following:

1. A numbered list of each specific area of current constitutional concern

specifically addressed in the Amended Judgment. In asserting allegations

of unconstitutionality, Plaintiffs must take into account the recent opening

of new jails.

2. For each numbered area of constitutional concern:

a. The basis of Plaintiffs' claim that a systemic constitutional violation is

currently ongoing, including whether a county policy exists addressing the

issue;

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 35 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 36 -

b. case law (without argument but including a summary of the holding)

that addresses that specific claim in the context of a systemic failure (that

is, citation to case law other than that in the individual context), or if none

exists, case law generally applicable to the claim of systemic failure to

meet constitutional requirements of detainees;

c. a detailed explanation of what further discovery, expert and counsel

access, and expert appointment, if any, is relevant and why it is necessary

to demonstrate the systemic failure on that particular claim;

d. Plaintiffs shall explain what documents have already been produced

that relate to the particular issue (including the documents compelled by

this Order after they have been received), and how further discovery

and/or appointment of an expert or access to pretrial detainees for

interviews is necessary to supplement Defendants' prior production. 

e. If Plaintiffs seek detainees' custodial (including classification), medical

or mental health records, Plaintiffs must explain the relevancy of the

documents to the issue, detail a procedure for sampling and analysis of

redacted records, and explain how such sampling and analysis will

potentially support a claim of systemic failure to meet constitutional

standards. 

Defendants shall have 30 days to respond to Plaintiffs' omnibus motion.

III. Other Pending Motions

The Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and motion to

quash subpoenas, to the extent that Defendants' proffered reason to depose

Plaintiffs' experts, pre-tour, has been rendered moot by this Order requiring further

specification by Plaintiffs of the issues presented for hearing. 

The Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion related to the filing of declarations of

class members to the extent that the existing filed declarations shall remained filed.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 36 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 37 -

Plaintiffs aver that the filing of the declarations was necessary to supplement their

motions for expert and counsel access, and discovery, all of which have been

addressed by this Order. 

The Court will deny as moot Defendants' motion for entry of a scheduling

order, as the Court has, through this Order, addressed Defendants concern that the

case proceed in a timely manner. Once Plaintiffs' omnibus motion is filed and

Defendants respond, the Court intends to expeditiously rule on the motion as it

relates to further discovery and access by Plaintiffs' experts and counsel. The Court

further intends to set a date certain for Plaintiffs' evidentiary presentation once the

Court rules on Plaintiffs' discovery and access motions. The parties are advised that

they should be prepared to complete discovery and proceed with a hearing on

Plaintiffs' case-in-chief diligently once ordered to do so. The court will not consider

any motion for extension of time that would serve to further delay proceedings in this

case.

IV. RECOMMENDATION; ORDERS

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' "Motion for Partial Judgment" [Doc. #

946] be DENIED in its entirety.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1),

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district

court’s judgment. The parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of

a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the

Court. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo

consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 37 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 38 -

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The following motions are DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs' filing

of the omnibus motion explained herein:

a. Plaintiffs' "Order for Appointment of Experts" [Doc. # 930];

b. Plaintiffs' "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) to Compel

Defendants to Allow Expert Inspection" [Doc. # 958];

c. Plaintiffs' "Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) to Compel

Defendants to Produce Relevant Documents" [Doc. # 989].

d. Plaintiffs' "Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Allow Class

Counsel Access to Class Members" [Doc. # 1019]; and,

e. Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Allow Class

Counsel Access to Class Members" [Doc. # 1093].

2. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Exclude 'Supplemental Evidence' Submitted by

Defendants" [Doc. # 969] is DENIED. Defendants' supplemental

evidence regarding recreation and plumbing issues shall remain filed.

The Court will not reopen Defendants' presentation of their case-inchief to further address these issues. Plaintiffs may present these

issues in their presentation of their case-in-chief.

3. Plaintiffs' "Motion for Protective Order" [Doc. # 981-1] is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas" [Doc. # 981-2] is

GRANTED. 

5. Defendants' "Motion to Enter Scheduling Order" [Doc. # 998] is

DENIED as moot.

6. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Exceed Page Limit on Reply Brief" [Doc. # 1003]

is GRANTED.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 38 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 39 -

7. Plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave to File Declarations of Class Members and

Former Class Members" [Doc. # 1026] is GRANTED to the extent

contained herein.

8. Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response to

Address Certain Matters First Raised in Plaintiffs' Reply" [Doc. # 1027]

is GRANTED. The Supplemental Response shall remain filed.

9. Defendants' "Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's 1/21/04

Order and to Require Specification of All Alleged Current and Ongoing

Constitutional Violations" [Doc. # 950] is GRANTED as explained

herein.

10. Defendants shall produce, within 40 days of the filing of this Order, the

following documents:

a. all documents requested by Plaintiffs through discovery for which

Defendants have claimed the self-analysis privilege, including:

i. morbidity/mortality and root cause analysis reports relating to

suicides for 2001 through 2003 with identifying information

redacted.

ii. documents issued by the NCCHC to the County relating to the

review and/or accreditation of jails by the NCCHC from January

1, 2000 to the present

iii. the independent evaluations of health care services required by

paragraph 70 of the Amended Judgment from January 1, 2000

to present. 

iv. all inspection reports issued by any governmental agency as

contained in Plaintiffs' request number 4 and relating to medical

or mental health care, or environmental health and safety, for the

years stated in the request.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 39 of 40
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 40 -

v. all minutes of any meetings of Correctional Health Services staff

or contract health care providers from January 1, 2001 to

present, subject to Defendants' filing of a motion for protective

order.

b. Defendants shall submit formal discovery responses, including but

not limited to objections, to Plaintiffs as to Plaintiffs' letter at exhibit

11 to Document number 1002 relating to Plaintiffs' requests for

documents relating to budget requests for jail funding.

11. Plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date of the filing of this Order to

file an omnibus motion as instructed herein. 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1105 Filed 09/30/05 Page 40 of 40