Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=5500&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:14:17+00:00

Document:
On February 9, 1975, prisoners represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the practices and conditions of confinement at the Los Angeles County Central Jail (the "Jail"). On December 31, 1975, the District Court certified the class.
Following a 17 day trial on the matter and unannounced jail inspections by the Court, the District Court (Judge William P. Gray) entered an order granting plaintiffs injunctive relief and ordering defendants to make twelve different changes in jail conditions. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F.Supp. 104 (C.D.Cal. (1978)). The defendants accepted nine of the District Court's mandated changes, which covered a variety of problems including overcrowding, inadequate exercise, lack of clean clothing and telephone access, and insufficient time to eat meals. It appealed the remaining three that required the changes to procedures relating to (1) contact visits; (2) cell searches; and (3) re-installation of transparent windows in the cells.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the District Court, for reconsideration of the three disputed changes in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Rutherford v. Pitchess, 626 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1980). On remand, the District Court reaffirmed its previous order with respect to all three conditions. The defendants appealed again. The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring re-installation of windows and affirmed the other two changes. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 710 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1983). Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. Block v. Rutherford, 464 U.S. 959, 104 S.Ct. 390, 78 L.Ed.2d 334 (1983).
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding that that the jail's policy of denying pretrial detainees contact visits and its practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown searches of cells in absence of the detainees did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Block v. Rutherford, 104 S.Ct. 3227 (1984). We have no information on the status of case proceedings from 1984 to March 1, 1992, when the District Court ordered the case to be reopened.
From 1992 through 2005, various orders and stipulations of the parties were entered regarding payment of attorneys' fees. In September 2005, the District Court (Judge Dean D. Pregerson) denied the application of intervenor Martin Quintana for permissive intervention and to dissolve any prison conditions injunction that may exist. Intervenor Quintana appealed. His appeal was eventually dismissed. A subsequent motion for permissive intervention and to dissolve any prison conditions injunction that may exist was filed by intervenors Costa and Gipson.
On November 18, 2005, the parties entered a stipulation and order agreeing that the Rutherford injunction, as modified, would be applicable to the action. Rutherford v. Block, 2005 WL 3388141 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2005). Settlement negotiations followed, and on June 16, 2006, the parties agreed to convene a panel of experts to determine the methods by which to ameliorate the conditions identified by plaintiffs at Men's Central Jail ("MCJ").
On October 19, 2006, the District Court held a hearing on plaintiff's Order to Show Cause for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Court reviewed the declarations and briefs submitted by the parties. Thereafter, the Court toured the MCJ and the Inmate Reception Center ("ICR"). On October 27, 2006, Judge Pregerson ordered the defendants to show cause why they should not be restrained and enjoined from certain practices and conditions regarding cell limits and jail population at the MCJ. Rutherford v. Baca, 2006 WL 3065781 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 27, 2006). On December 11, the court ordered the Sheriff's Department to submit a proposed timeline to the court for alleviating overcrowding at the MJC, with same-day visitation rights granted to the ACLU. On January 25, 2007, Judge Pregerson renewed the preliminary injunction granted on October 27, 2006 directing defendants to remedy the overcrowding problem at the MCJ and IRC. The preliminary injunction was renewed again on April 20, 2007.
Plaintiffs were awarded over $500,000 in attorneys' fees between November 1997 and February 2006. On November 13, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, Judge Pregerson awarded plaintiffs $10,000 per month ($160,000) in attorneys' fees and costs for the period of May 2006 to August 2007. On July 29, 2008, pursuant to another joint stipulation, Judge Pregerson awarded attorneys' fees of $10,000 per month for monitoring services from September 2007 to February 2008, and $17,500 per month for three years beginning in March 2008. Judge Pregerson also awarded a one-time lump sum payment of $300,000 to settle other expenses related to this matter, including $70,000 for expert witness expenses incurred as part of the 2006 panel of experts referenced above.
On June 22, 2009, defendants moved for an order enforcing a 1989 stipulation. Under the 1989 stipulation, the parties had agreed that none of the statements made to the ACLU during prisoner interviews or discussions with the Sheriff's staff as part of the ACLU's monitoring activities would be used in other litigation. The purpose of this agreement was to ensure candid interviews in the effort to develop methods to minimize the impact of jail overcrowding. Such access was granted to the ACLU to monitor in return for the promise that the information obtained would not be used in non-Rutherford litigation. Defendants alleged that in June 2008, the ACLU brought another suit (Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 08-3515)(JC-CA-0059) using prohibited information. Judge Pregerson vacated the defendants' motion on July 31, 2009 after the parties had resolved this issue.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery on June 15, 2009. Plaintiffs claimed they lacked access to necessary information to monitor and cited specific concerns regarding conditions of the jail, including treatment of mental illness and medical care, access to showers, and unsanitary conditions. On August 4, 2009, Judge Pregerson granted the motion to reopen discovery.
On October 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order, claiming that defendants were retaliating against prisoner class members who communicated with the ACLU about their conditions of confinement. Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Special Hearing on December 15, 2010. Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to move for enforcement of the Rutherford judgment and requested an evidentiary hearing based on "an escalating crisis of deputy violence, abuse, and inmate suicides." The parties resolved some of the matters related to the Protective Order. According to a joint report filed by the parties on April 20, 2011, defendants agreed to update custody policies to provide prisoners with an open ability to complain about issues of confinement and to prevent retaliation against prisoners who did so; post signage about this policy within various facilities and train relevant personnel on the updated policies; take reasonable steps to protect prisoners who have made claims of retaliation which may include the transfer of a prisoner to another housing location; and notify the ACLU of allegations by any prisoner that he or she has been retaliated against for communicating with the ACLU.
On April 22, 2011, Judge Pregerson ordered the parties to evaluate the current procedures and craft a comprehensive policy to ensure that prisoner complaints were properly handled and processed. Judge Pregerson reserved the question of whether the resulting policy would be incorporated into a court order, a matter on which the parties disagreed. An August 2, 2011 status report confirmed that the modified prisoner complaint policy was complete.
On August 5, 2011, plaintiffs filed a supplement to their October 2010 Motion for Protective Order and requested a decision on the motion. Plaintiffs asserted that the ACLU continued to receive reports of retaliation by Sheriff's Department personnel, and claimed that the policy changes were not a substitute for the relief requested in their Motion for Protective Order. On September 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed an Annual Report of the LA County Jails, which included 72 prisoner declarations describing deputy-on-prisoner beatings, deputy-instigated prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and deputy threats of assaults against prisoners that the ACLU had collected in the past year. Judge Pregerson scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the protective order for October 2011; for a variety of reasons this hearing was continued to several different dates in 2011 and 2012 but never took place. On April 23, 2012, Judge Pregerson held a status conference regarding the evidentiary hearing. It is unclear what transpired at the status conference.
On May 25, 2012, defendants filed a Six Month Status Update of Jail Reforms Containing New Policies and Procedures for the Operation of the Los Angeles County Jail System.
On September 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Annual Report on Conditions Inside LA County Jails, which focused on excessive use of deputy-on-prisoner head strikes.
On October 12, 2012, Judge Pregerson vacated a number of motions without prejudice, including the Motion for Protective Order filed by plaintiffs in October 2010.
On March 17, 2015, the action was removed without prejudice from the court's active caseload. The court retained jurisdiction of the action until further application by the parties or court order.
Plaintiff Description Pre-trial detainees incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Jail.
The Oyez Project, Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.