University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Boyden v. McCarthy/Rowland PC-CA-0006
Docket / Court 86-1989 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection California Jail Population Caps
Attorney Organization ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
This lawsuit was filed pro se by prisoners on March 27, 1986, in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the California Department of Corrections and the California Institute for Men under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that unconstitutional conditions of confinement at ... read more >
This lawsuit was filed pro se by prisoners on March 27, 1986, in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the California Department of Corrections and the California Institute for Men under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the California Institute for Men (Chino) violated their Eighth Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged issues regarding sanitation, classification, legal access, fire safety, and other conditions. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged violations caused by the prison's housing of 212 inmates in a gymnasium not designed to house inmates. The plaintiffs asked for injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.

The prisoners moved for appointment of counsel but was denied twice. On August 14, 1986, the docket indicates a notice of association of counsel for the plaintiffs. Then on September 29, 1986, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint. In 1987, the parties engaged in discovery and settlement negotiations, but a settlement could not be reached at the time. Instead, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 13, 1987.

The parties engaged in additional discovery in preparation for a trial set for October 4, 1988. However, on September 20, 1988, the trial was postponed to allow more time for renewed settlement negotiations. On September 26, the parties notified the court that they had reached a tentative settlement agreement. The agreement addressed many aspects the inmates' conditions of confinement including: food, recreation opportunities, law library access, showers, laundry, medical care, procedures regarding placement when an inmate is transferred to the prison from a county jail, and asbestos removal from the facilities. The defendants also agreed to pay the plaintiffs $44,000 in attorney's fees. On October 6, 1988, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for $22,000 in attorney's fees--the first half of the agreed amount of attorney's fees. Once the settlement was finalized, the case was dismissed on October 2, 1989.

The settlement agreement provided for compliance monitoring; according to the 1993 issue of the ACLU National Prison Project's Journal, this ended in 1993.

Margo Schlanger - 07/10/2013
Jessica Kincaid - 04/21/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Content of Injunction
Monitoring
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Pre-PLRA Population Cap
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Sanitation / living conditions
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) California
Plaintiff Description Prisoners at the California Institute for Men, at Chino.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National Prison Project
ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration 1988 - 1993
Case Closing Year 1993
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
86-1989 (N.D. Cal.) 07/25/1990
PC-CA-0006-9000 PDF | Detail
National Archive (NARA)
General Documents
Complaint for Damages 03/27/1986
PC-CA-0006-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: National Archive (NARA)
Second Amended Complaint 07/13/1987
PC-CA-0006-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: National Archive (NARA)
Memorandum of Understanding 09/28/1988
PC-CA-0006-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: National Archive (NARA)
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)
PC-CA-0006-0002 | PC-CA-0006-0003 | PC-CA-0006-9000
Hoffman, Paul L. (California)
PC-CA-0006-0003 | PC-CA-0006-9000
Jurado, Rebecca (California)
PC-CA-0006-0002 | PC-CA-0006-0003 | PC-CA-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Frederick, Carol S. (California)
PC-CA-0006-0002 | PC-CA-0006-9000
Van de Kamp, John K. (California)
PC-CA-0006-0002 | PC-CA-0006-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -