University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Williams v. County of Los Angeles JC-CA-0033
Docket / Court 2:97-cv-03826-CW ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Case Summary
On May 22, 1997, ten individuals who were allegedly over-detained in the Los Angeles County jail brought a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the County, the Sheriff and various individual supervisors charged with jail management. As the lawsuit alleged both ... read more >
On May 22, 1997, ten individuals who were allegedly over-detained in the Los Angeles County jail brought a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the County, the Sheriff and various individual supervisors charged with jail management. As the lawsuit alleged both federal and state law violations, the defendants removed the case to the federal court - the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs alleged that pursuant to jail policy, they were kept in custody anywhere from 36 hours to as long as five days after they had been ordered released. Plaintiffs sought damages, injunctive relief and class certification for a class of persons routinely over-detained in the Los Angeles County jail.

This case, styled Williams v. Block, was one of a group of cases filed in federal and state courts in California beginning in 1997 that challenged various alleged policies and/or practices of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) and the operation of its jail, which included: 1) "overdetentions" (i.e., persons not released from custody from the Los Angeles County jails within a reasonable period of time after they became entitled to release); 2) strip and/or visual body cavity searches of persons who had been returned to jail from court to be processed for release; and 3) wrong warrant arrests and detentions (persons arrested on a warrant that, in fact, was for another person, and held for an unreasonable period of time before being released).

The alleged "overdetentions" in Williams v. Block stemmed from the LASD's use of the Automated Justice Information System ("AJIS"), a computerized law enforcement database used to confirm that the prisoner had no outstanding warrants. It was LASD policy that, before it would run a computer check on AJIS, all of the wants and holds that arrived on the day a prisoner was scheduled for release first had to be put into the database. Due to the high volume of wants and holds received daily, the computer inputting process took days to complete, resulting in an administrative backlog that caused prisoners to be overdetained. The Williams plaintiffs alleged that this policy caused a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and California state law.

In addition to Williams, other cases that were pending in the Central District of California, alleging some form of overdetention included: Streit v.County of Los Angeles, C.D. Cal. No. CV 98-9575WJR (proposed class of those overdetained under the County's unconstitutional detention policy and practice); Canizales v. Block, C.D. Cal. No. CV 98-2475 WJR (proposed class of those ordered released on their own recognizance, but over-detained under the County's unconstitutional detention policy and practice); Shields v. County of Los Angeles, C.D. Cal. No. 98-9695 WJR (proposed class of those acquitted at trial, but over-detained under the County's unconstitutional detention policy and practice; Fairley v. Block, C.D. Cal. No. CV 98-3187 CAS (people ordered released because they are the wrong person); Patchen v. County of Los Angeles, C.D. Cal. No. CV-98-9574 WJR (people detained after the District Attorney's Office rejected filing criminal charges against them); Cleaves v. County of Los Angeles, C. D. Cal. No. 98-9573 WJR (people sentenced to time served and not released); and Gladney v. County of Los Angeles, C.D. Cal. No. CV 99-00586 WJR (court dismisses charges).

In the Williams case, defendants responded to plaintiffs' complaint and subsequent amended complaints by moving to dismiss the case on various grounds. The District Court (Judge William J. Rea) granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on October 14, 1997. Judge Rea denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on December 5, 1997. Plaintiffs appealed.

While plaintiffs' appeal was pending on the class certification issue, the parties engaged in extensive discovery, which generated various discovery disputes. Defendants made offers of judgment to the named plaintiffs, many of which were accepted in April 1998. The terms of the offers were not apparent from the PACER docket.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining plaintiffs. The Court granted summary judgment to defendants on one of plaintiffs' state law claims and as to plaintiffs' Thirteenth Amendment claim (that inmates were subjected to involuntary servitude by way of forced labor). In all other respects, defendants' motion was denied. Williams v. Block, 1999 WL 33542996 (C.D.Cal. Aug 11, 1999). Defendants appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a consolidated appeal. See Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2001).

On May 03, 2000, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Rea's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remanded the case so that the Court could revisit the issue. Williams v. Block, 217 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2000). On remand, plaintiffs refiled their motion for class certification. The Court began an evidentiary hearing on class certification on October 30, 2000, but the hearing was continued for additional testimony. The parties requested a series of further continuances while they pursued settlement negotiations.

The case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle for further proceedings. Judge Woehrle consolidated the Williams case with other similar cases pending before the Court. Eventually, a global settlement was brokered that resolved some 14 pending cases, involving three classes of plaintiffs: 1) overdetentions; 2) strip and/or visual body cavity searches; and 3) wrong warrant arrests by the LASD. The settlement consisted of injunctive relief and a substantial monetary payment. The injunctive component was resolved and approved in the state court case, Riley v. the County of Los Angeles. [See JC-CA-56].

The monetary component was approved by Judge Woehrle on 11/27/2002, following a fairness hearing. Defendants agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $27 million. Of that sum, $13,444,809.93 was distributed to class members, after submission of claims, based on a point system whereby each strip search received 3 points (1-5 points depending on length of over-detention and 2 points for wrongful warrant detention). Each point was worth $142.07, or $426.21 for each strip search. The maximum award, regardless of the number of strip searches or the length of over-detention, was $5,000. Men and women shared the settlement equally. A total incentive bonus of $745,750 was shared by 66 named plaintiffs (each received an amount ranging from $2,000 to $31,000).

Total fees, costs and expenses amounted to 39.12% of the $27 million settlement. That amount consisted of attorneys' fees in the amount of $9.684 million, $5.5 million of which was paid for work on the injunctive relief portion. $34,743 was allocated for litigation costs and $845,380.07 for claims administration.

Of the 400,000 potential class members, 36,626 claims were approved, which constituted a participation rate of 9.15%.

Dan Dalton - 01/20/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
General
Grievance Procedures
Over/Unlawful Detention
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.
Plaintiff Description Persons who: were not released from L.A. County Jail within a reasonable amount of time; and/or were unlawfully strip searched at the jail; and/or were held unlawfully on someone else's warrant.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Damages
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2003
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing JC-CA-0047 : Streit v. County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0021 : Musso v. County of Los Angeles (State Court)
JC-CA-0056 : Riley v. Los Angeles County (State Court)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies After Decision: Implementation of Judicial Decrees in Correctional Settings
Written: Oct. 01, 1977
By: M. Kay Harris & Dudley P. Spiller (Temple University)
Citation: (1977)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Jail Strip-Search Cases: Patterns and Participants
http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University in St. Louis)
Citation: 71 Law & Contemp. Problems 65 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:98-cv-09683-CW (C.D. Cal.) 04/09/2003
JC-CA-0033-9001 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
2:97-cv-03826-CW (C.D. Cal.) 11/24/2003
JC-CA-0033-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 08/11/1999 (1999 WL 33542996) (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0033-0001 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum 05/03/2000 (217 F.3d 848)
JC-CA-0033-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
[Opinion] 01/12/2001 (236 F.3d 552)
JC-CA-0033-0007 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Class Action Injunctive Relief Agreement 09/01/2001
JC-CA-0033-0006 PDF | Detail
Stipulation and Order Re: Settlement of Class Action Cases 05/09/2002
JC-CA-0033-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Awarding Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs 11/27/2002 (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0033-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Objections to Settlement 11/27/2002 (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0033-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re: Settlement, Release and Dismissal of Claims in Class Action 11/27/2002
JC-CA-0033-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Ferguson, Warren John (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit)
JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-0008
Pregerson, Harry (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit)
JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-0008
Rea, William J. (C.D. Cal.)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0005
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit)
JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-0008
Woehrle, Carla M. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0005 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9001
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Axelrad, Adam J. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004
Burton, John C. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0006 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Cook, Donald W. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9001
Estuar, Paul J. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0005
Garcia, Miguel F. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Henley, Mary Anna (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004
Litt, Barrett S. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0005 | JC-CA-0033-0006 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9001
Mann, Robert Frederick (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9001
Midgley, Timothy J. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Moest, Robert C. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Soifer, Mary A. (California)
JC-CA-0033-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Aguilar, Lou V. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004
Beach, Paul B (California)
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0005 | JC-CA-0033-0006
Brazile, Kevin C. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Lawrence, David D. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0005 | JC-CA-0033-0006 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9000 | JC-CA-0033-9001
MacLatchie, Scott D. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9001
Pellman, Lloyd W. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0002 | JC-CA-0033-0003 | JC-CA-0033-0004 | JC-CA-0033-0006
Riley , Martha (California)
JC-CA-0033-0006
Spencer, Chandra G. (California)
JC-CA-0033-0001 | JC-CA-0033-0007 | JC-CA-0033-9000
Other Lawyers Norris, Donald G. (California)
JC-CA-0033-9000
Rosen, Roger M (California)
JC-CA-0033-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -