Case: Toussaint v. McCarthy

The case was brought on behalf of about 2,000 inmates confined in administrative segregation in four California prisons. A class action civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 was filed on Aug. 15, 1973 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California challenging poor conditions in segregation units. The class was represented by lawyers from the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Legal Aid Society of Sacramento County. The plaintiffs sought relief on two claims, the right to due process and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D. Cal. 1976), a three-judge panel of the district court (Judge Stanley A. Weigel) granted relief to inmates, finding that inmates in segregation are entitled to due process because of the additional loss of liberty segregation conferred. After the District Court's ruling, the State appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court under a law allowing for a direct appeal from decisions required to be heard by three-judge panels. The high court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case because a three-judge panel was not required, thus leaving the District Court's ruling intact. 434 U.S. 1052 (1978).A second claim for relief was based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. District Court for Northern District of California (Judge Weigel) issued a preliminary injunction mandating extensive changes to conditions in segregation units. On Appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Joseph Tyree Sneed) vacated the injunction and remanded the case back to district court. Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir. 1981). On remand, District Judge Weigel upheld injunctive relief, finding that conditions such as double-celling in small windowless cells, inadequate lighting, heating ventilation and plumbing, faulty sanitation, inadequate food service, and adequacy of medical care, were subject to 8th Amendment scrutiny. Toussaint v. Rushen, 553 F.Supp. 1365 (N.D. Cal.1983)

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, (Judge William Canby, Jr.), affirmed in part the district court's preliminary injunction, specifically affirming the problems with double celling articulated by the district court. Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984). Following a trial on the merits, the district court, (Judge Weigel), finalized injunctive relief, holding that the conditions of confinement were unconstitutional with respect to double-celling, heating and ventilation, lighting, noise, plumbing and food storage and preparation; that there were inadequate provisions for access to the courts; and that there was inadequate clothing, laundry and bedding. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984). On the same day, the court also found prison officials in contempt of the preliminary order, noting that an eight-month delay in ending double-celling was too long without evidence showing why prison officials couldn't have ended it sooner. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp.1427 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

Prison officials appealed the decision granting permanent injunctive relief. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Robert Beezer), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, finding that while prisoners had a liberty interest in their segregation status, which must be supported by some evidence, due process only required that officials hold an informal hearing within a reasonable time after the inmate was placed in segregation, but that it was improper for a court to determine when a prisoner should be released. Moreover, the medical claims and denial of contact visits and work programs didn't violate the Eighth Amendment. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court denied certiorari. 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). Inmates applied for attorneys fees and prison officials sought recoupment of fees recovered for their time spent monitoring compliance with the injunction. The District Court (Judge Weigel), held that prison officials were not entitled to recoupment of fees. 662 F.Supp. 1583 (N.D. Cal. 1987). The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs were entitled to only 37.5 % of total fees as they were only partially successful. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 826 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1987).

Prison officials subsequently sought a writ of mandamus to vacate Judge Weigel's order issuing the permanent injunction and ordering a monitor to inspect the new prison. The Court of Appeals granted the writ, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the monitor. Rowland v. U.S. District Court, 849 F.2d 380 (1988).

On review of the special monitor's report concerning the prisons' compliance with the terms of the injunctive relief, the District Court (Judge Weigel), held that it would not extend its jurisdiction over the case for an additional year and a half, that review of indeterminate segregation decisions was required every 90 days, that certain procedures were required to place inmates in administrative segregation, and that the prison couldn't rely on polygraph tests as a basis for assigning inmates to segregation. Toussaint v. Rowland, 711 F.Supp. 536 (N.D. Cal. 1989). A subsequent petition by the state for a writ of mandamus was denied. Rowland v. U.S. Dist. Court, 909 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished opinion). On appeal of the District Court's modified injunction, the Court of Appeals, (Judge Noonan), found that it was no longer warranted to have a court-appointed monitor to review segregation decisions at the prisons. Toussaint v. McCarthy, Toussaint v. Roland, 926 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1990), Amended Jan. 1991, Second Amended Feb. 1991. Thus, that provision of the injunctive relief was vacated. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Toussiant v. McCarthy, 502 U.S. 874 (1991).

A PACER search of the docket in this case indicates that there was a good deal of subsequent litigation over attorneys fees and nature of continued monitoring between 1991 - 1997, including, finally, an order in February 1997 by Judge Weigel vacating the injunctions and dismissing the case with prejudice.