On May 29, 2008, three prisoners with mobility impairments housed in Los Angeles County jail facilities filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They challenged alleged discrimination against people with disabilities in the Los Angeles County jail system. Represented by private counsel, the Disability Rights Legal Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees, on the grounds that the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department did not provide an acceptable level of access, services, or accommodations to inmates with disabilities.

The plaintiffs specifically claimed that while being processed there were no accessible bathroom facilities, and that once they were housed in the jail, they were denied physical therapy and outdoor exercise, along with not being allowed to participate in most jail programs. They alleged as well that the jails failed to provide access features in bathrooms such as grab bars in the showers or toilets. Wheelchairs were rarely provided for disabled inmates and, if they were provided, were in a state of disrepair. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that prisoners' required medications were given inconsistently.

On June 9, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class and for a preliminary injunction. On August 13, 2008, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings and enter into settlement negotiations. On December 12, 2008, due to the lack of response from the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a request for lift of stay. On June 8, 2009, the court ordered that the stipulated stay would automatically expire on July 9, 2009.

On June 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On November 12, 2010, the plaintiffs refiled their motion for class certification.

On May 5, 2011, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants from disciplining class members for their failure or inability to get out of their wheelchairs. On May 12, 2011, Judge Pregerson denied the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order. 2011 WL 1812746 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011).

On October 15, 2012, Judge Pregerson certified a class of "all detainees and inmates with mobility impairments who because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations,
modifications, services, and/or physical access in accordance with federal and state disability laws."

The parties again entered into settlement negotiations, and on October 31, 2014, settled the case. The defendants agreed to an enforceable injunction, under which they would provide: access to all programming despite mobility disabilities, physical therapy and outdoor recreation, physical accessibility to the jail, working wheelchairs and prostheses, ADA coordinators on staff, a new grievance form, and reasonable accommodations when requested.

The Agreement provided that it would remain in effect for three years "after which time its provisions will automatically terminate [on April 22, 2018] unless the Court determines that, based on applicable law and specific findings of fact, that it is necessary to extend the duration of this Agreement." Monitoring was set to be performed by the Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General (OIG), an office which was created by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to monitor the County's Custody Services Division and jail facilities as of August 2014. The agreement was court-enforceable, but there were no stipulations relating the underlying facts.

On November 24, 2014, Judge Dean Pregerson preliminarily approved the class settlement. On March 24, 2015, Judge Pregerson granted the plaintiffs' motion for $2,200,000 in attorney's fees and granted final approval of the class settlement.

On June 8, 2015, Judge Pregerson dismissed the case, but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement as needed. On August 24, 2016, the parties finalized compliance measures to evaluate, track, and report on the county's progress.

On October 6, 2016, OIG filed its first implementation status report of the settlement agreement. It included the county's self-assessment regarding the settlement, indicating that they had completed specific provisions regarding housing expansion, improving accessibility of grievance procedures including an "ADA box," provided wheelchair training to medical professionals, among other changes. The report did not include OIG's analysis regarding whether it agreed that compliance was achieved on specific points. OIG filed its second report on June 30, 2017, finding substantial or sustained compliance on 18 matters, partial compliance on 17, and non-compliance on 2. The non-compliance issues involved the county's continuing practice of disqualifying class members from programming due to mobility impairments, and a failure to maintain and staff a physical therapy room. It noted that four county staff members' primary responsibilities dealt with compliance with this agreement and concluded that systemic reform was achievable.

On December 14, 2017, at the parties' request, Judge Pregerson extended the settlement term by one year, to April 22, 2019. On April 30, 2018, OIG filed its third status report, finding completed, substantial, sustained or partial compliance on all provisions. OIG indicated that systemic issues remained due in large part to inadequate training for ADA coordinators and other custody personnel, and recommended that ADA coordinators take on an expanded role in order to more efficiently work towards compliance.

OIG filed its fourth status report on April 26, 2019. The report found that defendants were in substantial compliance with 8 of the 49 provisions and sustained compliance with 22. They had only achieved partial compliance with the remaining 14 provisions. In light of this report, defendants stipulated to extending the settlement term another year, until April 22, 2020. Judge Pregerson granted this extension on May 14, 2019.

OIG filed their fifth and most recent status report was filed on March 31, 2020. This report found that defendants remained in partial compliance with 10 provisions. Defendants again stipulated to extend the terms of the settlement. On April 27, 2020, Judge Pregerson extended the duration of the settlement for one year, until April 22, 2021.

This case is ongoing.

Xin Chen - 04/19/2012
Jessica Kincaid - 10/25/2015
Veronica Portillo Heap - 11/21/2018
Alex Moody - 05/20/2020


compress summary