On August 2, 1990, prisoners at the Shasta County jail filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County of Shasta and the County Sheriff. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prisoner Rights Union and private counsel, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their conditions of confinement violated the Eight Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged problems with overcrowding, inadequate staffing, and inadequate medical, dental and mental health care. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 26, 1990, and on April 12, 1991, the District Court (Judge Edward J. Garcia) certified a class of all present and future prisoners at the Shasta County jail, as well as subclasses for male and female prisoners.

On November 8, 1991, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of medical, dental and mental health care. After holding a hearing on May 13, 1992, on September 4, 1992, Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski recommended that the defendants' motion be granted and the case be dismissed. On October 28, 1992, the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted Magistrate Judge Nowinski's recommendations in full, over the plaintiffs' objections.

The plaintiffs appealed, and during the appeals process litigation continued in the District Court over attorneys' fees and discovery. On April 6, 1994, the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted further recommendations by Magistrate Judge Nowinski to deny plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs appealed this decision as well.

On October 21, 1994, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit (Judge Poole, Judge Canby and Judge Rymer) affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Wooden v. Cnty. of Shasta, 39 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 1994). The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the issues raised in the defendants' motion, but found the District Court's grant of summary judgment sua sponte on the issues of overcrowding and inadequate staffing to be improper and remanded to have those issues properly briefed and argued.

On January 6, 1995, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. Magistrate Judge Nowinski issued a report on March 31, 1995, recommending that the motion be granted, and the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted this report on June 9 and dismissed the case. A further motion for attorneys' fees by plaintiffs was later denied.

As of the date of this summary, we have no further information on this case.

Christopher Schad - 08/20/2012


compress summary