On June 17, 2015, death row prisoners at California's San Quentin prison, who had been kept in prolonged solitary confinement, filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sued the State of California, the San Quentin State Prison, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of their Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that they were confined under inhumane and degrading conditions for excessively long periods, from three to twenty-six years, without meaningful review of their placement or hope of release. The plaintiffs claimed that they were deprived of basic human needs, suffered serious psychological and physical injury, had been coerced into providing information, and were subject to disproportionate punishment. Further, the plaintiffs claimed that they were placed in solitary confinement on the basis of allegations of gang affiliation without reliable evidence, even though they were not involved in any current gang activity.

On August 17, 2015, this case was reassigned to Judge Claudia Wilkens, who had also been assigned to a similar case, Ashker v. Brown.

On September 8, 2015, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas for settlement and a settlement conference was set for October 28, 2015.

As of May, 14, 2016, settlement negotiations were ongoing, and both parties continued to submit status reports.

On October 10, 2016, there was a settlement conference before Judge Vadas but the matter was not settled. Another settlement conference was scheduled for January 3, 2017, and it was rescheduled for February 15, 2017.

On January 17, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On February 15, 2017, the defendants and five of the six plaintiffs entered into a full settlement of the case. Under the settlement, the parties agreed to stay the litigation and suspend all activity until July 18, 2017. The litigation was to remain stayed for an additional ninety days, during which time the plaintiffs could move to have the stay lifted by showing current, ongoing, and systemic constitutional violations continued to exist as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint. If the plaintiffs did not file such a motion by October 17, 2017, the parties agreed that the case would be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. One plaintiff did not sign the settlement agreement, and because of this, the plaintiffs argued that the settlement agreement was invalid.

The parties continued to negotiate and the plaintiffs presented the defendants with a proposed settlement agreement that was signed by all six plaintiffs. The defendants requested further time to negotiate. On July 24, 2017, the parties requested to stay the litigation once again.

On August 21, 2017, Judge Wilken denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in light of the parties' ongoing efforts to settle the case.

On October 3, 2017, the parties were still negotiating and declared that they would update the court on their progress towards settlement on October 10, 2017. On October 10, 2017, the parties were still negotiating.

On November 9, 2017, the parties requested that the matter be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, and Judge Wilken granted this order.

On January 10, 2018, there was a motion to intervene filed and on January 26, 2018, there was a motion for relief from judgment. Both motions were filed by the same individual, and both motions were denied by Judge Wilken on September 5, 2018.

Lakshmi Gopal - 05/15/2016
Victoria Fiengo - 10/11/2018


compress summary