On February 29th, 2016, a convicted prisoner filed this class-action lawsuit against San Bernardino County in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C.§1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. Represented by the Prison Law Office and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the county violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment rights of the nearly 6,000 people incarcerated in its jails. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the jail’s medical, mental health, and dental care was unconstitutionally deficient; that jail staff used excessive force against people and failed to take the basic steps to prevent violence; and that jail staff discriminated against people with disabilities by locking them in housing units inaccessible to toilets or in tiny cells for 22 hours a day.
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that San Bernardino County’s ongoing practices violated their constitutional and statutory rights, and sought injunctive relief compelling the county to address the issues alleged by providing adequate health care, protecting people from violence, providing equal access to programs, services, and activities, and ceasing the use of excessive force.
On September 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On January 27, 2017, Judge Virginia A. Phillips granted the parties’ joint motion to certify two classes of plaintiffs composed of (1) all people who are currently, and in the future, who will be incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails, and of (2) all people who are currently, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability as defined by the ADA.
Having reached a settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree on March 28, 2018, that would, if approved by the court, settle all claims for injunctive relief in this suit. The settlement agreement named the plaintiffs as the prevailing party and required the defendant to adopt what the parties called the remedial plan. The remedial plan was designed to meet the minimum level of health care necessary to fulfill the defendant’s obligations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to ensure that unlawful force is not utilized in the jails, to avoid the unlawful use of segregated or restrictive housing in the jails, and to ensure compliance with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plan required that the defendants develop and implement appropriate and adequate plans, policies, and practices to ensure compliance with the agreement; report on the use of these policies; provide notice to class members; and adopt a more effective dispute resolution process. The defendant also was required to pay the plaintiffs $350,000 in attorneys’ fees. The duration of the settlement was four years and the court would retain jurisdiction over the matter.
As of June 22, 2018, the court has not yet adopted the proposed consent decree. The case is ongoing.
Sihang Zhang - 10/16/2016
Lisa Limb - 03/23/2018
Jake Parker - 06/22/2018
compress summary
