COVID-19 Summary: This was a preexisting lawsuit addressing conditions of confinement in the Santa Barbara County Jail. On March 18, 2020, class counsel wrote the county to urge significant responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter urged population reductions, and a variety of other steps (increasing education, access to cleaning supplies, free communications methods, and the like). The parties reached a settlement that was approved in July 2020 which granted many of the plaintiffs' preexisting demands for relief.
On December 6, 2017, several prisoners of the Santa Barbara County Jail (SBCJ) in pre-trial detention filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the County of Santa Barbara and the Sheriff's Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.6, and state law. The plaintiffs, represented by Disability Rights California, the Prisons Law Office, and private counsel sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. This case was assigned to District Judge George H. Wu and referred to Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth.
The plaintiffs alleged that, in operating a jail that is old and dilapidated, severely overcrowded, and understaffed, the defendants forced prisoners to live in dangerous, unsanitary conditions. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants failed to provide adequate health care for prisoners, that they overused solitary confinement as punishment, and that the defendants discriminated against and failed to accommodate people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from continuing the unlawful acts, conditions, and practices described above. The plaintiffs wanted the defendants to provide equal access to programs, services, and activities for people with disabilities, including but not limited to housing people with physical disabilities, appropriate access to assistive devices, housing people with disabilities in the least restrictive and most integrated settings appropriate to their needs, and providing an effective grievance system to contest disability discrimination.
On the day of filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed a notice of related cases. The plaintiff asked the court to recognize two cases as being related to the present case. These cases were Quinton Gray v. County of Riverside, available in this Clearinghouse
here, and George Topete v. County of San Bernardino, also available in this Clearinghouse
here.
On March 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action that included two classes. They defined the general class as “[a]ll people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system.” The plaintiffs also defined a subclass (the “Disabilities Subclass”) of “[a]ll people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system and who are qualified individuals with disabilities, as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12102, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), and California Government Code § 12926(j) and (m).”
Judge Wu granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for class certification on May 31, 2018, certifying the class and subclass requested in the plaintiff’s motion. In late June 2018, both parties requested that the court stay discovery to engage in settlement negotiations. The parties filed periodic status reports updating the court on the progress of their negotiations. The eighth status report was filed with the court on January 17, 2020 and stated that the parties were close to final settlement terms.
On March 18, 2020, the class counsel wrote the county to urge significant responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter urged population reductions, and a variety of other steps (increasing education, access to cleaning supplies, free communications methods, and the like).
The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on July 17, 2020 that contained a Stipulated Judgment and a Remedial Plan. The Remedial Plan required the defendants to implement policy improvements in nine areas: medical care, mental health care, suicide prevention, disability accommodations and access, environmental health and safety, custody operations/segregation, staffing for health care services, and training related to treatment of prisoners with special needs. Under the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs’ class counsel and designated court-appointed experts will monitor implementation of the Plan. The court has the power to enforce the judgment through specific performance and other remedies. The judgment will last for four years with judicial oversight and enforcement through specific performance and other remedies unless terminated earlier or extended.
Attorney's costs and fees, $1,132,809, were awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel for litigation and the plaintiffs' counsel will also receive costs and fees up to $125,000 per year for monitoring and enforcement. The Consent Judgment was approved by the court on July 31, 2020.
Jake Parker - 05/29/2018
Justin Hill - 03/19/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 10/29/2020
compress summary
