COVID-19 Summary: This was a preexisting lawsuit addressing conditions of confinement in the Sacramento County Jail. On March 18, 2020, class counsel wrote the county to urge significant responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter requested population reductions and a variety of other steps (increasing education, access to cleaning supplies, free communications methods, and the like). On June 24, the parties reported that while on-site monitoring was feasible, some court experts who resided out of state indicated that they may be unable to travel to the Jail depending on the circumstances of COVID-19. The parties jointly sought modification of the terms of the consent decree and stipulated to remote access of records, virtual tour and timeline modifications. The court approved ongoing modifications. Between September and October, the court received letters from individuals in the Jail that alleged violations of the consent decree.
On July 31, 2018, prisoners in the County of Sacramento jail system, with the assistance of counsel from Disability Rights California, Prison Law Office, and Cooley LLP, filed this suit against the County of Sacramento. The plaintiffs alleged a series of problems with the County of Sacramento Jail system, including understaffing, prolonged and harmful isolation, lack of minimally adequate mental health care, lack of minimally adequate medical care, and discrimination on the basis of disability. The plaintiffs claimed that these violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, cruel and unusual conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans' with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and California state law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.
The case was randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, however, the plaintiffs declined to consent to a Magistrate Judge and requested a random assignment to a United States District Judge. The case was then assigned to both District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Newman on September 4, 2018.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the lack of staffing led to problems with cleanliness, transportation, and security. The plaintiffs claimed that the County of Sacramento was aware of these problems because they had been notified by both internal and external reports. The plaintiffs also alleged that people were kept in cells for at least 23 1/2 hours per day in solitary confinement (called "total separation" or "T-Sep). Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that prisoners were placed in solitary confinement for no reason—even those with intellectual disabilities or suicidal prisoners were regularly placed in solitary confinement. The County of Sacramento jails did not meet minimally adequate mental health care standards according to the plaintiffs, as evidenced by the inadequate screening at intake, failure to create treatment plans, and lack of staff. The plaintiffs also noted that the rate of suicide deaths at defendant's jails was twice the national average.
The plaintiffs additionally took issue with medical screenings, which were conducted in crowded intake areas that compromised the plaintiffs' privacy. Moreover, patients would not be seen for multiple issues at once and prisoners who are unable to fill out medical requests on their own were left without care. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that prisoners with disabilities were discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant's jails failed to identify or track persons with disabilities and provide people with necessary walking aids. The main jail housing was not ADA accessible, which placed inmates with disabilities in separate housing simply because of their disability. They further claimed that this denied them access to the same programming.
On October 18, 2018, the parties jointly moved for class certification. On December 28, 2018, the court certified the class of "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in Sacramento County jails." The court also certified a subclass of "all qualified individuals with disabilities [...] who are, or will be in the future, incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails."
On June 10, 2019, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement in the form of a proposed Consent Decree, which involved a Remedial Plan requiring the County to expand its mental health programs and services, provide constitutionally-adequate medical care, provide additional safeguards to reduce suicides by people in custody, identify people with disabilities and ensure that they receive appropriate accommodations, and expand mental health input into the jail's disciplinary and use of force practices. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Decree and the agreement would last for six years from the date it is entered by the court.
On August 13, 2019, Judge Nunley issued an order preliminarily approving the Consent Decree and finding the Consent Decree met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3262(a)(1), the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 2019 WL 3804192. Judge Nunley also laid out a schedule for posting the Notice of Class Action Settlement and set a fairness hearing for December 5, 2019.
On September 4, 2019, Judge Nunley released an order regarding the revised Notice of Class Action settlement, which was revised to note that plaintiffs asked for $2.1 million in attorney's fees and an annual cap of $250,000 per year to monitor compliance with the Consent Decree.
On Nov 12, 2019, the plaintiffs and defendants sought final approval of the Consent Decree and Magistrate Judge Newman recommended it for approval on December 9. 2019 WL 6696667. The Consent Decree was finally approved on January 8, 2020, with the $2.1 million in attorney fees to be paid in two installments of $1.05 million, dated January 31 and July 31, 2020. 2019 WL 6696668.
On March 4, the parties agreed on three court experts, each specializing in the field of medical health, mental health, and suicide prevention. The experts were approved on March 10.
On March 18, 2020, class counsel wrote defendants an urgent letter about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the safety of jail inmates, urging development of a response plan and releases of as many inmates as possible:
We were pleased to see that the Sheriff’s Department received authorization from the Sacramento Superior Court to grant accelerated release of prisoners, up to thirty days early on a person’s sentence, effective through May 31, 2020. . . . We strongly encourage the County to explore and implement other mechanisms to safely reduce the jail population, including through (1) a broader early release order, (2) work release arrangements . . . and (3) expanded pretrial release.
In light of the pandemic, the parties stipulated to the postponement of all scheduled site visits by the Court Experts and Plaintiffs’ counsel and sought extension of the deadlines for the 180-Day Reports by the Court Experts. Instead, the parties requested leave to file a status report on or before June 24, 2020, providing further information to the Court about the status of their monitoring and proposing a modification to deadlines described in the Consent Decree. The parties also agreed that the compliance with the provisions of the Remedial Plan in the Consent Decree had not been reached. They told the court that they continued to work collaboratively to review and revise the jail’s operational policies to reflect the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
On April 30, the court granted the request and extended the deadline.
The parties were ordered to submit a status report about the status of monitoring compliance with the Consent Decree and potential modifications to the reporting deadlines.
On June 24, the parties reported that while on-site monitoring was feasible, some court experts who reside out of state indicated that they may be unable to travel to the jail depending on the circumstances of COVID-19. The parties jointly sought modification of the order and stipulated to remote access of records, a virtual tour, and timeline modifications. Two days later, the court approved the modifications.
On September 3, the court received seven letters from individuals, claiming that they have been housed in solitary confinement at the Sacramento County Main Jail for periods ranging from 10.5 to 22 months, allegedly violating the consent decree.
On October 7, the court adopted further modifications to the reporting timeline after one court expert resigned. On November 16, the court received a letter from five individuals who claimed that since August, despite filing grievances and raising issues with various authorities, they had been held in restrictive housing. The court directed class counsel to respond.
Both parties have submitted periodic monitoring reports to update the court on defendant’s compliance with the restrictive housing and ADA/disability provisions of the Remedial Plan. The case is ongoing.
Cianan Lesley - 02/07/2019
Caitlin Kierum - 10/27/2019
Averyn Lee - 09/25/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/29/2020
Tessa McEvoy - 03/12/2021
compress summary
