On August 17, 1981, prisoners brought this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, against the Umatilla County Sheriff and County Commissioner, under 42 U.S.C § 1983. The plaintiffs claimed that the conditions of confinement violated their First, Eighth, and ...
read more >
On August 17, 1981, prisoners brought this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, against the Umatilla County Sheriff and County Commissioner, under 42 U.S.C § 1983. The plaintiffs claimed that the conditions of confinement violated their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
On November 5, 1981, the District Court certified the class and visited the jail. On July 2, 1982, the District Court (Judge James Redden) granted the plaintiff's motion for interim relief pending trial, and ordered that the defendants provide adequate staffing so that security of the inmates could be maintained 24 hours per day, ventilation of the cells during the summer, a shower temperature that would not scald the inmates, and an hour of exercise five days a week.
On September 2, 1982, the court made a second inspection of the jail to confirm that defendants were complying with the interim relief order. Though a new facility was under construction and would have alleviated many of the conditions in the suit, the defendants refused to settle.
As a result, on February 1, 1983, the District Court for the District of Oregon, (Judge Redden) announced the ruling concerning the conditions at the jail when the suit was originally filed. The court found that the security, medical care, and living conditions all violated the inmates' Eighth Amendment rights. 563 F.Supp. 984 (D. Oregon 1983).
The court also found that the inmates Due Process rights were violated by the disciplinary policy, and that the inmates were denied access to the courts. Finally, the court found that the inmates' First Amendment rights were violated by the jail's censorship and regulation of the mail. The court ordered the defendants to pose a plan to the court, within 30 days, to alleviate the violations that still existed at the jail and to advise the court of the progress on the new facility. If the defendants failed to respond, the court would fashion its own remedy. The court a judgment for the three named plaintiffs on July 11, 1984 and closed the case. Jaclyn Adams - 02/24/2006
Rachel June-Graber - 02/22/2016