On May 14, 1985, a resident of the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles, filed suit under California State Law and the 8th and 14th Amendments, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The suit was filed against the City of Long Beach, the Mayor, ...
read more >
On May 14, 1985, a resident of the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles, filed suit under California State Law and the 8th and 14th Amendments, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The suit was filed against the City of Long Beach, the Mayor, Chief of Police, several City Councilors, and the County of Los Angeles as well as its Board of Supervisors, Director of Public Social Services, and Director of Children's Services. The plaintiff, represented by the Public Justice Foundation of Santa Monica California and the Youth Law Center of San Francisco, California, sought injunctive relief against the practice of incarcerating minors in the City Jail, and alleged cruel and unusual punishment and violations of due process. Specifically, the complaint alleged unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical or mental health facilities, unlawful holding of child abuse victims, holding children without prior judicial hearings.
On February 11, 1986, the California Superior Court (Judge M. Ross Bigelow) issued a preliminary injunction against a variety of specified processing and confinement practices as violative of Welfare & Institutions Code 206, 207 and 208.
On January 1, 1987, the relevant sections of the Juvenile Court Law were amended to reflect the changes necessary to comply with California and U.S. law.
On February 13, 1987, the Court (Judge Bigelow) entered Stipulated Judgment and Permanent Injunction against the City. The City agreed to take all steps to comply with the injunction, which required the City to make renovations and banned them from holding minors in the same buildings as adults. The Court also ordered that the stipulations have the effect of City departmental procedures and administrative regulations. Plaintiff's counsel retained the right to gather any necessary documents for monitoring purposes, and the City retained the right to dissolve any part of the Injunction after sufficient compliance. PACER has no docket and we have no further information on this case.Kristen Sagar - 10/26/2007
Megan Dolan - 12/05/2014