The plaintiffs originally filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 2, 1991. The plaintiff class, consisting of certain pre-trial detainees housed at San Francisco Jail Number 3 (Jail No. 3) in San Bruno, California, ...
read more >
The plaintiffs originally filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 2, 1991. The plaintiff class, consisting of certain pre-trial detainees housed at San Francisco Jail Number 3 (Jail No. 3) in San Bruno, California, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the conditions of their confinement. The original action, entitled William Besk v. City and County of San Francisco, lead to a Stipulation of Dismissal ("Besk Stipulation") filed by Senior Judge William H. Orrick on May 24, 1993, in which plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action if defendants complied with the thirty-three requirements contained therein. Besk v. City and County of San Francisco, 1993 WL 181496 (N.D.Cal. 1993). The defendants' alleged violations of the Besk Stipulation requirements prompted the plaintiffs to reopen the case and file an amended complaint charging noncompliance. On April 22, 1994, the court appointed Allen F. Breed as Special Master to aid the court in determining whether the defendants complied with the terms of the Besk Stipulation. According to the Special Master's report of August 30, 1994, the defendants had improved some of the living conditions at Jail No. 3, but in many cases they failed to substantially comply with the Besk Stipulation.
On the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Senior Judge William H. Orrick) granted the motion in part. Jones v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.Supp. 896 (N.D.Cal. 1997). Judge Orrick held that the detainees had established due process violations based on defendants' inadequate response to fire safety risks at the jail, excessive risks of harm from earthquakes, physical defects in the jail's water, plumbing, and sewage systems, excessive noise levels, and poor lighting. The court found that fact questions precluded summary judgment as to alleged deficiencies in ensuring personal safety, in the jail's air quality, ventilation and heating, and in the privacy of attorney-client consultation. The court enjoined the defendants to draft a plan to remedy the described constitutional violations.
Judge Orrick subsequently approved the defendant's settlement plan on August 30, 1999. On March 27, 2000, Judge Orrick issued an order stating that if the defendants did not enter into a binding a contract to build a new jail by June 15, 2000, the court would vacate the stay of the action and order the City to close Jail No. 3 and to house those inmates elsewhere. On May 15, 2000, Judge Orrick found that the defendants had complied with the later settlement terms, and on May 31, 2000, Judge Orrick referred the case to the Federal Pro Bono Project. On August 18, 2000, the case was dismissed.Kristen Sagar - 12/09/2007