On July 1, 1998, pretrial detainees filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the County of Los Angeles claiming that the county maintained an unconstitutional policy of holding pretrial detainees who were eligible for release in order to check for warrants, wants, and holds. The court (Judge Dean D. Pregerson) certified the class and granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the county was not carrying out court-ordered releases of detainees for up to thirty-six hours in order to update their database reflecting holds and wants. Vanke v. Block, No. 98-4111, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23488 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1998). The court found that this practice violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizure. The defendants were enjoined from holding individuals who had been acquitted of charges beyond the period of time necessary to perform the administrative functions required for release. On April 26, 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to make the injunction permanent because there had not yet been a judgment on the merits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action was moot because of its compliance with the preliminary injunction. On February 26, 2002, the court (Judge Pregerson) granted defendants' motion and the action was dismissed as moot. The sheriff had adopted a new policy for processing court-ordered releases, which complied with the terms of the preliminary injunction and went even further in promoting the prompt release of detainees.

The plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees, which were granted by the district court (Judge Pregerson). Vanke v. Block, No. 98-4111, 2002 WL 1836305 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2002). Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges Andrew Kleinfeld, Kim Wardlaw, and William Fletcher) held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) precluded attorney's fees. Vanke v. Block, 77 Fed.Appx. 948, 2003 WL 22331964 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2003). The court held that the PLRA requires that a prisoner prove an actual violation of rights to be entitled to fees. Because the case became moot before plaintiffs could prove a violation, they were not entitled to fees. On February 23, 2004, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Vanke v. Baca, 540 U.S. 1181 (2004).

Angela Heverling - 02/13/2006


compress summary