On April 26, 2006, taxpaying parents of a juvenile son incarcerated in the San Joaquin Juvenile Hall filed a complaint in the San Joaquin County, California, Superior Court naming, as defendant, the county's chief probation officer and seeking to enjoin expenditure of public funds for alleged ...
read more >
On April 26, 2006, taxpaying parents of a juvenile son incarcerated in the San Joaquin Juvenile Hall filed a complaint in the San Joaquin County, California, Superior Court naming, as defendant, the county's chief probation officer and seeking to enjoin expenditure of public funds for alleged illegal conduct at the juvenile hall. Plaintiffs had private counsel from a large firm and from the Prison Law Office, both of whom were also involved as plaintiffs' counsel in similar California cases in this database, Farrell v. Harper (JI-CA-13), Porter v. Speirs (JI-CA-15), and Waters v. Woodford (JI-CA-16).
The complaint set out numerous categories in which the hall, as operated, allegedly failed to meet state statutory standards, including inadequate physical safety (e.g., excessive staff use of force and physical restraints, staff-promoted fights, abuse of vulnerable juveniles, homemade weapons, and gangs), living conditions far from statutorily-mandated "homelike conditions" (e.g., poor meals, overcrowding, uncomfortable temperatures, broken plumbing, gang graffiti, and filth), administrative segregation ("ad seg") deficiencies (e.g., lockdown-type conditions, absence of rehabilitative programs or educational opportunities, failure to provide required Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), limited clothing, excessive isolation, and due process violations), inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate provision of rehabilitative or educational programs for non-ad seg wards, and deficient grievance procedures exacerbated by staff misconduct. Citing numerous provisions of the state's constitution and statutes, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and for the court to retain jurisdiction over the case until it found sufficient compliance by the defendant with remedial orders plaintiff sought.
The defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint and sought to have the court (Judge Bobby W. McNatt) strike portions of the pleading. The most recent docket entries we have for the case indicate that, as of June 2006, the defense requests had not been resolved and the case continued.
We have no further information about activity in the case.Mike Fagan - 05/16/2008