Key Closed Cases
State Prison Cases
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey
A landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held in 1998 that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state prisons, establishing that incarcerated people are entitled to ADA protections with respect to programs, services, and activities offered by correctional facilities.
Learn more.
Madrid v. Gomez
A landmark federal class action lawsuit resulting in sweeping injunctions requiring California’s Pelican Bay State Prison to eliminate excessive use of force, improve medical and mental health care, and remove people with serious mental illness from the Security Housing Unit. The case is reported at 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995) and was monitored by a court-appointed special master for years following the decision.
Amended Class Action Complaint (May 12, 1993)
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (January 1, 1995)
Learn more.
Toussaint v. McCarthy
A federal class action lawsuit in which a court found that conditions in segregated lock-up units at San Quentin, Folsom, Soledad, and Deuel Vocational Institute were unconstitutional. The case produced significant precedent on the procedural rights of incarcerated people held in long-term administrative segregation and the conditions required by the Eighth Amendment. See 597 F. Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986).
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision (September 30, 1986)
Learn more.
Thompson v. Enomoto
A federal class action lawsuit filed in 1979 by people on death row at San Quentin State Prison challenging their automatic confinement to administrative segregation as cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and a denial of individualized security assessment. The parties entered a comprehensive consent decree in 1980 covering housing and treatment conditions, classification procedures for condemned incarcerated people, and the range of privileges afforded to people on death row. The decree was monitored by a court-appointed special master and remained in effect until 2009.
Learn more.
Mitchell v. Felker
A federal class action lawsuit challenging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s practice of implementing race-based lockdowns in its men’s prisons. The Prison Law Office represented a class of African American incarcerated people who alleged that CDCR acted unconstitutionally by segregating and locking down an entire race of people in response to incidents involving any member of that race. The case settled in 2014, with the CDCR agreeing to cease race-based modified programs and lockdowns, use individualized threat assessment procedures, and revise its policies and training. The case was dismissed with prejudice in 2016.
Perez v. Tilton
A federal class action lawsuit on behalf of people incarcerated in California state with serious dental care needs. A 2006 court-approved amended stipulation required CDCR to make systemic improvements to dental care delivery statewide and established monitoring by plaintiffs’ counsel and independent court-appointed experts. The case produced one of the most comprehensive prison dental care programs in the country, covering services from routine cleanings through root canals.
Learn more.
Gates v. Deukmejian
A federal class action lawsuit filed in 1987 by people at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville and the Northern Reception Center. The plaintiffs alleged constitutionally deficient medical and psychiatric care, unconstitutional conditions of confinement including overcrowding, and lack of wheelchair access. The case resolved through a 1990 consent decree requiring broad improvements in medical care, mental health care, AIDS treatment, disability accommodations, sanitation, and staffing, and was monitored for nearly a decade until the remaining issues were folded into Coleman v. Wilson in 1998.
Learn more.
Wilson v. Deukmejian
A state court case in which a Marin County Superior Court found that conditions in the general population units at San Quentin constituted cruel and unusual punishment and issued an injunction requiring the state to remedy those conditions, including overcrowding and inadequate living conditions.
Clement v. CDC
A First Amendment case brought on behalf of Pelican Bay State Prison resident Frank Clement. The court found that a California Department of Corrections policy prohibiting people from receiving mail containing material printed from the internet did not serve a legitimate penological interest, and issued a permanent statewide injunction barring enforcement of the policy. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal in 2004. See 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004).
Learn more.
Budd v. Cambra
A state court case in which the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in 2002 that the California Department of Corrections violated state law by operating inpatient health care facilities throughout the prison system without obtaining the licenses required by the California Health and Safety Code. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction ordering the CDC to comply with state licensing requirements.
Learn more.
Marin v. Rushen
A settlement agreement was in effect for many years that is designed to improve medical and psychiatric care at San Quentin.
Juvenile Hall Cases
Farrell v. Harper
A state court class action filed in January 2003 challenging illegal and inhumane conditions in California’s juvenile correctional system. Brought on behalf of a taxpayer by the Prison Law Office, Disability Rights Advocates, and co-counsel, the lawsuit challenged the California Youth Authority’s failure to protect youth from violence and abuse, due process violations in segregation decisions, disability discrimination, and inadequate medical, mental health, and educational programming. In November 2004, the parties entered a consent decree requiring the state to develop and implement six remedial plans covering safety and welfare, mental health, education, sexual behavior treatment, health care, and youth with disabilities. The case was overseen by a Special Master and dismissed by stipulation in February 2016 after the state achieved substantial compliance.
Statewide Cases
A statewide drive to end illegal and inhumane conditions in California county juvenile halls started in 2006 with the filing of several lawsuits. The suits sought court orders requiring the state authority responsible for being a watchdog over juvenile halls—the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA)—to fulfill its duties and take action to correct intolerable conditions. Such conditions include severe overcrowding, lack of access to school programs, endemic violence, excessive use of force by staff, and virtually non-existent mental health care.
County Jail Cases
Topete v. County of San Bernardino
A federal class action lawsuit about conditions in the San Bernardino County Jails, challenging the County’s use of solitary confinement, use of force, denial of adequate medical and mental health care, and failure to provide disability accommodations.
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (November 18, 2016)
Parole-Related Cases
In re Rosenkrantz
A California Supreme Court case addressing the standard for judicial review of parole decisions for people serving life sentences. The court held, as a matter of first impression, that the factual basis for a Board of Prison Terms decision granting or denying parole—and the Governor’s reversal of such a decision—is subject to limited judicial review under a "some evidence" standard. The Prison Law Office represented the petitioner. See 29 Cal. 4th 616 (2002).
Learn more.
In re Rutherford/Luego
A state court case in which a court found that people serving life sentences were being denied their statutory right to annual parole consideration hearings due to an administrative backlog at the Board of Prison Terms. The court ordered corrective action and monitored the matter until the backlog was eliminated; the case was dismissed by court order in 2011.
In re Smith
A state Court of Appeal case in which the court overturned a Governor’s parole rescission on the grounds that it was not supported by “some evidence” and lacked the individualized consideration of case-specific factors required by In re Rosenkrantz.
Thompson/Bogovich v. Davis
A Ninth Circuit case in which the court held that a parole board may not categorically exclude a class of people with disabilities—in this case, people with substance abuse histories—from consideration for parole on account of that disability.
Valdivia v. Davis
A federal class action lawsuit in which the Prison Law Office challenged California’s parole revocation system as failing to meet constitutional due process requirements. In 2002, the court held that the system violated due process by failing to provide timely and accurate probable cause hearings, and subsequently ordered the state to develop a remedial plan. The resulting reforms addressed the lack of probable cause hearings at arrest, failure to appoint counsel, inadequate notice of charges and rights, restrictions on counsel’s access to information, failure to accommodate prisoners with mental illness, and a fundamentally unfair administrative appeal system. The case was dismissed in 2013 after parole revocation proceedings were transferred to county courts. See 206 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2002).
Immigration Detention Cases
Teneng v. Trump
A federal class action lawsuit filed in August 2018 by the Prison Law Office, the ACLU, and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center on behalf of immigrants detained at FCI Victorville, a federal prison used to house ICE detainees following emergency transfers from immigration facilities. The lawsuit challenged dangerous and inhumane conditions at the prison, including ignored medical and mental health needs, verbal abuse and retaliation by staff, lack of access to legal materials, inadequate food, and minimal outdoor access. The complaint raised claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In response to this action, the federal government moved ICE detainees out of FCI Victorville.