This case was filed by three people incarcerated in the Contra Costa County jails on behalf of all people incarcerated in the jails, includes allegations that the medical and mental health care provided by the County does not meet the minimum standards required by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Complaint also alleges that the jails do not meet the standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in that people with disabilities who are incarcerated in the jails do not have equal access to the programs, services and activities provided by the County.  The County has denied the allegations, but on October 1, 2020, agreed to a court enforced Consent Decree and remedial plan that will improve medical and mental health services.  Negotiations about a plan for disability access will occur in the near future.

In 2013, the Prison Law Office and co-counsel filed a lawsuit challenging unconstitutional medical and mental health care in the Riverside County Jail.

In 2011, the Prison Law Office and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit seeking to remedy cruel and unusual conditions in the Fresno County Jail. The suit describes how incarcerated people have been subjected to violence and denied mental health care and medical treatment for life-threatening illnesses.

In December 2017, Prison Law Office and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners in the Santa Barbara County Jail, claiming that conditions at the jail do not meet minimum standards under the U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state disability law. The lawsuit alleges that the jail fails to provide basic mental health and medical care, overuses and misuses solitary confinement, discriminates against people with disabilities, and provides inhumane, unsanitary, and unsafe living conditions. The lack of care and failure to meet minimum legal standards has led to unnecessary suffering and injury for prisoners with disabilities at the jail. The prisoners seek significant reforms to improve jail conditions to comply with constitutional and statutory standards.

The parties settled the case on July 17, 2020, with the entry of a Joint Notice of Settlement and Proposed Stipulated Judgment.

In July 2018, the Prison Law Office filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of people incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails. The lawsuit challenges the County’s use of prolonged solitary confinement, the denial of adequate medical and mental health care and failing to take sufficient measures to prevent suicide. The complaint further alleges system wide violations of federal and state disability law. In February 2019, filed a motion challenging the unconstitutional use of solitary confinement for people with serious mental illness and the ongoing denial of access to mental health care.

In 2015, the Prison Law Office filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging the inhumane placement of inmates in tiny solitary confinement cells for long periods of time with little human contact, activity or exercise.

In 2016, the Prison Law Office filed a class action lawsuit in federal court 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.  In December 2018, the Court approved a Consent Decree designed to improve conditions in the jails.

The Prison Law Office and Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP filed a federal class action lawsuit in 1994 on behalf of people with disabilities, including those with vision, kidney, hearing, mobility, speech, and/or learning disabilities, who were in CDCR custody.  We alleged that people with disabilities did not have equal access to programs, services, and activities, both in prison and while on parole, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Court found that CDCR was violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and issued an injunction to improve access to prison programs for prisoners with physical disabilities at all of California’s prisons and parole facilities. The case is reported at 942 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).

Since that time, the Prison Law Office has been working to enforce the terms of the injunction and ensure that people with disabilities are treated fairly in the California prison system.  A few examples of our recent advocacy and litigation efforts are listed below.

Safe Housing of People with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

On July 14, 2020, we filed a motion challenging CDCR’s failure to safely house and provide accommodations to people with disabilities.  We submitted evidence that, for months, Defendants have placed class members at the California Institution for Men in inaccessible settings. In addition, class members who had never before tested positive for COVID-19, including those with significant underlying medical conditions and who are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, were housed in the same crowded dormitory as people with confirmed, active cases, sharing the same toilets, sinks, showers, dayroom, and sleeping areas, because Defendants had no other accessible housing for them. Unsurprisingly, they quickly became infected too.

On July 20, 2020, Judge Wilken issued an order requiring CDCR to establish and maintain adequate safe, accessible housing, including for purposes of medical isolation and quarantine, and directed the Court Expert to review the sufficiency of CDCR’s existing supply of accessible housing and provide his recommendations to the Court no later than August 19, 2020.

For select case filings, please click here.

Staff Misconduct Against People with Disabilities

On June 3, 2020, we filed a motion seeking a remedial plan to stop correctional officers throughout the California prison system from assaulting and retaliating against people with disabilities. The motion expands upon a motion filed on February 28, 2020, which described similar harm and seeks similar relief for people with disabilities at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. On July 30, 2020, Judge Wilken issued an order granting a preliminary injunction to protect incarcerated witnesses from retaliation.

For more information on this litigation, please click here.

Sign Language Interpretation for Deaf People

We repeatedly reported that Deaf people have been denied access to educational and rehabilitative programs due to CDCR’s failure to provide adequate sign language interpretation.  This placed Deaf people at a significant disadvantage before the Board of Parole Hearings, which may have resulted in Deaf people serving longer sentences than their hearing counterparts.  We demanded that CDCR hire more staff interpreters and allow Deaf people to be housed in more program-rich institutions.

In response, CDCR allocated an additional $1.5 million/year to increase the number of sign language interpreters, designated San Quentin State Prison for Deaf people, and held Deaf Culture Town Halls at all prisons designated to house Deaf people.

A federal District Court judge issued an injunction, ordering the Board of Prison Terms to remedy its shocking and appalling failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act during parole hearings. The order came after a trial during which one prisoner told of having to leave his wheelchair behind to crawl upstairs to a hearing, a deaf prisoner told the judge he was shackled during his hearing and could not communicate with the sign language interpreter, and a blind inmate said he was offered no help with complicated written materials. The injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion published at (2001) 275 F.3d 849.

After extensive discovery in a class action lawsuit, prison officials agreed to develop and implement a plan to screen inmates for developmental disabilities, and to provide developmentally disabled prisoners with safe housing and supportive services.

In December 2017, Prison Law Office and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners in the Santa Barbara County Jail, claiming that conditions at the jail do not meet minimum standards under the U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state disability law. The lawsuit alleges that the jail fails to provide basic mental health and medical care, overuses and misuses solitary confinement, discriminates against people with disabilities, and provides inhumane, unsanitary, and unsafe living conditions. The lack of care and failure to meet minimum legal standards has led to unnecessary suffering and injury for prisoners with disabilities at the jail. The prisoners seek significant reforms to improve jail conditions to comply with constitutional and statutory standards.

The parties settled the case on July 17, 2020, with the entry of a Joint Notice of Settlement and Proposed Stipulated Judgment.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to state prisoners.

In a First Amendment victory for prisoners and their correspondents, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a court order striking down a policy that prohibited many California prisoners from receiving mail containing printed material from the internet. The opinion is published at (2004) 364 F.3d 1148.

In 2003, California Youth Authority (CYA) officials signed a consent decree, agreeing to remedy serious on-going problems with conditions in the CYA’s facilities. The decree requires the CYA to provide wards with adequate and effective care, treatment and rehabilitation services, including reducing violence and the use of force, improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of lock-ups and providing better education programs. Subsequently, a series of expert reported were filed discussing the many abuses faced by CYA wards. In 2005, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the agency now in charge of California’s youth facilities, adopted plans to correct problems with the system: the Disabilities Remedial Plan, the Education Remedial Plan, the Medical Care Remedial Plan, the Sexual Behavior Treatment Remedial Plan, the Safety & Welfare Remedial Plan, and the Mental Health Remedial Plan. The case was overseen by a Special Master who issued quarterly reports.

In a First Amendment victory for prisoners and their correspondents, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a court order striking down a policy that prohibited many California prisoners from receiving mail containing printed material from the internet. The opinion is published at (2004) 364 F.3d 1148.

A consent decree to improve conditions and establish rights for condemned prisoners at San Quentin was in effect from 1980 to 2009.

Conditions in the segregated lock-up units at San Quentin, Folsom, Soledad, and Deuel Vocational Institute were declared unconstitutional by a federal court. The case is reported at 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984) aff’d 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986).

A state court found that the conditions in the general population units at San Quentin were cruel and unusual punishment and issued an injunction to ensure that conditions improved.

The Prison Law Office, ACLU, and Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center filed a federal lawsuit in July 2018 against President Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for violating the constitutional rights of immigrants detained at FCI Victorville, a federal prison in Victorville, California. Immigrants detained at the prison face dangerous and inhumane conditions. Medical and mental health needs are ignored and when the men try to seek medical help, they are often dismissed, mocked, and verbally abused by staff who threaten them with isolation and other punishment. They do not have access to legal materials and the most basic information is only provided to the detainees in English—which most do not speak. They face additional deprivations including inadequate and insufficient food, and minimal access to outdoor spaces for fresh air and sunlight. The lawsuit, brought by six detained immigrants on behalf of all ICE detainees at Victorville, raises claims for violations of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We asked the court to order ICE to immediately remedy the unlawful conditions and ultimately remove immigrants from the prison.

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.

The Farrell case was dismissed by stipulation on February 25, 2016. Please see Farrell v. Harper for case details leading up to dismissal.

In 2003, California Youth Authority (CYA) officials signed a consent decree, agreeing to remedy serious on-going problems with conditions in the CYA’s facilities. The decree requires the CYA to provide wards with adequate and effective care, treatment and rehabilitation services, including reducing violence and the use of force, improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of lock-ups and providing better education programs. Subsequently, a series of expert reported were filed discussing the many abuses faced by CYA wards. In 2005, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the agency now in charge of California’s youth facilities, adopted plans to correct problems with the system: the Disabilities Remedial Plan, the Education Remedial Plan, the Medical Care Remedial Plan, the Sexual Behavior Treatment Remedial Plan, the Safety & Welfare Remedial Plan, and the Mental Health Remedial Plan. The case was overseen by a Special Master who issued quarterly reports.

Since December 2009, the Prison Law Office has been working with the Stanislaus County Probation Department on the Girls Juvenile Justice Initiative.

Prison Law Office successfully challenged the Governor’s reversal of our client’s parole grant. The Los Angeles superior court reinstated the parole grant, holding that the Governor’s decision that our client posed an unreasonable risk to public safety was not supported by the record. The court rejected the Governor’s attempt to rely on our client’s mental health diagnoses as a basis for reversing his parole grant. The Governor initially appealed the court’s order but ultimately abandoned the appeal and released our client from prison.

An on-going battle against the Board of Prison Terms’ and Governor Davis’s lifer parole policies resulted in a California Supreme Court 2002 opinion. The case is published at (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616.

In 2006, a state court found that lifers were being denied their rights to annual parole consideration hearings (under the law in effect at the time) due to delays caused by a backlog of cases. The courts continued monitoring the case. Eventually, the backlog was eliminated and the case was dismissed by a Court Order in 2011.

A state Court of Appeal overturned a Governor’s parole rescission that was not based on “some evidence” and an individualized consideration of the case factors.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parole board may not exclude a class of disabled people (in this case, people with substance abuse histories) from consideration for parole based on a disability.

In May 2002 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that the California Department of Corrections violated the law by failing to license health care facilities that provide inpatient treatment to the almost 160,000 prisoners throughout the state. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction ordering the CDC to comply with the law.

In 1995, a federal court found that the mental health system operated by the California Department of Corrections was unconstitutional and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the needs of mentally ill inmates. All CDCR institutions are still being monitored by a court-appointed special master. The case is reported at 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

COVID-19 Pandemic

The Coleman court has issued orders regarding continued access to inpatient mental health care during the crisis, and has ordered CDCR to provide information regarding how it will protect class members who are particularly vulnerable to complications from COVID-19.

The Farrell case was dismissed by stipulation on February 25, 2016. Please see Farrell v. Harper for case details leading up to dismissal.

Conditions at California’s “super-maximum” Pelican Bay State Prison have been subject to injunctions aimed at eliminating excessive force, improving health care and removing prisoners with mental illness from the Security Housing Unit. As a result of this case, Pelican Bay is currently being monitored by a court-appointed special master. The case is reported at (N.D. Cal. 1995)889 F.Supp. 1146.

A settlement agreement was in effect for many years that is designed to improve medical and psychiatric care at San Quentin.

In December 2017, Prison Law Office and co-counsel filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners in the Santa Barbara County Jail, claiming that conditions at the jail do not meet minimum standards under the U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state disability law. The lawsuit alleges that the jail fails to provide basic mental health and medical care, overuses and misuses solitary confinement, discriminates against people with disabilities, and provides inhumane, unsanitary, and unsafe living conditions. The lack of care and failure to meet minimum legal standards has led to unnecessary suffering and injury for prisoners with disabilities at the jail. The prisoners seek significant reforms to improve jail conditions to comply with constitutional and statutory standards.

The parties settled the case on July 17, 2020, with the entry of a Joint Notice of Settlement and Proposed Stipulated Judgment.

An Amended Stipulation and Order filed in this federal class action lawsuit in 2006 requires the CDCR to provide adequate dental care for state prisoners. Compliance was monitored by the prisoners’ attorneys and their consultants, as well as independent court-appointed experts.

In the largest ever prison class action lawsuit, prisoners alleged that California officials inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. A settlement agreement filed in 2002 required the California Department of Corrections to completely overhaul its medical care policies and procedures, and to pump significant resources into the prisons to ensure timely access to adequate care. In 2005, the federal judge who oversees the case described medical treatment in the prisons as still “horrifying” and “shocking.” Subsequently, in October 2005, the judge ordered that California’s prison medical care system be placed under the control of a court-appointed Receiver. In March 2009, the federal judge issued an Order denying the State’s motion to terminate the appointment of the Receiver. The judge expressed a lack of confidence that the State would provide constitutionally-adequate medical care or maintain improvements made under the Receiver’s supervision. In April 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court order and rejected California’s attempt to end judicial control of its prison health care system.

The Prison Law Office, ACLU, and Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center filed a federal lawsuit in July 2018 against President Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for violating the constitutional rights of immigrants detained at FCI Victorville, a federal prison in Victorville, California. Immigrants detained at the prison face dangerous and inhumane conditions. Medical and mental health needs are ignored and when the men try to seek medical help, they are often dismissed, mocked, and verbally abused by staff who threaten them with isolation and other punishment. They do not have access to legal materials and the most basic information is only provided to the detainees in English—which most do not speak. They face additional deprivations including inadequate and insufficient food, and minimal access to outdoor spaces for fresh air and sunlight. The lawsuit, brought by six detained immigrants on behalf of all ICE detainees at Victorville, raises claims for violations of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We asked the court to order ICE to immediately remedy the unlawful conditions and ultimately remove immigrants from the prison.

In the largest ever prison class action lawsuit, prisoners alleged that California officials inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. A settlement agreement filed in 2002 required the California Department of Corrections to completely overhaul its medical care policies and procedures, and to pump significant resources into the prisons to ensure timely access to adequate care. In 2005, the federal judge who oversees the case described medical treatment in the prisons as still “horrifying” and “shocking.” Subsequently, in October 2005, the judge ordered that California’s prison medical care system be placed under the control of a court-appointed Receiver. In March 2009, the federal judge issued an Order denying the State’s motion to terminate the appointment of the Receiver. The judge expressed a lack of confidence that the State would provide constitutionally-adequate medical care or maintain improvements made under the Receiver’s supervision. In April 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court order and rejected California’s attempt to end judicial control of its prison health care system.

In 2002, a federal court found that that delays in the parole revocation process violated due process protections. (Valdivia v. Davis (E.D. 2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 1068.) The California Department of Corrections and Board of Prison Terms agreed to a stipulated permanent injunction to improve the timeliness of parole revocation proceedings, provide for probable cause hearings and appoint attorneys to represent all parolees facing revocation proceedings. The injunction remained in place until 2013, when parole revocation proceedings were turned over to the county courts and the federal court issued an Order dismissing the case as moot.

Conditions at California’s “super-maximum” Pelican Bay State Prison have been subject to injunctions aimed at eliminating excessive force, improving health care and removing prisoners with mental illness from the Security Housing Unit. As a result of this case, Pelican Bay is currently being monitored by a court-appointed special master. The case is reported at (N.D. Cal. 1995)889 F.Supp. 1146.