Joint Appendix — Block v. Rutherford

Supreme Court brief1984

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 83-317 DEC 22 1985

IN THE esaNDER L. STEVAS,

Supreme Court of the United_St

October Term, 1983 ~

SHERMAN BLOCK,

Petitioners,

vs.

DENNIS RUTHERFORD,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

JOINT APPENDIX. ™

FREDERICK R. BENNETT,

Principal Deputy County Counsel,

Los Angeles County Counsel's

Office,

500 West Temple Street,

Suite 648,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90012,

(213) 974-1880,

Counsel for Petitioners.

FRED OKRAND,

JOHN H. HAGAR, JR.,

ACLU Foundation of

Southern California,

633 S. Shatto Place,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90005,

(213) 487-1720,

Counsel for Respondents.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED August 23, 1983

CERTIORARI GRANTED November 7, 1983

Parker & Son, Inc., Law Printers, Los Angeles. Phone 724-6622

TABLE OF PARTS OF THE RECORD,

JOINT APPENDIX.

Item

No. = Date Court Description Location*

1. Relevant Docket Entries

in Courts Below JA-1

2. 5/14/76 USDC Plaintiff's Second

Amended Complaint JA-10

3. 7/6/76 USDC Defendants Answer to

Second Amended

Complaint JA-34

4. 6/27/77 USDC Pretrial Conference \

Order JA-51

5. 7/25/77 USDC Stipulation JA-91

The following documents (except item no.

11, which is contained herein) have been

reproduced in the petition for certiorari, and are

not reproduced herein. Location references are

to the Petition for Certiorari Appendix (‘‘PA’’).

7/25/78 USDC Reported Memorandum

Opinion, 457 F.Supp.

104 (C.D. Cal. 1978) PA-41

if 2/15/79 USDC Unreported

Supplemental

Memorandum Opinion PA-29

8. 2/15/79 USDC Judgment PA-37

9. 8/8/80 USCA Unreported Opinion § PA-17

10. . 5/18/81 USDC Unreported

Memorandum Decision PA-23

11. 5/18/81 USDC Judgment JA-93

12. 7/14/81 USCA Opinion PA

**JA"’ references are to the Joint Appendix.

Date

12/9/75

3/23/76

5/14/76

7/6/76

2/1/77

2/23/77

2/25/77

3/14/77

6/27/77

7/25/77

Relevant Docket Entries.

Court

USDC

Entry

Complaint filed.

Order certifying class action and

requiring distribution of notice

to class filed.

Second amendéd complaint

filed.

Defendants’ answer to second

amended complaint filed.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial

summary judgment/preliminary

injunction and affidavits in sup-

port filed.

Plaintiffs’ amended motion for

partial summary judgment pre-

liminary injunction filed.

Defendants’ affidavits in oppo-

sition to motion for preliminary

injunction/summary judgment

filed.

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion

for partial summary judgment/

preliminary injunction filed.

Pretrial conference order filed.

Stipulation and order that affi-

davits submitted at the hearing

on the preliminary injunction

may be admitted into evidence

as the direct testimony of the af-

fant in lieu of direct testimony.

Court trial (1st day).

Court trial (2d day).

Court trial (3rd day).

Date

8/5/77

8/10/77

8/11/77

8/12/77

8/23/77

8/30/77

8/31/77

9/1/77

9/2/77

9/13/77

9/15/77

9/21/77

9/22/77

9/23/77

10/31/77

12/5/77

12/15/77

7/25/78

8/14/78

8/23/78

USDC

ietiliieaies

Entry

Court trial (4th day).

Court trial (Sth day).

Court trial (6th day).

Court trial (7th day).

Court trial (8th day).

Court trial (9th day).

Court trial (10th day).

Court trial (11th day).

Court trial (12th day).

Court trial (13th day).

Court trial (14th day).

Court trial (15th day).

Court trial (16th day).

Court trial (17th day). Court or-

ders post trial briefing.

' Plaintiffs’ post trial brief and ap-

pendix thereto filed.

Defendants’ post trial brief and

attachments thereto filed.

Plaintiffs’ post trial brief and ap-

pendix thereto filed.

Memorandum of decision filed;

judgment held pending hearing

schedule for 8/14/78.

Final judgment filed; court or-

ders matter continued tu 8/28/78

for further proceedings.

Defendants’ motion to modify

judgment filed; defendants’ re-

turn to courts memorandum de-

cision and summary of progress

towards implementation filed;

defendants’ motion for reconsid-

eration or a stay pending appeal

on certain issues filed.

Date

8/28/78

10/11/78

10/13/78

11/8/78

11/9/78

11/10/78

11/27/78

12/11/78

12/13/78

12/20/78

12/21/78

USDC

pan ae

Entry

Hearing on defendants’ motion

for reconsideration/and to stay

proceedings pending appeal.

Court orders a stay pending ap-

peal re: contact visits/window

replacement; orders matter set

for further hearing on 10/17/78.

Defendants’ statement of rea-

sons for non-compliance with

certain provisions of courts

memorandum decision filed.

Court trial, further evidentiary

hearing or issue of jail

procedures.

Court trial, further evidentiary

hearing on contact visits, etc.

Court trial, further evidentiary

hearing.

Court trial, further evidentiary

hearing. Post trial briefing

schedule ordered.

Defendants’ opening brief on

contact visits, search procedures

filed.

Plaintiffs’ reply brief and attach-

ments re: contact visits search -

procedures filed.

Defendants’ supplemental brief

re: contact visits, searches filed.

Defendants’ reply brief re: con-

Plaintiffs’ declaration in re-

“Sponse to defendants’ supple-

mental brief re: contact visits,

searches filed.

Date

1/18/79

1/29/79

2/5/79

12/15/79

216/79

3/15/79

3/19/79

USDC

7 eS

Entry

Court’s memorandum to counsel

re: further hearing filed.

Defendants’ motion for suspen-

sion of portions of injunction

pending appeal filed.

Minute order granting defen-

dants’ motion to suspend por-

tions of injunction pending ap-

peal; defendants’ ordered to

submit order modifying courts’

order.

Supplemental memorandum of

decision, judgment filed. Court

orders stay of paragraphs (2(b),

5 suspended per FRCP 62(e) on

certain conditions; request for

stay of provisions of paragraph

8 denied, except that provisions

of paragraph 7 shall be sus-

pended for 30 days to permit de-

fendants to seek a further stay.

Defendants’ notice of appeal to

USCA from 2/15/79 judgment

filed (USCA docket no. 79-

3061). Defendants’ designation

of record on appeal filed (USCA

docket no. 79-3061)

Plaintiffs’ designation of addi-

tional documents to be trans-

mitted filed (USCA docket no.

(USCA docket no. 79-3061) —

Order staying provisions of

paragraph 8 of district courts

judgment re: cell searches pend-

ing further order of court. (USCA

docket no. 79-3061)

Date

4/4/79

4/30/79

5/25/79

6/22/79

7/5/79

10/24/79

12/6/79

1/8/80

USDC

pA ES

Entry

Order staying paragraph 8 of dis-

trict court’s judgment (USCA

docket no. 79-3061)

Filed reporter’s transcript of pro-

ceedings held on 8/2/77 Vol. 1,

8/3/77 Vol. 2, 8/4/77 Vol. 5, 8/

11/77 Vol. 6, 8/12/77 Vol. 7, 8/

23/77 Vol. 8, 8/30/77 Vol. 9, 8/

31/77 Vol. 10, 9/1/77 Vol. 11,

9/2/77 Vol. 12, 9/13/77 Vol. 13,

9/14/77 Vol. 14, 9/21/77 Vol.

15, 9/22/77 Vol. 16, 9/23/77

Vol. 17, 9/28/78 Vol. 18, 10/

13/78 Vol. 19, 11/8/78 Vol. 20,

11/9/78 Vol. 21, 11/10/78 Vol.

22, (USCA docket no. 79-3061)

Judgment and order awarding

plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and

costs.

Defendants’ notice of appeal to

USCA from judgment of 5/25/

79. (USCA docket no. 79-3367)

Defendants’ designation of re-

porter’s transcript (USCA docket

no. 79-3367). ,

Original of reporter's transcript

of proceedings held on 4/23/79

filed (USCA docket no. 79-

3367).

Defendants’/appellants’ desig-

nation of clerk’s records on ap-

peal filed (USCA docket no. 79-

3367). |

Plaintiffs’ designation of docu-

ments filed (USCA docket no.

79-3367)

Pye See

Date

8/8/80

9/4/80

10/20/79

4/22/81

4/23/81

4/28/81

5/18/81

5/28/81

5/29/81

6/25/81

116/81"

USDC

ay SS

Entry

Memorandum opinion re econ-

solidated appeals from judg-

ments of 2/15/79 and 5/25/79

(USCA docket nos. 79-3061 &

79-3367

Memorandum opinion of USCA

(USCA docket nos. 79-306! &

79-3367)

Mandate from USCA ordered

filed and spreati (USCA docket

nos. 79-3061 & 79-3367)

Memorandum decision of USDC

filed; order awarding plaintiffs

attorneys’ fees and costs filed.

Court’s memorandum to counsel

filed.

Defendants’ notice of appeal

from judgment of 4/22/81 filed.

(USCA docket no. 81-5364)

Memorandum of decision and

judgment reaffirming judgment

entered 2/15/79 filed.

Order staying judgment of 5/18/

81 filed.

Defendants’ notice of appeal

from judgment of 5/18/81 filed.

Defendants’ designation of re-

porters’ transcript on appeal

(USCA docket no. 81-5461)

Judgment awarding plaintiffs at-

torneys’ fees.

Defendants’ notice of appeal

from judgment of 6/25/81 and

designation of reporters tran-

script filed. (USCA docket no.

81-5617)

ae, Faas

Date Court Entry

8/7/81 USDC Original reporter’s transcript of

proceeding held on 5/18/81 filed.

8/21/81 USCA USCA order consolidating ap-

peals in docket no. 81-5617 and

81-5364; permitting use of tran-

scripts and excerpt from pre-

vious appeals, docket nos. 79-

3061 and 79-3367, but excerpts

of are to be updated; appeal in

docket no. 81-5461 to proceed

independently.

12/16/81 USDC Court awards plaintiffs attor-

neys’ fees.

1/21/82 USDC Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from

order of 12/16/81 filed. (USCA

docket no. 82-5071)

1/22/82 USDC Plaintiffs’ designation of report-

er’s transcript filed (USCA

docket no. 82-5071)

1/26/82 USDC Original reporter’s transcript of

proceedings held on 2/24/81

filed.

2/12/82 USDC Defendants’ riport re: compli-

ance with court’s order filed.

2/18/82 USDC Original reporter’s transcript of

proceedings held on 11/23/81

filed.

5/15/82 USDC Original reporter’s transcript of

proceedings held on 9/2/80, Vol.

1, 9/3/80 Vol. 2, 11/5/81 Vol.

3, 2/24/81 Vol. 4-A, 2/24/81

Vol. 4, 2/24/81 Vol. 4-B, 2/25/

71 Vol. 5-A, 2/25/82 Vol. 5-B,

2/26/81 Vol. 6-A, 2/26/81 Vol.

6-B, filed.

ae. i os \ a eee

Date

2/19/82

6/3/82

7/16/82

8/5/82

9/31/82

11/5/82

Entry

Original reporter’s transcript for

proceedings held on 5/14/81, 5/

15/81, 5/18/81, and 5/22/81

filed.

Stipulation and order re record

on appeal. USCA docket no. 82-

5071 filed. r;

Plaintiffs’ designation of record

on appeal filed (USCA docket

no. 82-5071)

Plaintiffs’ designation of record

on appeal filed. (USCA docket

no. 82-5071)

Defendants’ designation of re-

cord on appeal filed. (USCA

docket no. 82-5071)

Clerk’s record on appeal for-

- warded to USCA along with re-

porter’s transcript of 9/2/80 Vol.

1, 9/3/80 Vol. 2, 11/5/80 Vol.

3, 2/24/81 Vol. 3, 2/24/81 Vol.

4A, 2/24/81 Vol. 4B, 2/25/81

Vol. 4B, 2/11/77 Vol. 5B, 2/26/

81 Vola, 2/26/81 Vol. 6A, 8/

12/77 Vol. 6B, 8/23/77 Vol. 7,

8/30/77 Vol. 8, 8/31/77 Vol. 9,

9/1/77 Vol. 10, 9/2/77 Vol. 11,

9/13/77 Vol. 12, 9/14/77 Vol.

13, 9/21/77 Vol. 14, 9/22/77

Vol. 15, 9/23/77 Vol. 16, 8/28/

78 Vol. 17, 8/29/78 Vol. 18, 11/

- 8/78 Vol. 19, 11/9/78 Vol. 20,

11/10/79 Vol. 21, 5/14/81 Vol.

22, 5/14/81, 5/18/81, 5/22/81,

11/23/81, and 9/5/80.

> F. S ~~ — 26 rh | ne - oe 2

f USCA lodged.

(USCA docket no. 81-5461)

no. 81-5461)

Opinion of USCA (USCA docket

}

Court

USCA

USDC

7/14/83

8/12/83

Date

Second Amended Complaint for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

United States District Court, Central District of California.

Dennis Rutherford, Harold Taylor, Richard Orr, Gregory

Armstrong, Jack Jones and William Robles, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.

Peter J. Pitchess, as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles,

William Anthony, as Assistant Sheriff of the County of Los

Angeles, Walter Howell, as Chief of the Corrections Di-

vision of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department,

James White, as Commander of the Los Angeles County

Central Jail, Edward Edelman, Kenneth Hahn, James Hayes,

Peter Schabarum. and Baxter Ward, as Supervisors of the

County of Los Angeles, Jack Holt, Jack E. Robbins, Ernest

Zansler, John Johnson, as Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department Lieutenants assigned to the Los Angeles County

Jail, James D. Austin, Leroy K. Johnson, Gerald Boswell,

Jerry Exline, Richard Hendershot, James Cinderelli, David

Betkey, Danny Calhoun, Robert Chrisman, Steven Craw-

ford, Dan Dohner, John Fehrs, Steven Gayhart, Antonio

Samaniego, Randall Sisk, Frederick Sykes, John Wargo and

Frederick Weise, as Los Angeles County Sheriff's Depart-

ment officers assigned to the Los Angeles County Central

Jail, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situ-

ated, Dr. Arman Toomajian, as Los Angeles County Sher-

iff's Department Medical Director, Drs. Patrick Lavelle,

Donald Verin and Wetzel, as doctors employed by the Los

Angeles County Sheriff's Department and assigned to the

Central Jail, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated, and Messrs. Carnette, Davis and Taylor, as nurses

employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

and assigned to the Central Jail, on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated, Defendants. Case No. CV

75-4111-WPG.

Sete niet

Filed: May 14, 1976.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

(Civil Rights Act).

JURISDICTION

1. This is a class action for a declaratory judgment that

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are being violated by ‘the

conditions of their confinement in the Los Angeles County

Central Jail and for a permanent injunction preventing De-

fendants from continuing to violate sentenced and unsen-

tenced prisoners’ rights while acting under color or law.

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under 28 U.S.C.

$1343 providing for jurisdiction over claims arising under

42 U.S.C. $1983 and §1985, and 28 U.S.C. §2201 and

2202 relating to declaratory judgments. The Court has pen-

dent jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising under Califor-

nia law.

PARTIES e

3. Plaintiffs are residents of the United States and the 6

County of Los Angeles, State of California and are incar-

cerated at the Los Angeles County Central Jail, (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Central Jaii’’ or the ‘‘Jail’’), located at

441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, California.

4. Plaintiffs Dennis Rutherford, Harold Taylor, Greg-

ory Armstrong and Williams Robles are charged with of-

fenses under the law of California and are awaiting trial in

the Superior or Municipal Courts for the County of Los

Angeles, State of California. In their criminal cases, bail

has been set by a Judge of those courts. Due to their in-

digency, they have been unable to make bail and are in-

carcerated at the Jail solely to insure their appearance at

trial and for no other reason. Plaintiff Rutherford was thus

a wee ye “ees

eet) ee

incarcerated from November 5, 1972 to February 2°, 1976;

plaintiff Taylor has been thus incarcerated since December

17, 1973; plaintiff Armstrong has thus been incarcerated

since October 5, 1975; and plaintiff Robles was thus in-

carcerated starting December 17, 1975. Said plaintiffs are

presumed innocent and are incarcerated solely to insure their

presence at trial.

7. Defendant Peter J. Pitchess is, and at all times herein

relevant has been, the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles,

California, and keeper of the Jail pursuant to California

Government Code Section 26505 and Penal Code Sections

4000 and 4005, and as such is charged with the duty of

maintaining and operating the Central Jail and promulgating

and enforcing rules for the governance and safekeeping of

prisoners incarcerated at the Central Jail and for the super-

vision of Deputy Sheriffs in the Los Angeles County Sher-

iff's Department.

8. Defendant William Anthony is, and has been at all

times herein relevant, an Assistant Sheriff in the Los An-

geles County Sheriff's Department in charge of the Sheriff's

Department Custody Division, and as such is responsible

for maintaining and operating county jail facilities, includ-

ing the Central Jail, and promulgating and enforcing rules

for the care and treatment of prisoners at the Jail.

9. Defendant Walter Howell has succeeded John P. Knox

and is not the Chief of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's 4

Department Custody Division and as such is responsible for

maintaining and operating County jail facilities, including

the Central Jail, and for promulgating and enforcing rules

for the care and treatment Of prisoners at the Jail.

10. Defendant James White is, and was at all times

relevant herein, a Captain of the Los Angeles County Sher-

iff's Department and the county official directly responsible

Pen ae

for the administration of the Central Jail.

11. Jack Holt, Jack E. Robbins, Ermest Zansler and John

Johnson are lieutenants of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department and as such supervise, manage and administer

the Jail.

12. James D. Austin, LeRoy K. Johnson, Gerald

Boswell, Jerry Exline, Richard Hendershot, James Cinder-

elli, David Betkey, Danny Calhoun, Robert Chrisman, Ste-

ven Crawford, Dan Dohner, John Fehrs, Steven Gayhart,

Antonio Samaniego, Randall Sisk, Frederick Sykes, John

Wargo and Frederick Weise are Los Angeles County Sher-

iff's Department officers assigned to the Jail and as such

control and govern the everyday operations of the Jail and

the lives of prisoners. These defendants are representative

vf a class, within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, consisting of all Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department officers below the rank of lieutenant

assigned to the Jail. This class (hereinafter referred to as

Defendant Class 1) is ongoing and includes all Los Angeles

County Sheriff's Department officers below the rank of

lieutenant who are or will be in the future assigned to the

Jail.

"13. Dr. Arman Toomajian is the Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department Medical Director and as such is the

county official directly responsible for prisoner medical care

in the Jail.

14. Drs. Patrick Lavelle, Donald Verin, and Wetzel,

whose first name is unknown, are doctors employed by the

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and assigned to _

the Jail and as such are responsible for providing prisoners _

with medical care. These defendants are representatives of

a class, within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure consisting of all doctors employed at the

Jail. This class (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Class

II) is ongoing and includes all doctors who are or will be

in the future assigned to the Jail.

15. Messrs. Carnette, whose first name and badge num-

ber are unknown, Davis, whose first name is unknown but

whose badge number is 41, and Taylor, whose first name

and badge number are unknown, are nurses employed by

the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and assigned

to the Jail and as such are responsible for providing prisoners

with medical care. These deendants are representative of a

class, within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, consisting of all nurses employed at the Jail.

This class (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Class Il) is

ongoing and includes all nurses who are or will be in the

future assigned to the Jail.

16. Defendant classes I, II and III are proper for the

following reasons:

(a) The members of the defendant classes are so nu-

merous that joinder of all of them is impracticable;

(b) The members of the defendant classes are readily

identifiable from the defendants’ records;

defendant classes;

(d) The claims and defenses of the representative de-

fendants are typical of the claims and defenses of their

classes;

(e) The named defendants will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of their classes;

(f) The prosecution of separate actions by plaintiffs and

their class against individual members of the defendant

Clatage wand Greate ie: siah oF ineneiatent ent tape:

ible adjudications; —

(g) Adjudications against the representative defendants

would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests

of the defendant classes and would substantially impair and

impede the ability of the defendant classes to protect those

interests.

17. Defendants Edward Edelman, Kenneth Hahn, James

Hayes, Peter F. Schabarum, and Baxter Ward are, and at

all times relevant herein have been, Supervisors of the County

of Los Angeles, California, and as such responsible for the

maintenance and operation of the jails within said County,

including the Central Jail, and are responsible for the welfare

of the inmates of these jails and for the control of persons,

including defendants named in paragraphs 7 through 10

herein assigned to operate said jails. Defendant Supervisors

constitute the governing board of the County of Los Angeles

and are responsible for the allocation of funds for all county

purposes, maintenance of County jails not excluded.

18. All the individual defendants as well as the County

of Los Angeles shall hereinafter be referred to collectively

as ‘‘defendant’’, which term shall be used to mean defen-

dants and each of them, unless otherwise specified.

19. Defendants and each of them are, and at all times

herein mentioned have been, the agents, servants and em-

ployees of one another, and in doing the acts and main-

taining the conditions herein complainted of, are and have

been acting within the course and scope of said agency and

employment.

20. In doing all the acts and omissions, and in main-

taining the conditions, herein described, defendants, and

each of them, separately and in concert, have been and are

acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations,

custom and usages of the State of California and the County

of Los Angeles. Said acts and omissions were committed

ee a

and conditions were maintained by defendants personally

and through actions of their agents and subordinates, acting

pursuant to instructions from defendants.

21. Other agents, servants and employees of defendant

Pitchess, not specifically named herein, work at the Central

Jail and carry out the directions and policies of defendant

Pitchess. These agents, servants and employees of defendant

Pitchess shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘‘officers’’, the

term by which they are referred to within the Jail. Included

within the scope of their employment is the care, treatment

and control of prisoners at the Jail.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

22. Defendants deny plaintiffs adequate contact with

the general community by doing the following:

(a) Opening, reading and censoring all prisoners’ mail

to and from attorneys and others;

(b) Limiting the time, frequency and duration of pris-

oners’ personal visits;

sonal visits and prohibiting conjugal visits;

(d) Denying prisoners and their visitors privacy and

surveilling conversations during visits; ~

(e) Requiring visitors to wait in line long periods of

time before visits and treating visitors in a rude manner;

(f) Denying pretrial prisoners night visits;

(g) Denying prisoners direct access to telephones to make

outgoing calls;

(h) rohibiting prisoners from receiving incoming tele-

phone calls; and

(i) Prohibiting prisoners from receiving through the mail

or from visitors newspapers, magazines, books, reading

matter and other such forms of written communication from

Thine £0003

ae, a

the outside world.

23. Defendants deny plaintiffs the opportunity to per-

sonally consult with their attorneys in privacy. Attorney-

client communications take place in an area, mislabeled the

*‘attorney room,’’ which often becomes crowded and which

is simultaneously used by law enforcement officers, parole

and probation officers, bailbondsmen and clergy. As a con-

sequence, interviews between prisoners and attorneys lack

adequate privacy, particularly during busy daytime hours;

and conversations can be and are overheard by others in the

room.

24. Defendants deny pretrial prisoners access to an ad-

equate law library, legal materials and adeuate opportunity

to communicate in person or by telephone with counsel and

do not permit prisoners to receive from outside the Jail any

legal material, unless by Court order.

25. Defendants deny plaintiffs adequate opportunity to

physically exercise themselves, recreate and entertain them-

selves and thus subject plaintiffs to excruciating boredom.

Pretrial prisoners are completely denied any opportunity to

exercise or recreate outdoors, are allowed out of their cells

for exercise only one hour perday, if at all, are only infre-

quently permitted the use of the day rooms and are totally

without access to television, movies and live entertainment.

26. The Jail’s reading library is inadequate, and pretrial

prisoners have only indirect access to that library by a cart

that comes through pretrial prisoners housing areas about

once each two weeks. .

27. Defendants subject prisoners going to Court to a

harsh, exhausting routine which jeopardizes their right to a

fair trial. On days they go to court prisoners are awakened

between 3:45 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.. They then spend their

days in crowded holding areas in the Jail, on buses to and

from the Courts and in holding tanks at the courts. During

this time they are not provided adequate meals. Prisoners

are frequently returned to the Jail from court at 8:00 p.m

and even as late as after midnight, thereby getting little

Sleep before the next day’s courts appearance.

28. Defendants routinely confiscate plaintiff's personal

belongings, including but not limited to correspondence and

photographs.

29. Defendants deny plaintiffs an adequate opportunity

to obtain from family and friends or to purchase at the Jail

commissary necessities and amenities of life such as soap,

toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, deodorant, paper, pencils,

and reading matter; and defeidants fail to provide indigent

prisoners with such items.

30. Defendants deny plaintiffs adequate opportunity to

bathe on a daily basis. Pretrial prisoners in particular are

herded into overcrowded shower areas where they must

bathe 10 men per shower head.

31. Defendants deny plaintiffs sufficient time to eat their

meals and provide pretrial prisoners with only spoons to eat

their meals.

32. Prisoner housing at the Jail consists of cells de-

signed for one, two, four or six men. Lighting in all cells

is inadequate for reading and is controlled from outside the

cells by Jail officers. The two, four and six men cells are

not furnished with any chairs, stools, tables or desk areas.

All areas occupied by prisoners are windowless and without

a view to the outside world.

33. The physical conditions of plaintiffs’ confinement

constitutes a health threat in that the Jail lacks proper heating

and ventilation and defendants fail to take adequate meas-

ures to preserve sanitation and to prevent the spread of

contagious diseases. Cells for pretrial prisoners, designed

for two, four or six men are overcrowded and frequently

extra prisoners are assigned to such cells and required to

sleep on the floor. Toilets are located inside the cells, and

prisoners must eliminate body wasies in the immediate pres-

ence of their cellmates.

34. Both medical care and routine health care at the Jail

are, when available at all, inadequate, and usually char-

acterized by a callous disregard for the well-being of pris-

oners and for the basic tenets of sound medical practice.

The standards of medical care at the Jail are well below

those generally accepted as adequate in Los Angeles County

or the State of California. Defendants do not provide ade-

quate preventive and diagnostic medical services to pris-

oners upon admission to the Jail. All prisoners already in

the Jail are unnecessarily exposed to dangerous medical and/

or contagious conditions that new prisoners might possess;

and consequently, their lives and health are needlessly im-

paired. Defendants seize all medicine, drugs, pills, or-

thopedic appliances and some eyeglasses from prisoners

upon admission to the Jail, even though such medication or

devices may be lawfully prescribed and necessary to main-

tain the prisoners’ life and health during chronic illnesses,

such as epilepsy; and as a result newly admitted prisoners

often suffer seizures or great discomfort and other adverse

effects resulting from sudden deprivations of such medi-

cation or devices. Prisoners who manage to get medication

while in the Jail often receive inappropriate and inadequate

substitutes for seized prescription medications. Medication

usually is distributed to prisoners at hours convenient to

defendants and not to the medical needs of the prisoner,

and prisoners often receive no medication at all when they

are away from the Jail in Court. Medical care when given

is frequently grossly inadequate and inappropriate.

35. Nursing personnel at the Jai: are engaged in the

unauthorized practice of medicine in violation of the av’ of

California in that said nurses without adequate supervision

make decisions whether to treat prisoners and/or whether to

refer prisoners to a doctor.

36. Many unconvicted prisoners admitted to the Jail are

drug addicts, and suffer withdrawal symptoms shortly after

admission to the Jail. Defendants are well aware of this fact.

Although they are required to do so by California Health

and Safety Code §11222, Defendants make little or no at-

tempt to provide prisoners under their care, whom they have

reasonable cause to believe are addicted to controlled sub-

stances, with medical care necessary to ease symptoms of

withdrawals from those substances.

37. Psychologists or psychiatrists are not available to

give routine care to prisoners. Prisoners who are ‘‘diag-

nosed’’ as having psychological problems by Jail officers

are ‘‘treated’’ with isolation. Supervision of mentally dis-

turbed prisoners is inadequate, and little or no medical or

psychological treatment is provided for them. No attempt

is made to transfer mentally ill prisoners to more appropriate

facilities. As a result mentally disturbed prisoners often

commit suicide in the Jail.

38. Defendants’ rules and regulations which govern op-

eration of the Jail and the actions and practices of officers

are not posted throughout the Jail and are not made available

to all prisoners. Those rules and regulations which are avail-

able to some inmates are printed solely in English; and

Defendants’ method of publishing is to post them in only

some parts of the Jail. Thus, many prisoners are ignorant

of the Jail’s rules and regulations; and in particular, Spanish-

speaking prisoners are often totally unaware of their exis-

tence or content. Moreover, many of these ‘‘published’’

rules are unconstitutionally vague — giving no adequate

ilies

notice of the conduct they are intended to prevent — and

are selectively enforced by defendants. Other rules are enun-

ciated by officers on an ad-hoc basis, frequently after an

‘‘offense’’ has allegedly occurred. These ‘‘rules’’ vary from

officer to officer, according to his mood and/or feelings

toward the prisoners involved.

39. Defendants impose punishment upon prisoners for

violations of Jail rules without notice, hearing or opportunity

for prisoners to speak on their own behalf or otherwise

contest the charges against them. No standardized punish-

ments exist for violation of either written or unwritten rules.

Instead, penalties, like rules, are applied on an arbitrary ad

hoc basis. Penalties are not necessarily limited to the alleged

offender. Sometimes an entire housing area of prisoners is

punished for an infraction allegedly committed by one of

their number. Punishments include, but are not limited to,

withdrawal of privileges, forced labor and solitary confine-

ment. All punishments may be levied for an indefinite period

of time.

40. For purposes of discipline and so-called adminis-

trative segregation, defendants place many prisoners in

abysmal housing areas known as ‘‘The Hole’’ and ‘‘Sib-

eria’’ and in other housing areas utilized for segregation and

isolation.

41. The defendants govern plaintiffs’ lives with a reign

of terror, the principal ingredient of which is a widespread

pattern and practice of unprovoked assaults of prisoners by

Jail officers. Many jail officers under defendants’ super-

vision are inexperienced in corrections and psychologically

unsuited for work as correctional officers because the Sher-

iff's Department is primarily an investigative and police

agency and its employees, including Jail officers, receive

little or no training in corrections. Moreover, the most in-

experienced officers are assigned to duty at the Jail. Their

inexperience and psychological unfitness often cause them

to perform the acts or omissions complained of herein which

result in harm to the plaintiffs as hereinafter elaborated.

42. Defendants maintain or permit conditions in the Jail

and follow practices which they know or have reason to

know are deleterious to the physical and mental well-being

of the prisoners for whose health they are responsible. The

brutality, and indifference perpetrated on prisoners by de-

fendants and their employees and the resultant mental an-

guish suffered by plaintiffs ensure that plaintiffs will suffer

mental illness or severe distress as a result of confinement

in the Jail.

43. Defendants’ treatment of unconvicted prisoners is

incredibly egregious in view of the fact that convicted pris-

oners in the Jail, in other Los Angeles County jail facilities

and in California and Federal prisons, are treated consid-

erably better than unconvicted prisoners in the Jail. Al-

though the lives of convicted prisoners are far from idyllic,

convicts do not face the same oppressive confinement and

boredom experienced by the Jail’s unconvicted prisoners.

Convicts generally live in superior housing and have daily

opportunity to exercise, recreate, entertain themselves and

bathe.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: SUMMARY PUNISH-

MENT OF PRETRIAL PRISONERS WITHOUT DUE

PROCESS OF LAW. .

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 43, inclusive.

45. Pretrial detainees are presumably innocent and for

the most part are confined in lieu of bail, which they are

too poor to afford, to ensure their attendance at trial. Yet

defendants inflict upon these prisoners conditions, restric-

tions and constraints which individually and in the aggregate

par, | an

constitute summary punishment without even a semblance

of due process of law in contravention of 42 U.S.C. $1983

and the Fifth and Fourteent!, Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DENIAL TO PRE-

TRIAL PRISONERS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF

LAW.

46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 43, inclusive.

47. Most pretrial prisoners are detained only because

they are financially unable to post bail. By contrast, wealth-

ier persons awaiting trial who can afford to post bail are

not incarcerated or subjected to the conditions which these

plaintiffs experience. Wealthier persons have, inter alia,

unrestricted access to counsel; the opportunity to do legal

research and to contact witnesses; the opportunity to obtain

proper rest and nutrition and to maintain their physical and

emotional health so that they can effectively assist in prep-

aration of their trials and appear as effective witnesses for

themselves. Defendants have denied and will continue to

deny all these rights to pretrial prisoners solely because of

their poverty.

48. Defendants, by committing the acts, omissions and

practices complained of in this claim for relief are depriving

pretrial prisoners of equal protection of the laws in violation

of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: PREJUDICE TO A

FAIR TRIAL.

49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 43, inclusive.

50. The physically and psychologically oppressive con-

ditions at the Jail impair unconvicted prisoners’ mental and

physical health so that they cannot be effective witnesses

for themse!¥©S OF assist in preparing their defenses, and

upon plaint!ffs’ information and belief, cause many uncon-

victed prisD€Ts to plead guilty to avoid further confinement

in the Jail. Inadequate sleep, hours on buses going to and

from court, Ctowded holding tanks and very little food ren-

der many u®convicted prisoners listless and unable to assist

or understad their defense.

51. The conditions to which presumably innocent pris-

oners awaiting trial are subjected in the Jail, as well as the

restrictions placed on their access to counsel and to the

courts undermine the integrity of the entire trial process and

infringe on unconvicted prisoners’ rights to a fair trial thereby

depriving these prisoners of rights guaranteed them by 42

U.S.C. $1583 and the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth

Amendmentts to the Constitution of the United States.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DENIAL OF AC-

CESSTQ COUNSEL AND TO THE COURTS.

52. Plantiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained 1, paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, and 27.

53. Deendants restrict prisoners’ access to courts and

to counsel ang to the effective assistance of counsel by,

among oth things:

re a ding prisoner-attorney mail;

ding and i i il to and f

_ ding and censoring prisoner mai rom

he _Rersing to allow private attorney-prisoner inter-

am Cn

invee Sing to permit prisoners phone calls to attor-

an Sut '8ators and witnesses; :

days. ecting prisoners to an exhausting routine on court

sight eas

54. Defendants further deny pretrial prisoners access to

the courts and their rights to assist counsel in preparing a

defense by making it impossible for prisoners to prepare

legal documents or assist counsel in legal research due to

inaccessibility of law books or to locate and prepare wit-

nesses due to the restrictions on communications.

55. Defendants’ actions, practices, policies and omis-

sions in restricting and/or denying prisoners their consti-

tutionally protected rights of access to the courts and to

counsel and to petition for the redress of grievances deprive

plaintiffs of rights secured them by 42 U.S.C. $1983 and

the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DENIAL OF RIGHTS

OF EXPRESSION, COMMUNICATION AND

ASSOCIATION.

56. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 22, inclusive, and 28.

57. Defendants censor the flow of communication to

and from prisoners and effectively isolate prisoners from

the outside world in contravention of plaintiffs’ rights guar-

anteed them by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the First, Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DENIAL OF DUE

PROCESS IN DISCIPLINARY AND ADMINISTRA-

TIVE PROCEEDINGS.

58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 43, inclusive.

59. Defendants mete out discipline to all prisoners and

in effect subject pretrial prisoners to punitive, high security

classification in a capricious manner without the rudiments

of fundamental fairness, namely prior notice of what con-

stitutes a disciplinary infraction and what punishments at-

tach, prior notice of and opportunity for a prompt hearing

before an impartial tribunal at which hearing the accused

may be represented by counsel or counsel substitute, con-

front adverse witnesses, and present favorable evidence, and

a reasoned decision with findings based on the evidence.

Defendants’ failure to provide these procedural protections

denies plaintiffs due process of law as guaranteed -by 42

U.S.C. $1983 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

of the United States Constitution.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: CRUEL AND UN-

USUAL PUNISHMENT.

60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations

contained in paragraphs | through 43, inclusive.

61. The conditions, restrictions and constraints, indi-

vidually and in the aggregate, suffered by prisoners at the

hands of defendants constitute cruel and unusual punishment

in contravention of plaintiffs’ rights under 42 U.S.C. $1983

and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: INADEQUATE

MEDICAL CARE.

62. Plaintiffs incorporate by: reference the allegations

contained in: paragraphs | ns iA 21, inclusive, and 34

through 37 inclusive.

63. Defendants provide plaintiffs with inadequate, su-

perficial care in violation of plaintiffs’ rights to due process

of law secured to them by 42 U.S.C. §1983 aind the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments’ to the United States

vis gamed pa TAD ae a al AM ae

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF

CALIFORNIA LAW.

64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the alle-

gations contained in paragraphs | through 22, inclusive, 28

and 34 through 37, inclusive.

65. Defendants deny plaintiffs their right to make two

phone calls within three hours of booking guaranteed by

California Penal Code §851.5.

66. Defendants confiscate plaintiffs’ personal property

without providing a receipt in violation of California Penal

Code §4003.

67. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs care and treat-

ment by a physician 24 hours per day and deny plaintiffs

treatment by their private physicians in violation of Cali-

fornia Penal Code $4023.

68. Jail nurses are engaged in the unauthorized practice

of medicine, in violation of California Business and Profes-

sions Code, §§2141, 2392 and 2726.

69. Defendants fail to provide prisoners who are ad-

dicted to controlled substances with medical treatment nec-

essary to ease the symptoms of withdrawal in violation of

C.iifornia Health and Safety Code §11222.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

70. An actual and substantial controversy exists be-

tween Plaintiffs and Defendants, in that Plaintiffs complain

that Defendants are violating and will continue to violate

their most fundamental rights under the United States Con-

stitution and the laws and statutes of the United States and

tiffs’ lives and health. Defendants have persisted in sub-

jecting Plaintiffs to unconstitutional and harmful conditions

despite protests by the Jail’s prisoners. Defendants may in

the future make minor changes in the Jail from time to time

» : ei

: - P » 7 - —_—

ee + Ae it Plan Sie Naa See ee es,

in response to protests but they will do nothing substantial

to remedy the unconstitutional and harmful conditions to

which they subject Plaintiffs or to change the policies and

procedures. Defendants deny that their actions are illegal

or unconstitutional or cause injuries to Plaintiffs.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

71. All of the conditions and practices separately and

in the aggregate make incarceration in the Jail severe, pu-

nitive and restrictive. The Plaintiffs are now suffering and

will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a direct and

proximate result of the conditions and practices herein al-

leged and are without a plain, speedy, adequate remedy at

law in that:

(a) Money damages will not adequately compensate

Plaintiffs for denial of their Civil Rights or for time confined

in the Jail pursuant to pretrial detention under conditions

that could be successfully challenged in the Courts.

(b) Plaintiffs are psychologically and physically harmed

and damaged; and unconvicted prisoners are induced to

plead guilty to criminal charges pending against them in

order to avoid the conditions and practices herein described

which exist at the Jail.

difficult to calculate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

1. That the Court certify this action as a class action.

2. That the Court personally view the Los Angeles

County Central Jail to gain assistance in rendering a ruling.

a That the Court enter judgment declaring that defen-

dants, and each of them, through the individual and col-

lective acts, practices, and omissions complained of herein,

have subjected and are subjecting plaintiffs to:

a. Summary punishment without due process of law in

contravention of 42 U.S.C. ‘$1983 and the Fifth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as

enumerted in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief;

b. Denial of equal protection of law in contravention

of 42 U.S.C. $1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution as enumerated in Plaintiffs’ Sec-

ond Claim for Relief;

c. Prejudice to fair trial in contravention of 42 U.S.C.

§1983 and the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amend-

rents to the United States Constitution as enumerated in

Plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief;

d. Denial of access to counsel and the Courts in con-

travention of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the First, Fifth, Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Consti-

tution as enumerated in plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief;

e. Denial of Rights of Expression, Communication and

Association in contravention of 42 U.S.C. $1983 and the

First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution as enumerated in plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim

for Relief;

f. Denial of due process in disciplinary and classifica-

tion proceedings in contravention of 42 U.S.C. $1983 and

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution as enumerated in plaintiffs’ Seventh Claim for

Relief;

g. Cruel and unusual punishment in contravention of

42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution as enumerated in plaintiffs’

Seventh Claim for Relief;

h. Denials of adequate medical care in contravention of

42 U.S.C. $1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Consitution as enumerated in plaintiffs’ Eighth

Claim for Relief;

i. Violations of California Penal Code §§851.5, 4003,

4023, Business and Professions Code §§2141, 2392 and

2726 and Health and Safety Code §11222 as enumerated in

plaintiffs’ Ninth Claim for Relief;

4. That the Court issse preliminary and permanent in-

junctions assuring that pretrial prisoners are accorded all of

the rights and privileges of the innocent; and that all pris-

oners not be subjected to c:uel and unusual punishment and

not denied their other constitutional and statutory rights.

More specifically, the Plaintiffs should be assured by the

plan, inter alia:

a. That the prisoners be accorded essential preventive

medical care and receive adequate and sound medical, psy-

chiatric and dental health care;

b. That prisoners addicted to controlled substances be

accorded with reasonable medical care to ease the symptoms

of withdrawal.

c. That a regular recreational and exercise program,

outside of the cells, be expanded and that all prisoners be

allowed outdoors for sufficient periods to insure their con-

tinuous physical and mental well being;

oe. That the Jail and its prisoners living areas therein be

kept in a safe and healthy condition, with proper heating,

ventilation and provisions for sanitation;

e. That pretail priecness..be eccordar:privete end, ado-

quate living space in one man cells with reasonable lighting

and furnishings.

f. That defendants be enjoined from placing pretrial

prisoners in overcrowded cells and: from sequiting some

pretrial prisoners to sleep on the floor.

lit cs:

g. That all prisoners be provided suitable and sufficient

time to eat in accordance with recognized nutritional needs

and be provided with knife, fork and spoon as utensils.

h. That education and vocational work programs be

established;

i. That the prisoners have continuous opportunity to talk

and associate with each other, for legitimate purposes in-

cluding but not limited to socializing.

j. That the prisoners be entitled to receive through the

United States Mail or from visitors and retain books, mag-

azines, newspapers, law books and legal materials and be

provided with direct access to adequate reading and law

libraries;

k. That visiting conditions be established which assure

decency, comfort, privacy of conversations, conjugal rights,

and visiting periods of adequate duration and frequency.

1. That no limitations be placed on persons an inmate

may see, communicate with and receive communications

from;

m. That no censorship be executed on incoming or out-

going mail, newspapers, books and periodicals; that the only

control on incoming mail be for the inspection of contraband

such as drugs or weapons.

n. That adequate phones be installed so that prisoners

have access to them in order to make local, outgoing calls

without charge and to receive incoming calls, and that such

phones not be wiretapped or monitored in any manner;

0. That a reasonable code of intra-jail behavior provid-

ing for inmates rights to be promulgated in English and

Spanish and provided for each prisoner upon entry to the

jail,

That no discipline or classification of inmates be

instituted without first affording them notice, the assistance

of counsel and counsel substitute, the confrontation of ac-

cusers, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, a writ-

ten decision containing reasons therefor and evidence relied

upon, and hearing before an impartial tribunal;

q. That prisoners be protected from unprovoked assaults

by Jail officers;

r. That defendants be enjoined from assigning inade-

quately trained, rookie officers to the Jail.

s. That plaintiffs be assured of adequate opportunity to

bathe every day;

t. That all prisoners, including the indigent, have rea-

sonable opportunity to obtain life necessities and amenities.

u. That all prisoners have the opportunity to obtain ad-

equate rest and sleep before and during times they appear

in court and that all prisoners going to court not be awakened

earlier than 6:00 a.m. and not be returned to the Jail later

than 6:00 p.m.

v. That prisoners have the opportunity to privately and

confidentially communicate with their attorneys in a room

provided by defendants for that purpose.

w. That prisoners be allowed to retain in reasonable

quantities their personal belongings, including, but not lim-

ited to, correspondence and photographs.

x. That Jail living areas be humanized and’ provided

with reasonable furnishings and wiridows to the outside

world.

5. That if a satisfactory plan cannot be submitted and

implemented, the Defendants be enjoined and restrained

from incarcerating or detaining any and all prisoners in the

Jail and further enjoined from transferring prisoners to an

alternative facility unless Defendants can provide evidence

satisfactory to the Court that the alternative does not suffer

from the conditions herein complained of and that it is

accessible to visitors and counsel.

6. That the Court retain jurisdiction over Defendants

until such time that the Court is satisfied that the practices,

policies, acts and omissions alleged herein no longer exist

_ and will not reoccur.

7. That the Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs of suit herein to plaintiffs.

8. That the Court award such other relief as may be

necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Terry Smerling

TERRY SMERLING

Attorney for Plaintiffs

(Declaration of Service omitted in printing).

ob G Ginn

Answer to Second Amended Complaint.

United States District Court, Central District of California.

Dennis Rutherford, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Peter J. Pitchess,

et al., Defendants. No. CV 75-41ll WPG.

Filed: July 6, 1976.

Defendants PETER J. PITCHESS, as Sheriff of the County

of Los Angeles, WILLIAM ANTHONY, as Assistant Sher-

iff of the County of Los Angeles, WALTER HOWELL, as

Chief of the Custody Division of the Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department, JAMES WHITE, as Commander of

the Los Angeles County Central Jail, JACK HOLT, JACK

E. ROBBINS, ERNEST ZANSLER, as Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department Lieutenants assigned to the Los An-

geles County Jail, JAMES D. AUSTIN, LEROY K. JOHN-

SON, GERALD BOSWELL, RICHARD HENDERSHOT,

JAMES CENDERELLI, DANNY CALHOUN, STEVEN

CRAWFORD, JOHN FEHRS, STEVEN GAYHART, AN-

TONIO SAMANIEGO, FREDERICK SYKES, JOHN

WARGO and FREDERICK WEISE, as Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department officers assigned to the Los Angeles

County Central Jail, DR. ARMAN TOOMAJIAN, as Los

Angeles County Sheriff's Department Medical Director,

DRS. PATRICK LAVELLE, and FREDERICK WETZEL,

as doctors employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department and assigned to the Central Jail, and MR.

CHARLES DAVIS, R.N., MR. GENE GARNETT, and

MR. DONALD TAYLOR employed by the Los Angeles

County Sheriff's Department for themselves alone and for

no other defendant and in the capacity sued herein and in

no other capacity, in answer to the Second Amended Com-

plaint in the above-entitled action, admit, deny and affir-

matively allege as follows:

_— =

1. These answering defendants deny paragraphs | and

2 of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled

action.

2. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

3 of the above-entitled complaint, these answering defen-

dants have insufficient information and belief to enable them

to answer the allegations of said paragraph, and basing their

denial on that ground deny each and every allegation con-

tained therein.

3. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

4 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants have insufficient information to enable

them to answer the allegation that Dennis Rutherford, Har-

old Taylor, Gregory Armstrong and William Robles are or

were unable to make bail due to their indigency, and basing

their denial on that ground deny such allegation. In further

answer to the allegations contained in said paragraph 4,

these answering defendants affirmatively allege that Dennis

Rutherford, Harold Taylor, Gregory Armstrong and William

Robles have other means of obtaining their release from

jail, by seeking a reduction in the amount of their bail or

by obtaining their release on their own recognizance. More-

over, defendants are informed and believe, and therefore

allege that since the time that this action was brought, plain-

tiffs Dennis Rutherford and William Robles have obtained

their release from jail by posting bail or by other means. In

further answer to paragraph 4, these defendants deny that

Harold Taylor is in custody of the jail. In further answer to

the allegations contained in said paragraph 4, these an-

swering defendants affirmatively allege that the presumption

of innocence is solely an evidentiary presumption available

in a criminal trial and is such a presumption for no other

purpose.

Pal

4. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

5 of the above-entitled complaint these defendants deny that

Richard Orr and Jack Jones are currently serving sentences

in the jail.

5. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Second Amended

Complaint in the above-entitled action. In further answer to

the allegations contained in said paragraph 6, these an-

swering defendants affirmatively allege: that plaintiffs and

plaintiffs’ attorney cannot fairly and adequately represent

both a class of pre-trial inmates and a class of sentenced

inmates as the interests of each class are different from and

contrary to the interests of the other class in that in order

to benefit one class, it may be necessary to take rights and

benefits away from the other; that plaintiffs are not fairly

and adequately representing the interests of the purported

classes and subclasses in that they have failed to raise claims

reasonably expected to be raised by members of the class

and subclasses, such as claims for damages; that there is an

insufficient community of interest to justify the maintenance

of this action as a class action; that there are no significant

or substantial benefits that will accrue to either the litigants

or the courts in permitting this action to be maintained as

a class action; and it is unnecessary and undesirable to permit

the maintenance of a class action where only declaratory or

injunctive relief is sought because of alleged facially invalid

or unconstitutional practices or procedures or policies in that

the determination of the questions of constitutionality or

invalidity can be made by the court and determined to be

valid or constitutional regardless of whether the action is

treated as an individual action or a class action; and that the

plaintiffs, and each of them, lack standing as to all of the

issues alleged herein and that there is no existing actual case

or controversy between the defendants and the plaintiffs and

their representatives have insufficient resources to properly

prosecute this action on behalf of the alleged class and

subclasses.

6. In answer to paragraph 11 in the above-entitled com-

plaint these defendants deny that John Johnson presently

supervises, manages and administers the jail.

7. In answer to paragraph 12 in the above-entitled com-

plaint these defendants deny that Jerry Exline, David Bet-

key, Robert Chrisman, Don Dohner or Randall Sisk are

assigned to the jail. In further answer these defendants deny

that there is a Steven Gayhart assigned to the jail.' In further

answer to paragraph 12 these defendants deny and affir-

matively allege that the defendants named in paragraph 12

are representatives of a class within the meaning of Rule

23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These defendants

further allege that there is lacking a community of interest

among the members of the purported class in that there are

insufficient issues of law and fact common to these indi-

viduals and that the representatives will not fairly represent

the interests of the class.

8. In answer to paragraph 14 in the above-entitled com-

plaint these defendants deny and affirmatively allege that

the defendants named in paragraph 14 are representatives

of a class within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. In further answer to paragraph 14, these

defendants deny that Dr. Donald Vernin is employed by the

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

9. In answer to paragraph 15 in the above-entitled com-

plaint these defendants deny and affirmatively allege that

the defendants named in paragraph 15 are representatives

of a class within the meaning of Rule 23, Federal Rules of

‘There is an individual with that surname assigned however.

ro. en

Civil Procedure. In further answer to paragrapl: 15, these

defendants deny that Mr. Carnette and Mr. Davis are nurses.

10. In answer to paragraph 16 in the above-entitled

complaint these defendants deny each and every allegation

contained therein. In further answer to paragraph 16 these

defendants allege: that it is unnecessary and undesirable to

maintain this action as a class action where only declaratory

or injunctive relief is sought because of alleged facially

invalid or unconstitutional practices or procedures or poli-

cies in that the determination of the questions of constitu-

- tionality or invalidity can be made by the court and deter-

mined to be valid or constitutional regardless of whether

the action is treated as an individual or class action; that

some of the purported classes are not numerous within the

meaning of Rule 23; that the membership of purported classes

that extend into the future are not identifiable; that questions

of whether individual members of the purported classes have

deprived plaintiffs of their rights will depend on individual

sets of facts and circumstances and that therefore there are

insufficient questions of law and fact present for class treat-

ment of these individuals; that the claims and defenses of

the purported representative defendants will depend on in-

dividual sets of facts and circumstances and that therefore

these claims and defenses are not typical of the claims and

defenses of the purported classes; that the members of the

purported classes are being subjected to guilt by association

that may result in personal and professional injury without

notice and an opportunity to be heard that their interests

cannot be protected by named defendants selected by plain-

tiffs; and that there is no case or controversy between the

defendants and plaintiffs on each of the issues purportedly

put into issue herein.

11. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

17 of the Second Amended Complaintiin the above-entitled

—

— —

action, these answering defendants deny that defendants

Edelman, Hahn, Hayes. Schabarum and Ward are respon-

sible for the maintenance and operation of the jails within

the County of Los Angeles or the Central jail, or that they

are responsible for the welfare of the inmates of these jails.

In further answer to the allegations of paragraph 17 of the

Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled action,

these answering defendants deny that defendants Edelman,

Hahn, Hayes, Schabarum and Ward are responsible for the

control of persons assigned to operate said jails, including

defendants named in paragraphs 7 through 15 of said com-

plaint. In further answer to the allegations of said paragraph

17 these answering defendants affirmatively allege that the

Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles do not

have control over the specialized or professional duties of

County officers, such as the Sheriff of the County of Los

Angeles, and cannot direct him to perform his lawful duties

in any particular manner. In further answer to paragraph 17

these defendants allege that acts of defendants Edelman,

Hahn, Hayes, Scharbarum and Ward in allocating funds do

not give rise to a claim under the Civil Rights Act or state

law.

12. In answer to paragraph 18 these defendants deny

that the ‘‘County of Los Angeles’’ may be sued under 42

U.S.C. 1983 or 1985.

13. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

19 of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled

action, these answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in said paragraph, and in further answer

to the allegations of said paragraph, affirmatively allege that

the defendants are employees of the County of Los Angeles,

which is not a party to this action, and not employes of any

of the defendants herein.

ee Ee

14. In answer to the allegations of paragraph 20 of the

Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled action,

these answering deferdants deny that they have done the

acts and omissions or inaintained the conditions, either sep-

arately or in concert, as alleged in said Second Amended

Complaint, and further deny that any such acts were done

personally or through the acts of agents or subordinates,

whether such were acting alone or pursuant to instructions.

In further answer to paragraph 20 these defendants allege

that they are not subject to equitable or declaratory relief

for any acts or omissions of their subordinates.

15. In answer to paragraph 21 of the above-entitled

complaint these answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained therein.

16. In answer to paragraph 22 of the above-entitled

complaint these answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained therein.

17. In answer to paragraph 23 of the above-entitled

complaint these answering defendants admit that some law

enforcement officers, some parole and probation officers

and some bail bondsmen and some clergy are permitted to

use the attorney room at Central Jail. In further answer to

the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the complaint

in the above-entitled action, these answering defendants

deny each and every other allegation contained in said para-

graph which is not herein specifically admitted.

18. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 24 of the Second Amended

Complaint in the above-entitled action.

19. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

25 of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled

action, these answering defendants admit that the roof ex-

ercise yard at Central Jail is not presently large enough to

pe een

permit most pretrial detainees outdoor exericse. In further

answer to said paragraph, these answering defendants af-

firmatively allege that with the opening of the jail addition

in the near future, pretrial detainees will be given outdoor

recreation. In further answer to the allegations contained in

said paragraph, these answering defendants admit that some

pre-trial inmates are without access to television, movies,

and live entertainment. In further answer to the allegations

of said paragraph, these answering defendants deny each

and every allegation contained in said paragraph which is

not herein specifically admitted.

20. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

26 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants admit that a book cart containing books

from the jail’s reading library comes through pre-trial pris-

oners housing areas once every two weeks and that inmates

may select books from such cart or request books from the

jail reading library. In further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph 26, these answering defendants

deny each and every other allegation contained therein and

which is not herein specifically admitted.

21. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

27 of the above-entitled complaint these defendants admit

that inmates are transported to court where they are kept in

holding tanks of the court and that they are returned to the

jail at the middle or end of the court day. In further answer

to paragraph 27 these defendants deny each and every other

allegation contained therein. In further response to para-

graph 27 these defendants allege that plaintiffs are barred

and estopped from raising issues relevant to their right to a

fair trial because these issues must be raised in plaintiffs’

individual criminal trials.

22. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 of the

—_

complaint in the above-entitled action.

23. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

31 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants admit that prisoners are provided with

spoons to eat their meals. In further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph, these answering defendants

deny each and every other allegation not herein specifically

admitted.

24. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

32 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants admit that lighting in all housing areas

is controlled from the outside by jail officers and that cells

are not furnished with chairs, stools, tables or desk areas

and that all housing areas are windowless, and that prisoner

housing at the jail consists of cells designed for |, 2, 4 and

6 men. In further answer to the allegations of said paragraph,

these answering defendants deny each and every other al-

legations not herein specifically admitted.

25. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

33 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants admit that, on occasion, inmates may

be required to sleep on the floor and on those occasions,

mattress, blankets and other sleeping materials are provided

and that everything is done to find an inmate a bed as rapidly

as is possible. These answering defendants further admit

that toilets are located inside the cell areas. In further answer

to the allegtions contained in said paragraph, these an-

swering defendants deny each and every allegation not herein

26. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

34 of the Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled

action, these answering defendants admit that deputies, upon

finding any prescribed medication on an inmate or in the

personal property of an inmate, seize the medication and

notify the medical staff immediately. In further answer to

the allegations contained in said paragraph, these answering

defendants deny each and every other allegation contained

in said paragraph which is not herein specifically admitted.

27. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,

41, 42 and 43 of the complaint in the above-entitled action.

28. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraphs

44, 46, 49, 52, 58, 60, 62, 64 of the complaint in the above-

entitled action, these answering defendants incorporate their

answers to paragraphs | through 43 of said complaint.

29. These answering defendants deny the allegations

contained in paragraph 45 of the complaint in the above-

entitled action. In further answer to the allegations contained

in said paragraph, there answering defendants affirmatively

allege that the presumption of innocence is statutory in Cal-

ifornia and, by statute, is solely an evidentiary presumption

to be used at the criminal trial and for no other purpose.

These answering defendants further allege that there are

numerous alternatives available to prisoners in lieu of bail,

including release on recognizance, and motions for reduc-

tion in the amount of bail, and cite-out procedures which

are frequently used by arresting officers.

30. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action. In further answer to allegations con-

tained in said paragraph, these answering defendants affir-

matively allege, on information and belief, that there are

some inmates within the jail system who are financially able

to post bail but who for various reasons cannot or choose

not to post bail. These answering defendants further allege

that there are numerous alternatives available to pre-trial

paw ae

prisoners to obtain their release, including release on their

own recognizance, motions for reduction in bail, and cite-

out procedures. In further answer to allegations contained

in said paragraph these defendants ailege, on information

and belief, that some of the named plaintiffs in this action

have used these alternatives and have no standing to raise

this issue. In further answer to said paragraph 47, these

answering defendants affirmatively allege that there is an-

other action pending between each alleged member of the

class of pre-trial prisoners and defendants, to wit, their

pending criminal trial, wherein the issue of the fairness of

said prisoners’ criminal trial is directly and necessarily at

issue; that said prisoners have the best, most immediate

means of raising such issues in said trial, that no purpose

is served and no judicial economy saved by raising said

issues herein. In further answer to the allegations of said

paragraph 47, these answering defendants affirmatively al-

lege that as to those former members of the class off pre-

trial prisoners who have been convicted or found not guilty,

and who did not, by appeal, challenge the issue off the

fairness of their criminal trial, they are barred from pro-

ceeding in this action by the doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel.

31. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 48 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action.

32. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 50 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action. In further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph, these answering defendants

affirmative! y allege, on information and belief, that there

are some inmates within the jail system who are financially

able to post bail but who, for numerous reasons, cannot or

choose not to post bail. These answering defendants further

—45—

allege that there are various alternatives available to pre-

trial prisoners to obtain their release, including release on

their own recognizance, motions for reduction in bail, and

cite-out procedures. In further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph these defendants allege, on in-

formation and belief, that some of the named plaintiffs in

this action have used these alternatives and have no standing

to raise this issue. In further answer to said paragraph 50,

these answering defendants affirmatively allege that there

is another action pending between each alleged member of

the class of pre-trial prisoners and defendants, to wit, their

pending criminal trial, wherein the issue of the fairness of

said prisoners’ criminal trial is directly and necessarily at

issue; that said prisoners have the best, most immediate

means of raising such issues in said trial; that no purpose

is served and no judicial economy saved by raising said

issues herein. In further answer to the allegations of said

paragraph 50, these answering defendants affirmatively al-

lege that as to those former members of the class of pre-

trial prisoners who have been convicted or found not guilty,

and who did not, by appeal, challenge the issue of the

fairness of their criminal trial, they are barred from pro-

ceeding in this action by the doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel.

33. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 51 of the Second Amended

Complaint in the above-entitled action.

34. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the

Second Amended Complaint in the above-entitled action.

35. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 57, 59, 61 and 63 of the

complaint in the above-entitled action.

36. These answering defendants deny the allegations

contained in paragraph 65 of the complaint in the above-

entitled action. In further answer to the allegations contained

in said paragraph, these answering defendants affirmatively

allege that Penal Code Section 851.5 is a penal provision

of California law which may not be enforced by injunction

or declaratory relief.

37. Defendants deny the allegations contained in para-

graph 66 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, and

in further answer to the allegations of said paragraph, af-

firmatively allege that prisoners confined in the jail are not

arrested persons within the meaning of Section 4003 of the

Penal Code.

38. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 67 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action, and in further answer to the allega-

tions contained in said paragraph, affirmatively allege that

California Penal Code Section 4023 does not require a phy-

sician to be present on the premises of the facility 24 hours

a day but merely requires a physician to be available to the

jail at all times.

39. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 68 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action, and in further answer to the allega-

tions contained in said paragraph, affirmatively allege that

plaintiffs do not have the standing nor authority to raise in

this action the issues presented in said paragraph.

40. These answering defendants deny each and every

allegation contained in paragraph 69 of the complaint in the

above-entitled action.

41. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

70 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants admit that they have not acted illegally

a, ae

or unconstitutionally toward any of the plaintiffs in this

action and that they have not caused injury to any of the

plaintiffs in this action. In further answer to the allegations

of paragraph 70, these defendants allege that plaintiffs lack

standing to assert many of the claims raised in this complaint

against all of the defendants and that therefore no case or

controversy exists as to these claims. In further answer to

the allegations of said paragraph, these answering defen-

dants deny each and every other allegation contained herein.

42. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

71 of the complaint in the above-entitled action, these an-

swering defendants deny each and every allegation con-

tained in said paragraph. In further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph, these answering defendants

affirmatively allege that the plaintiffs, and each of them,

have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law to raise

each and every one of the complaints raised herein by means

of a writ of habeas corpus or action for damages. In further

answer to the allegations contained in said paragraph, these

answering defendants affirmatively allege that each and every

member of the class of pre-trial prisoners has a plain speedy,

and adequate remedy for each and every one of the alle-

gations contained in this amended compiaint in that they

may raise such issues quickly and easily in their pending

criminal trial and that the judge therein has the power and

authority to quicky remedy their grievances. These an-

swering defendants, in further answer to the allegations

contained in said paragraph, affirmatively allege, on infor-

mation and belief, that many of the plaintiffs and members

of the classes and subclasses have pending actions against

the defendants wherein they are raising similar issues and

plead such actions as a bar to their maintenance of the

present action.

—48—

AS A SECOND FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DE-

FENSE, THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AFFIR-

MATIVELY ALLEGE:

1. On information and belief, that the plaintiffs and

numerous members of the class of persons they seek to

represent either now have pending or have had pending in

the past other actions against the defendants on the same

similar issues and that said actions are a bar to the main-

tenance of the present action.

2. On information and belief, that plaintiffs and nu-

merous members of the class of persons they seek to rep-

resent have in the past maintained actions against the de-

fendants on issues they seek to litigate herein and that said

persons are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel

and res judicata from litigating those issues herein.

AS A THIRD FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DE-

FENSE, THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AFFIR-

MATIVELY ALLEGE:

1. That insofar as the plaintiffs herein seek to require

the County of Los Angeles to expend money or to seek

equitable relief that in fact or as a practical matter is directed

against the County of Los Angeles, this action is barred by

the Eleventh Amendment and is not maintainable, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that the County of Los Angeles is

not a person within the meaning of that statute.

AS A FOURTH FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DE-

FENSE, THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AFFIR-

MATIVELY ALLEGE:

1. That insofar as plaintiffs herein seek relief which

requires the expenditure of money by the County of Los

Angeles, that this action is an action for damages which

entitles the plaintiffs herein to a trial by jury. Defendants

and each of them hereby demand a trial by jury.

tar a

a ae

AS A FIFTH FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DE-

FENSE, THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AFFIR-

MATIVELY ALLEGE:

1. That presently there is a controversy between the

County of Los Angeles and the State of California as to

whether or not the Minimum Jail Standards of the State of

California, as promulgated by the State Department of Cor-

rections, pursuant to the authority given it by virtue of

California Penal Code Section 6030, are mandatory or merely

permissive and that if such Minimum Jail Standards are

mandatory, the County of Los Angeles may, unless the State

of California is made a party to this action, be subjected to

a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations by

reason thereof.

2. The State of California is subject to the service of

process, and the joinder of the State of California will not

deprive the County of jurisdiction over the subject matter

of the action, and in the absence of the State of California,

the defendants herein who are already parties will be subject

to a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations by reason of

the claimed interest of the State of California.

AS A SIXTH FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DE-

FENSE, THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AFFIR-

MATIVELY ALLEGE:

1. That defendants are not subject to equitable relief for

the acts or omissions of their subordinates unless defendants

directed such acts or omissions.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray:

1. That the Court deny certification of this action as a

class action both as to the purported class of plaintiffs and

classes of defendants.

2. That the Court deny declaratory relief as prayed for

by plaintiffs.

3. That the Court deny the preliminary and permanent

injunctions prayed for by the plaintiffs.

4. That the plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this

action.

5. That the Court not retain jurisdiction over defendants

or this action.

6. That the Court deny plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and

costs of suit herein.

7. That the Court award defendants the cost of defense

herein, and

8. That the Court award such other and further relief

as may be proper.

DATED: June 29, 1976

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN H. LARSON, County Counsel

By /s/ David B. Kelsey

DAVID B. KELSEY

Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendants

(Declaration of Service omitted in printing).

pan eRe

Pretrial Conference Order.

United States District Court, Central District of California.

Dennis Rutherford, Harold Taylor, and Richard Orr, et

al., Plaintiffs, vs. Peter J. Pitchess, et al., Defendants. No.

CV 75-4111-WPG.

Filed: June 27, 1977.

Following pretrial proceedings pursuant to Rule 16 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 9 of this

Court,

IT IS ORDERED:

I. Nature of Action and Parties.

1. This is a class action seeking injunctive and de-

claratory relief against the practices and conditions of con-

finement at the Los Angeles County Central Jail (hereinafter

‘‘Jail’’), located at 441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles,

California. .

2. The issues are raised in the Second Amended Com-

plaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and the Answer

to Second Amended Complaint and are discussed in detail

in the parties’ respective Memoranda of Contentions of Fact

and Law.

3. The plaintiff class is defined as all prisoners in the

Jail since December 31, 1975 and contains two subclasses,

the first defined as all pretrial detainees in the Jail since

December 31, 1975, and the second defined as all sentenced

prisoners in the Jail since December 31, 1975. Unless other-

wise indicated, hereinafter prisoners shall mean members

of the plaintiff class; pretrial or unsentenced prisoners shall

mean members of the pretrial detainee subclass, and sen-

tenced prisoners shall mean members of the sentenced pris-

oner subclass. The pretrial detainee subclass is represented

by plaintiffs DENNIS RUTHERFORD, HAROLD TAY-

chili

LOR and GREGORY ARMSTRONG; and the sentenced

prisoner subclass is represented by plaintiffs RUTHER-

FORD, ARMSTRONG, RICHARD ORR and JACK

JONES.

4. The defendants, all sued in their official capacities,

are PETER J. PITCHESS, as Sheriff of the County of Los

Angeles, WILLIAM ANTHONY as Assistant Sheriff of the

County of Los Angeles, WALTER HOWELL, as Chief of

the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Custody Di-

vision, PAUL MYRON as Captain of the Central Jail, JACK

HOLT, JACK B. ROBBINS and ERNEST ZANSTER as

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department lieutenants as-

signed to the Jail, JAMES D. AUSTIN, LeROY K. JOHN-

SON, GERALD BOSWELL, RICHARD HENDERSHOT,

JAMES CINDERELLI, DANNY CALHOUN, STEVEN

CRAWFORD, JOHN FEHRN, STEVEN GAYHART, AN-

TONIO SAMANiéGO, FREDERICK SYKES, JOHN

WARGO and FREDERICK WEISE, as Los Angeles County

Sheriff's Department Officers assigned to the Jail and as

representative of a defendant class defined as all Los An-

geles County Sheriff's Department officers below the rank

of lieutenant assigned to the Jail, and EDWARD EDEL-

MAN, KENNETH HAHN, JAMES HAYES, PETER

SCHABARUM and BAXTER WARD, as members of the

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Il. Jurisdiction and Venue.

Federal jurisdiction and venue are invoked upon the ground

of claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress depri-

vations of civil rights occurring within the Central District

of California and the ground of pendent jurisdiction to ad-

judicate related claims arising under California law. ~

pe ae

III. Jurisdictional Facts.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. All defendants to the extent they have acted herein

have done so under color of State Law.

2. Plaintiffs are citizens and persons within the meaning

of 28 U.S.C. $1343(3).

B. No Other Contentions of Fact.

IV. Plaintiffs.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Plaintiffs DENNIS RUTHERFORD, HAROLD

TAYLOR and GREGORY ARMSTRONG were charged

with criminal offenses under California law and during the

pendency of this action were incarcerated as unsentenced

prisoners in the Jail awaiting trial in California courts in

Los Angeles County.

2. Plaintiff RUTHERFORD was a pretrial prisoner in

the Jail from November 5, 1972 to January 23, 1976, held

in lieu of bail, which ranged between $30,000 and $10,000.

He was a convicted prisoner in the Jail from June 3, 1976

to July, 1976.

3. Plaintiff TAYLOR was a pretrial prisoner in the Jail

from December 17, 1973 until August, 1976, held in lieu

of $350,000 bail.

4. Plaintiff ARMSTRONG was a pretrial prisoner in

the Jail from October 4, 1975 to December 23, 1976, held

in lieu of $50,000 bail.

5. Plaintiffs JACK JONES, RICHARD ORR, ARM-

STRONG and RUTHERFORD were sentenced prisoners in

the Jail during the pendency of this action.

6. On March 23, 1976, the Court certified this action

as a class action within the meaning of Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), on behalf of a class con-

sisting of prisoners in the Jail since December 31, 1975,

and two subclasses, the first consisting of all pretrial de-

tainees in the Jail since December 31, 1975, and the second

consisting of all sentenced prisoners in the Jail since

December 31, 1975.

7. Unsentenced prisoners are incarcerated because they

did not post bail or otherwise secure their release pending

trial, and they are entitled to a presumption of innocence in

their criminal cases as provided by law. After their arraign-

ment they are confined in the Jail by judicial order solely

to insure their presence at trial.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether most unsentenced prisoners are indigent and

are held in lieu of bail which they cannot afford to post.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether the claims or defenses of the representative

plaintiffs are not typical of the claims or defenses of the

class in that the circumstances and treatment of plaintiffs

are not typical of the circumstances and treatment of inmates

generally. :

2. Whether the representative parties cannot fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the class and subclasses

in that they have not raised all claims reasonably expected

to be raised by the members of the class, including claims

for damages; and in that the claims and positions reasonably

expected to be raised by one subclass, sentenced prisoners,

are in conflict with and incompatible with the claims of

another subclass, unsentenced prisoners, and that to fully

and completely press the claims of sentenced prisoners nec-

essarily requires less than fair. advocacy of the claims of

unsentenced prisoners; and the conditions under which pres-

ent prisoners are confined are vastly different from the con-

inl cis

ditions under which the representative plaintiffs were

confined.

3. Whether all unsentenced prisoners are indigent.

V. Defendants.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Defendant PETER J. PITCHESS is, and at all times

herein relevant has been, the duly elected Sheriff of the

County of Los Angeles, California and keeper of the Jail

pursuant to Government Code §26605 and Penal Code

§§4000, 4005 and 4006, and as such is charged with the

statutory duty of maintaining and operating county jail fa-

cilities including the Jail. He is the head of one of the largest

police agencies in the world and is the chief law enforcement

officer in the County of Los Angeles responsible for pro-

viding law enforcement to a population in excess of seven

million people living in an area in excess of 4,000 square

miles and consisting of over 5,000 sworn personnel, as well

as being responsible for numerous other difficult and in-

tractable responsibilities, including the service and enforce-

ment of hundreds of thousands of civil processes, serving

as bailiff for one of the largest court systems in the world.

One of his responsibilities is the operation of one of the

largest detention systems in the world which consists of

seven major facilities and numerous minor facilities, and

which houses over 200,000 prisoners a year and has an

average daily population of over 9,000 inmates, a substantial

portion of whom are within the system less than ten days.

In the performance of these duties, the Sheriff reasonably

and necessarily delegates responsibilities for operation of

the detention facilities to others and has little direct involve-

ment in its daily operation, policies and procedures. In the

furtherance of the delegation of these responsibilities, re-

sponsibilities are delegated to an undersheriff, two assistant

—_— =

sheriffs, eight divisions headed by division chiefs, numerous

inspectors and hundreds of other supervisory personnel.

2. Assistant Sheriff WILLIAM J. ANTHONY is charged

with the overall supervision of the Sheriff's Custody Di-

vision and other divisions and is third in command of the

Sheriff's Department under the direct supervision of Un-

dersheriff Sherman Block, who is not a defendant in this

action. In the performance of his duties, Assistant Sheriff

ANTHONY necessarily and reasonably delegates respon-

sibilities for operation of the jails to a division chief, four

inspectors, who are not defendants in the zction, and ru-

merous other subordinates not all of whom are defeadants

in this action. He has been delegated supervisory respon-

sibilities for maintaining and operating county jail facilities,

including the Jail.

3. WALTER HOWELL is the Chief of the Custody

Division of the Sheriff's Department and as such is re-

sponsible for supervision of all detention facilities within

the Sheriff's Department, including seven major facilities,

numerous smaller facilities, and the detention facilities at

each of the Sheriff's substations. In the performance of his

duties, Chief HOWELL necessarily and reasonably dele-

gates responsibilities to four inspectors, who are not defen-

dants herein, and numerous other subordinates, not all of

whom are defendants herein. He has been delegated super-

visory responsibility for maintaining and operating county

jail facilities, including the Jail, and for promulgating rules

for the care and treatment of prisoners in the jail.

4. Defendant PAUL MYRON is Captain of Central Jail

and has been since approximately February of 1977. He

replaces Captain Farrell, Captain White and Captain Wheat-

ley, who were former defendants in this action. Pursuant to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(d), Captain

Myron has been automatically substituted as defendant

herein. In the performance of his duties, Captain MYRON

reasonably and necessarily delegates his responsibilities for

the operation of the jail to numerous subordinates, not all

of whom are defendants herein. He has been delegated direct

supervisory responsibility for the administration of the Jail.

5. JACK HOLT, JACK E. ROBBINS and ERNEST

ZANSLER are lieutenants of the Los Angeles County Sher-

iff's Department and as such have been delegated super-

visory responsibility with regard to managing and admin-

istering the Jail.

6. Deputy Sheriffs and defendants JAMES D. AUS-

TIN, LEROY K. JOHNSON, GERALD BOSWELL,

RICHARD HENDERSHOT, JAMES CINDERELLI,

DANNY CALHOUN, STEVEN CRAWFORD, JOHN

WARGO are currently Los Angeles County Sheriff's De-

partment Officers assigned to Central Jail. As such, they

carry out directives and policies of the Jail and have been

assigned specific duties with regard to the everyday oper-

ations of the Jail and the control of certain prisoners.

7. Defendant JOHN FEHRN was and defendants and

Deputy Sheriffs STEVEN GAYHART, ANTONIO SA-

MANIEGO, FREDERICK SYKES and FREDERICK

WEISE are Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs. All said

defendants were at the time of service of the Second Amended

Complaint, but no longer are, assigned to the Jail, and as

such carried out the directives and policies of the Jail and

were assigned specific duties with regard to the everyday

operations of the Jail and the control of certain prisoners.

Defendants FEHRN, SAMANIEGO, SYKES and WEISE

were no longer assigned to the Jail after the following dates

in 1976, respectively: December 25, October 23, December

18 and December 18.

8. Defendants EDWARD EDELMAN, KENNETH

HAHN, JAMES HAYES, PETER SCHABARUM and

BAXTER WARD are and at all times relevant herein have

been the duly elected and acting members of the Board of

Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles.

9. Defendants are all sued in their official capacities.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants AUSTIN, JOHNSON, BOS-

WELL, HENDERSHOT, CINDERELLI, CALHOUN,

CRAWFORD, FEHRN, GAYHART, SAMANIEGO,

SYKES, WARGO and WEISE are representative of a class

within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rule 23(b)(1) consisting of all Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department officers below the rank of lieutenant, assigned

to the Jail.

2. \Whether the acts and omissions herein described were

committed and conditions herein described were maintained

by defendants personally and through actions of their agents,

and subordinates, acting pursuant to defendants’ instruc-

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants EDELMAN, HAHN, HAYES,

SCHABARUM and WARD have only limited supervisory

responsibilities over the Sheriff of the County of Los An-

geles which is shared with the State Attorney General of

the State of California and cannot direct the performance

of the Sheriff's duties.

2. Whether at no time have defendants done any acts

or omissions directly or personally which are illegal or en-

joinable in this action.

3. Whether all rules and policies promulgated by de-

fendant HOWELL and/or MYRON that involve the plaintiff

class are valid, legal and constitutional.

4. Whether there is‘no present existing basis for

injunctive relief as to defendants FEHRN, GAYHART,

SAMANIEGO, SYKES and WEISE.

IV. Jail Population.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The Jail’s stated capacity established by the Cali-

fornia Board of Corrections is 5548, consisting of 5098 non-

medical beds and 450 hospital beds.

2. The proportion of unsentenced prisoners, sentenced

prisoners facing no additional criminal charges and prisoners

sentenced under one or more convictions and awaiting trial

on one or more additional criminal charges varies from time

to time, but at the present are approximately 65% unsen-

tenced, 22% sentenced facing no additional charges and

13% sentenced facing additional charges.

B. No Other Contentions of Fact.

Vv. Mail.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to legal and non-

legal mail is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits Z (pp. 47-

48), A (pp. 58-59), D (pp. 1-2), E (pp. 1-2) and BO.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether notwithstanding the stated written policy out

of the presence of prisoners, defendants open and sometimes

read prisoners’ legal mail to and from attorneys, courts and

public officials.

2. Whether notwithstanding the stated written policy out

of the presence of prisoners, defendants open and sometimes

read and censor prisoners’ incoming and outgoing mail, and

do not provide the affected prisoner or sender with notice

of or opportunity to contest that censorship.

—6o—

C. Defendants’ Contentions.

1. Whether there are serious, compelling and legitimate

institutional concerns preventing the introduction of contra-

band into the jail through the use of mail, and procedures

designed to accomplish this in an expeditious manner com-

patible with prompt delivery of mail and minimalization of

these concerns is appropriate and proper.

VI. Telephone Calls.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to telephone calls

by prisoners is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits BN, Z

(p. 15), A (p. 60), F and G.

2. Six telephones are located on each floor of the orig-

inal Central Jail facility adjacent to the inmate modules, in

the hospital, and six telephones are located within each of

the regular housing modules in the new addition to the jail

and two telephones are located within each of the discipli-

nary/segregation modules in the new addition to Central Jail.

Telephones are also located within the pro per law library

and within the non pro per law library.

3. Defendants do not permit prisoners to receive in-

coming telephone calls except in emergencies or other

unusual circumstances.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether notwithstanding the stated written policy

defendants deny prisoners reasonable access to telephones

to make outgoing calls, after the booking process is com-

pleted only allow prisoners to make phone calls from within

the Jail through Court orders or infrequently granted per-

mission from Jail officers, and limit the length of telephone

calls to five minutes.

C. Defendants’ Contentions.

1. Whether as defendants contend: Central Jail policy

permits prisoners reasonable access to telephones to make

outgoing calls; all inmates are entitled to at least two or

more free telephone calls within the local dialing area when

booked and before certain proceedings; additional calls are

permitted at booking when appropriate; and the opportunity

for telephone calls for emergency purposes may be requested

at any time from the module officer, the senior deputy on

the floor, or from the chaplain.

2. Whether as defendants contend: Inmates are permit-

ted to use the telephones on a rotation basis throughout the

day and night; and it is the Central Jail policy that the

prisoners are given access to these phones as much as pos-

sible without interfering with normal procedures and that

each inmate receive a fair opportunity to make telephone

calls.

3. Whether as defendants contend: Incoming telephone

calls are not routinely permitted but are permitted only in

emergencies or unusual circumstances; and permitting in-

coming telephone calls is not feasible in light of the number

of inmates detained, the arrangement of the jail and the

administrative and logistical problems of timely locating

inmates.

VII. Visitation.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to prisoner vis-

itation is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits A (pp. 60-61),

and B (pp. 29-30).

2. Inmates are permitted daily visits with adults and

children between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. The

number of visits at Central Jail currently averages over 2,000

a day and over 63,000 a month.

3. Pretrial prisoners are allowed one daily 20 minute

visit, and sentenced prisoners are allowed one daily 60 min-

ute visit.

4. Physical contact between prisoners and visitors is not

routinely permitted.

5. Some sentenced prisoners confined at some of de-

fendants’ detention camps, some Federal and California

prisons, and some jail facilities in other counties are per-

mitted to have some physical contact with their visitors.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny prisoners reasonable op-

portunity to visit with family and friends.

2. Whether most sentenced prisoners at Federal and

California prisons and at jail facilities in Los Angeles County

are permitted to have physical contact with their visitors,

including embracing, kissing, holding hands and holding

children.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether as defendants contend: To accommodate

visitation, there is a large, modern, air-conditioned visiting

area designed to accommodate approximately 228 visitors

at a time; this visiting area is generally in constant use

throughout the day; visiting areas are arranged in corridors

designed to minimize noise between rows, and small privacy

partitions are located between each visiting location to like-

wise reduce noise and provide some element of privacy;

visitors and the inmates they are visiting may view each

other through large, clear glass panels and may speak over

modern, well-maintained telephones; an area to sit and a

shelf is provided on both the inmate and visitor side for

convenience and comfort. No direct supervision of each

_—

visitor or inmate during the visiting period is routinely done

or required; a timing device connected to each visiting area

insures that each inmate receives his full allotment of time

for visiting; and inmates and visitors are not generally sub-

jected to searches before or after visits.

2. Whether as defendants contend: Contact visits are

not and cannot be permitted at Central Jail without causing

unacceptable risks of harm to inmates, visitors and person-

nel, and unacceptable breaches of the facility’s security;

there are no rooms or facilities within Central Jail that are

feasible for conversion to contact-type visits even if the

security risks were not present; and if a location for such

visits could be located and if the security risks were not

present, the number and frequency of visits permitted in-

mates would have to be considerably diminished and em-

barrassing or other searches of visitors and inmates would

be required on at least a frequent or random basis.

VIII. Reading Matter.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to prisoners’ ac-

cess to and receipt of reading matter is as set forth in pre-

marked Exhibits BX, A (p. 89), H, I, J and K.

2. There is an extension of the Los Angeles County

Library located at the original Jail facility containing about

5000 volumes.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants drastically limit prisoners’ ac-

cess to reading matter, including newspapers, magazines

and books by failing to provide prisoners with an adequate

selection of reading matter, by permitting prisoners only

infrequent, indirect access to available reading matter, by

te —=§4._.

prohibiting prisoners from receiving reading matter from

visitors, and by prohibiting prisoners, from receiving read-

ing matter through the mail.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether as defendants contend: Inmates at Central

Jail have reasonable access to reading materials; paperback

books, magazines and newspapers are sold in the modules

from the jail commissary cart; the books so sold include

best sellers and other books selected on the basis of pop-

ularity; at any one time, there are, in addition, about 50

library and other books within each module that may be

exchanged between prisoners; and visitors may deliver books

and magazines to inmates after visits.

2. Whether as defendants contend: The extension of the

Los Angeles County Law Library located within the Jail is

not large enough to permit all inmates direct access to it;

and the system was designed to give inmates access to the

library by means of a library cart which is taken to each

row on the old side of the Jail about every ten days.

3. Whether as defendants contend: Although not yet

fully operational, a new 12,000 volume extension of the

County library system will be opened on the fourth floor of

the new addition to the Jail; the structure of the new addition

to the Central Jail and the way it was designed and the space

available in the new library facilities will not feasibly permit

inmates to visit the library directly; the books will be dis-

tributed from that library by means of a cart as is now the

practice on the old side of the Jail; when this library is fully

operational, the cart from each of the jail library facilities

will visit each module approximately once a week; and in

the meantime, the Jail librarian distributes free paperbacks,

which need not be returned, to the inmates in the new

addition to the Jail.

=’ ae

IX. Recreation.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Unsentenced prisonets who are not trusties do not

presently have the opportunity for outdoor exercise and

recreation.

2. Only working trusties presently receive an oppor-

tunity for outdoor recreation.

3. The Jail has been designed to permit at least two

hours a day of freeway or dayroom time, one hour each on

the day and evening shifts.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny prisoners adequate oppor-

tunity to exercise and recreate outdoors.

2. Whether defendants deny pretrial prisoners reason-

able opportunity to divert themselves indoors in that pretrial

prisoners are locked in their cells or infirmary wards or

rooms at all times except when specified business, such as

court appearances, medical care, meals, attorney interviews,

personal visits, shower, chaplain consultations, and edu-

cational classes otherwise require, such prisoners are only

infrequently allowed to use dayrooms adjacent to their cell-

blocks or infirmary wards or rooms, and said dayrooms are

barren of recreational equipment, including televisions,

radios, games and reading matter.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether as defendants contend: Between approxi-

mately 15-30% of the pretrial inmates are transported to

court each weekday, a process which usually takes 5-10

hours; about 40-50% of the entire Jail population, both

sentenced and unsentenced, have a visit each day; a process

which takes about an hour or more; and presently, 200 or

so of the pretrial inmates are trusties who are involved in

_— =

work assignments during the day and presently have access

to dayrooms and television.

2. Whether as defendants contend: Throughout the day,

most inmates whose classifications permit them to mix with

other inmates can go by request to such activities as school,

Bible study, visits to the chaplain, and other activities; such

inmates could, if they desire, spend up to several hours a

day at school; and as indicated earlier, there are about 43

pay telephones available to pretrial inmates for use through-

out the day.

3. Whether as defendants contend: Because of the move

into the new addition and the new personnel involved, and

the difficulties of working out problems concerning the new

policies and the need to recruit and train additional person-

nel, this practice has not yet been uniformly accomplished

in every module; and even at present, however, inmates in

each module receive about one hour a day of freeway time.

4. Whether as defendants contend: Only working trus-

ties at present receive an opportunity for outdoor recreation;

although the new jail addition includes a large outdoor rec-

reation area, defects in its construction and the need to fix

responsibility for such with the contractor; as well as ad-

ministrative and logistical problems associated with the

opening of the new addition to Central Jail and the need to

recruit and train additional personnel have precluded present

use of such facilities; when such problems are solved, it

should be possible to permit those inmates the opportunity

for at least one hour a week of outdoor exercise in addition

to freeway time and other recreational activities.

5. Whether increased opportunities for freeway time

and outdoor recreation create increased risks of thefts of

personal property, tensions, and assaults which cannot be

significantly reduced even with substantial increases in

supervising personnel.

6. Whether as defendants contend: The Jail is presently

implementing a new classification system which is the result

of several years of study and planning; present indications

are that when fully implemented, such classification system

may permit the classification of significant numbers of pre-

trial inmates as minimum security, low moderate security,

moderate security, high moderate security, and only a small

number as maximum security; present data suggests that

when implemented, such a classification system may ideally

permit those pretrial inmates classified as minimum security

to qualify for dormitory housing and permit travel about the

jail on an unescorted basis; those classified as low moderate

to have relative free movement in cellblocks and open day-

rooms, if possible; those classified as moderate to have

constant access to the freeway, and possible access to the

adjoining dayroom in the new modules and permit travel

about the jail without escorts; those inmates classified as

high moderate to have constant use of the freeway area; and

those classified maximum have access to the freeway area

on a limited basis and to require escorts; until the system

is fully implemented and tested, no firm commitments can

be made; and defendants hope to have sufficient data within

six months.

7. Whether as defendants contend: All inmates, pretrial

and sentenced, if they wish, may participate in educational

classes at Central Jail; classes are presently offered for over

170 hours a week and will be expanded in fiscal year 1977-

78; classes are offered in General Educational Development

Equivalency Certificates, health/science education, English

and Spanish as a second language and vocational classes

for sentenced inmates; the courses are provided by the La

Puente Independent School District by qualified instructors;

in 1974 over 17,400 inmates participated in these classes

. ,

aT ee

and the number has increased this year and will increase

further next year; in 1974 over 145,000 student hours of

education were provided at Central Jail and the number is

increasing; between 7 and 12% of the entire pretrial pop-

ulation participates in the educational program at any one

time; and counseling services are also provided.

X. Housing

A. Stipulated Facts.

1. The cell designations, the number of men per cell,

the number of cells, the size of each cell in square feet, the

size of the adjoining freeway in square feet, the size of the

dayroom to which the cell area is assigned, and the square

footage per prisoner at rated capacity for all of the Jail’s

non medical housing area are as set forth in Schedule A,

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants confine pretrial prisoners under

conditions lacking in privacy or sensitivity to basic human

needs; and as a rule, pretrial prisoners are housed in over-

crowded cells in which excess prisoners must sleep on the

floor, sometimes without a mattress, whereas single cells,

which afford a modicum of privacy, are used only for sen-

tenced trusties, for discipline and administrative segregation

or for prisoners exhibiting agitated behavior, and dormi-

tories, which afford greater freedom of movement and living

space, are used only for sentenced trusties.

2. Whether all one, two, four, six, eight and ten man

cells contain one toilet, one wash basin and one fountain

and a number of beds equivalent to their rated capacities.

3. Whether housing in the Jail’s infirmary consists of

the following:

(a) One 48-bed ward, 54 feet wide and 56.6 long;

a’

(b) Six 10-bed wards, each 38 feet long and 19.5 feet

wide;

(d) Four 5-bed wards, each 32.3 feet long and 11.6

feet wide; and

(e) 122 one-bed rooms, each 12.4 feet long and 7.10

feet wide.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether most cells are equipped with toilet facilities,

wash basins, fountains, desks, seats and beds, sufficient for

the number of inmates for which it was designed and rated.

2. Whether as defendants contend: The recommended

and actual practice of most jails is to install sanitary facilities

consisting of a toilet and wash basin in each cell; and the

installation of such sanitary facilities in each cell results in

significant custodial and medical benefits, has been ap-

proved by the State Board of Corrections, never found to

present a health or sanitation problem by the Health De-

partment, and does not present a significant medical liability.

XI. Views to the Outside.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. There are no windows and open areas through which

prisoners may view the outside, and former windows on the

old side of the Jail have been sealed.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny prisoners a reasonable view

to the outside world and have covered over previously ex-

isting windows in the Jail without adequately exploring

alternatives which accommodate both Jail security and pris-

oner needs.

- =

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether reopening the former windows at Central

Jail or attempting to create windows in the new addition to

the Jail presents unacceptable security risks, is incompatible

with the environmental control system in use at the Central

Jail and fire code provisions, and presents a health hazard

and is too costly in light of the limited benefits to the inmates.

2. Whether, as defendants contend: The original Central

Jail facility, first occupied in 1963, was designed and built

with clear windows in most cell blocks, all dayrooms and

hospital rooms; the Fire Department required that these win-

dows be wired glass and would not permit the use of other

types of nonbreakable window materials because, when

heated, they tend to break and create drafts that cause an

increased fire hazard within a building such as Central Jail;

the windows contained six inch by nine inch panes housed

in special security window frames designed to prevent es-

capes, were of the type recommended as standard window

frames for maximum security institutions to provide rea-

sonable security against escape, and were located eight feet

from the nearest prisoner housing area; during the first six

months of operation of the Jail, at least one-third of these

windows were broken by inmates; the broken windows in-

terfered with the security of the facility, hampered the con-

trolled air circulation and were unsightly; various other non-

breakable transparent materials were considered but were

not approved by the Fire Department, which contended they

created unreasonable fire hazards; allegedly tamper-proof

stainless steel security screens of the type generally used in

their installation, many of the screens were destroyed and

ripped by inmates and proved wholly unsatisfactory; inmates

were able to obtain hacksaw blades, weapons, narcotics,

and other contraband through the broken security screens

- =

with the assistance of confederates outside the jail; and

several escapes and escape attempts occurred.

3. Whether as deiendants contend: Next, fourteen-gauge

steel plates were fixed to the inside of the windows using

tamper-proof screws initially and later welding them in place;

on numerous occasions, inmates were able to rip down and

remove these steel plates; several escapes and escape at-

tempts occurred; and bars were installed over the outside

of the windows; nevertheless, inmates were able to saw

through these bars and on several occasions, escape attempts

continued.

4. Whether as defendants contend: When the determi-

nation to build the Jail was made, it was decided that the

most helpful environment could be maintained by the use

of an environmental control within the facility that would

control the temperature of the air, its humidity, circulation,

as well as provide cleaning and filtering; effective use of

such a full environmental control system necessitated min-

imizing all effective leaks of air from the system; and be-

cause of the serious threat to the security of the facility

presented by the window openings, and the inability to

secure them and prevent air leaks, the contractor for the

new addition to the jail installed precast concrete window

enclosures over the existing window openings and the new

jail was designed and built without windows.

5. Whether as defendants contend: There is no known

method by which the existing building could be made secure

if the windows were reopened; and moreover, the estimated

costs of reopening these windows even if attempted is in

excess of a million dollars and would still present security

problems as well as create a health problem due to the

inefficiency of the environmental control system in use in

XII. Searches.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Defendants periodically search cellblocks, particu-

larly those occupied by pretrial prisoners, sometimes in the

absence of the prisoner-occupants.

2. Searches of inmate property are necessary to main-

tain the security of the facility, prevent escapes, maintain

order, and minimize the potential for injury to inmates and

staff.

3. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to searches of

prisoners housing areas and property is as set forth in pre-

marked Exhibits BR, BO, A (pp. 18, 31-32), CC and DD.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

|. Whether notwithstanding the stated written policy

defendants periodically and systematically ransack cells,

particularly those occupied by pretrial prisoners, in the

absence of the prisoner-occupants.

2. Whether notwithstanding the stated written policy

whether during these ransackings, commonly known as

**shakedowns’’, officers first remove all prisoners to an

adjacent dayroom and then tear apart cells, throw prisoners’

property al} over the cells and confiscate prisoner property

without providing prisoners any receipt or notice of or

opportunity to contest confiscation.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether cell searches are infrequently conducted at

Central Jail.

2. Whether searches at Central Jaii are conducted in

accordance with procedures which are designed to minimize

interference with prisoners and their property, prevent the

loss or destruction of prisoner property, and maintain con-

fidentiality of prisoners’ legal materials.

—-?

—.". 9 a

XIII. Meals.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The length of meals in the dining hall within Module

1700-1750 provided to prisoners representing themselves in

propria persona is not at issue herein due to the judgment

in Brown v. Pitchess, Los Angeles Superior Court, No.

24464.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny prisoners, particularly pre-

trial detainees, sufficient time to eat their meals.

XIV. Opportunity to Sleep.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Normal lights are on in prisoner housing areas from

about 5:00 a.m. to about 10:00 p.m.; and lower wattage

lights, varying in intensiiy from cell area to cell area, are

kept on through the night.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny prisoners, particularly pre-

trial prisoners, sufficient opportunity to sleep in that bright

lights within the cells remain on from about 5:00 a.m. to

late evening daily, prisoners must stand for daily counts,

and the Jail’s Officers make continuous noises with the

intercom system.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether dim, low-wattage night lights are necessary

to maintain security and prevent assaults.

XV. Court Transportation.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. Each weekday the Sheriff transports between 700 and

1,000 inmates to 26 separate jurisdictional courts located

over the wide expanse of the County of Los Angeles.

Se, :

a *

a, a

2. After breakfast and the opportunity to shave and do

other personal items, prisoners going to court are given an

opportunity to change into their own clothes for court. They

are then processed for court, segregated into groups ac-

cording to the court they are going to and are loaded on

appropriate buses beginning at 7:00 a.m.; they are trans-

ported to the various court facilities arriving there between

8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. as decided by the particular court.

3. Buses from courts generally begin returning in the

early afternoon between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., bringing

back inmates who have already finished their court ap-

pearances. On a daily basis prisoners returning from court

arrive at the Jail at 6:00 p.m. or later and are sometimes

not returned to their housing areas until 8:00 p.m. or later.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants subject prisoners going to court

to a harsh, exhausting routine which jeopardizes their right

to a fair trial.

2. Whether on days they go to court, prisoners are

awakened before 5:00 a.m. and then spend their days in a

series of crowded holding tanks within the Jail and court-

houses and on buses taking them to and from the courts

without being provided with adequate meals.

3. Whether prisoners returning from court frequently

do not reach their housing areas until 8:00 p.m. or later.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether as defendants contend: None of the defen-

dants have any control over the times that the judges of the

various courts require the Sheriff to have prisoners at the

various courts; most courts require the Sheriff to have in-

mates at the court between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and

sometimes keep the inmates in court well after 6:00 p.m.;

pa ae

and the Sheriff cannot retain custody of the inmates from

the courts each day until the judges of the courts provide

the Sheriff with valid commitment orders for the inmates.

2. Whether as defendants contend: Several of the courts

conduct night courts and require the Sheriff to bring inmates

for such night courts; such night courts are held on Mondays;

and when an inmate goes to night court, he is not transferred

to court until 11:30 a.m. and may not be done with court

until 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m.

3. Whether inmates going to court are awakened at the

same time as other inmates in the Jail, approximately 5:00

a.m.

4. Whether as defendants contend: Additional trans-

portation runs throughout the day are made between the

courts and Central Jail as buses become available and as

the need arises; the final pick up of prisoners at each court

is made when the last prisoner at that court is finished and

the commitment orders from that court are given to the

Sheriff; although the times inmates are finished at each court

varies from day to day depending on the number of inmates

at the court and whether a particular judge has held a late

court, the last inmate is done at most of the courts between

4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.; except Mondays when some courts

hold night court, most inmates on most days are returned

to the Jail before 8:00 p.m.; on Mondays when some courts

hold night court until as late as 9:00 p.m. or so at night,

inmates who were not transported to such courts until 11:30

a.m. may not get back to the Jail until 9:30 to 10:30 p.m.;

and on rare occasions because of unusual circumstances,

such as an equipment breakdown or other infrequent oc-

currences, an inmate has not gotten back to the Jail until as

late as 11:00 p.m.

—16—

XVI. Prisoners’ Property.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to prisoners’ pos-

session of property is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits Z

(pp. 1, 2, 9, 10, 50-53), A (pp. 14, 71, 73-74), B (p. 31),

AE, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU and AV.

2. A commissary cart visits each cell area and offers

for sale personal hygiene items, stationery , reading material,

candy and numerous other items.

3. Items sold from the commissary cart are as set forth

in pre-marked Exhibit CQ.

4. The Jail Chaplain is responsible for the dissemination

to indigent prisoners of their personal hygiene items, sta-

tionery, stamps and other iterns.

5. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to providing in-

digent prisoners with certain free items is as set forth in

pre-marked Exhibits A (p. 87) and B (p. 12).

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants unduly restrict the items that

prisoners may possess within the Jail and routinely confis-

cate prisoners’ personal belongings including but not limited

to, correspondence and photographs.

2. Whether defendants deny prisoners an adequate op-

portunity to obtain from family and friends or to purchase

at the Jail commissary necessities and amenities of life, such

as soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, deodorant, paper and

pencils; and fail to provide indigent prisoners with such

items.

3. Whether defendants unduly restrict plaintiffs’ op-

‘portunities to obtain fresh street clothing for their court

tis.

appearances and as a consequence plaintiffs’ clothing fre-

quently becomes soiled, smelly and wrinkled during the

course of a trial.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether indigent inmates are provided personal hy-

giene items, stationery, stamps and other items within a few

hours after submitting a written request therefor.

XVil. Hygiene and Sanitation.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to providing pris-

oners fresh Jail clothing is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits

A (pp. 64-65), B (p. 43), AA and BS.

2. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to sanitation is

as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits CB, A (pp. 25-27, 48,

70) and BD.

3. Prisoners are required to clean and maintain their

own housing areas; a standard institutional issue of clothing

for inmates includes but is not limited to clean socks, clean

undergarments, clean outer garments; an inmate’s under-

garments may be substituted for the institutional

undergarments.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether the defendants deny prisoners, particularly

pretrial prisoners, reasonable facilities and materials with

which to launder their clothing, including undergarments.

2. Whether defendants frequently deny prisoners, par-

ticularly pretrial detainees, adequate opportunity to bathe.

3. Whether defendants deny prisoners, particularly pre-

trial prisoners, reasonable opportunities to obtain fresh jail

clothing and linens.

4. Whether defendants fail to take adequate measures

to preserve sanitation and prevent the spread of contagious

diseases, thereby threatening the health of prisoners.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. ‘Whether as defendants contend: All inmates have the

opportunity for at least three showers a week; and hot and

cold running water and soap are available in all housing

areas.

2. Whether the Sheriff Department policy requires that

each facility maintain a sufficient supply of clothing and

bedding for normal and emergency requirements of the

inmates.

3. Whether as defendants contend: Each inmate is pro-

vided one clean serviceable mattress, one clean sheet or

mattress cover, one towel, one or more blankets depending

upon climatic conditions; these items are freshly launde

and sanitized after each use and issued at the time of booking

to each inmate; washable items such as sheets, mattress

covers and towels are exchanged for clean replacements at

least each week; and blankets are laundered or dry cleaned

at least every three months or more often if necessary.

4. Whether prisoners’ jail outer garments are exchanged

at icasi once a week or more frequently if work, climatic

conditions or illness require.

5. Whether inmates are provided with suitable footwear

if the inmate’s personal shoes are inappropriate for the fa-

cility or if no shoes were worn at the time of arrest.

6. Whether as defendants contend: All pretrial inmates

are allowed one complete, non-institutional clothing ex-

change; exchanges consist of shoes, outer garments and a

wrap (coat, sweater, etc.); and all additional clothing ex-

changes are handled by special request.

° ¥

<> ae

7. Whether each housing area is equipped with hot and

cold running water and inmates are provided with laundry

soap.

8. Whether as defendants contend: The facility is and

has been found by the Health Department and the State

Board of Corrections to be maintained in a clean and sanitary

manner; floors are swept and mopped daily; bars are dusted

daily and washed weekly; garbage and trash receptacles are

emptied and sanitized at least once a day; and toilets, urinals,

sinks and basins are cleaned daily.

9. Whether in conjunction with the medical stafi, the

facility has developed and implemented procedures for the

treatment of vermin within the housing areas.

10. Whether staff are assigned to conduct weekly health

and maintainance inspections of the facility.

11. Whether prisoners are provided materials to clean

and maintain their own housing areas.

XVIII. Temperature.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The Jail has a full environmental control system which

is designed to regulate temperature, humidity and ventilation

and to cleanse the air.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants fail to maintain the Jail’s tem-

perature control system in working order; and temperatures

within the Jail are frequently too hot or too cold, thereby

causing a threat to the health of prisoners.

XIX. Access to the Courts.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. All sentenced prisoners have access to a law library

found adequate in accordance with the decision brought on

behalf of all Los Angeles County Jail sentenced inmates in

— _

the case of Bailey v. Pitchess, U.S.D.C. No. 72-1957-F.

2. Access to the courts for prisoners representing them-

selves in propriis personis is not an issue herein due to the

judgment in Brown v. Pitchess, Los Angeles Superior Court

No. C 24464.

3. All pretrial inmates who are not pro pers have either

a court-appointed lawyer or a private attorney.

4. Public Defenders are empowered to and do occa-

sionally upon the order of the court or upon request of the

person involved represent persons who are not financially

able to employ counsel in a proceeding of any nature relating

to the nature or conditions of detention, of other restrictions

prior to adjudications, of treatment, or of punishment re-

sulting from criminal or juvenile proceedings. See Califor-

nia Government Code §27706.

5. Inmates are not precluded from seeking legal assist-

ance from other inmates with whom they come into contact.

6. Prisoners other than pro pers do not have access to

typewriters.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants deny pretrial prisoners access to

the courts by failing to provide such prisoners with reason-

able access to an adequate law library and other necessary

materials, such as writ forms, typewriters, typing papers,

legal pads, and pencils, by prohibiting prisoners from re-

ceiving law books and legal materials from outside sources

and by denying prisoners reasonable opportunities to obtain

assistance from other prisoners who are relatively sophis-

ticated in matters of law, commonly known as *‘jailhouse

lawyers.”’

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether legal paper and supplies are sold from the

Jail commissary cart.

2. Whether Habeas Corpus forms are provided to

inmates.

3. Whether inmates may receive law books and legal

materials from visitors and outside sources.

XX. Jail Rules and Discipline.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail regarding discipline is as set

forth in pre-marked Exhibits CF, Z (p. 20), A (pp. 75-84),

B (p. 38), N, O, P, Q and R.

2. During the Jail’s disciplinary process accused pris-

oners are not normally allowed to cross-examine or call

witnesses.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants’ rules and regulations which

govern operation of the Jail and the actions and practices

of officers and prisoners are not posted throughout the Jail

and are not made available to all prisoners; and many pris-

oners are ignorant of the Jail’s rules and regulations.

2. Whether many of the Jail’s rules are unconstitution-

ally vague — giving no adequate notice of the conduct they

are intended to prevent — and are selectively enforced by

defendants; and other rules governing pretrial prisoners’

conduct are petty and irksome and amount to excessive

invasions of personal privacy.

3. Whether some rules are enunciated by officers on an

ad hoc basis, frequently after an ‘‘offense’’ has allegedly

occurred; and these rules necessarily vary from officer to

officer, according to his mood and/or feelings towards the

indian

prisoners involved.

4. Whether standardized punishments exist for violation

of Jail rules.

5. Whether entire groups or housing areas of prisoners

are punished for an infraction allegedly committed by one

of their number.

6. Whether punishment includes loss of privileges,

forced labor and solitary confinement.

7. Whether punishment may be levied for an indefinite

period of time.

8. Whether defendants impose punishment upon pris-

oners without adequate notice or fair hearing or opportunity

for prisoners to speak on their own behalf, confront their

accusers, or otherwise contest the charges against them.

9. Whether for purposes of punishment defendants con-

fine prisoners not only in disciplinary isolation cells but also

in administrative segregation, protective custody, medical

restraint cells and medical isolation cells, without even the

pretense of due process.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Facts.

1. Whether as defendants contend: The Central Jail dis-

ciplinary procedures comply with the requirements of due

process and contain adequate safeguards against erroneous

action; printed rules are distributed to each inmate at the

time of booking into the facility; the rules are printed both

in English and Spanish; when an inmate is accused of vi-

olating a jail rule and if disciplinary actions are initiated,

the inmate receives both oral and written notice of what he

is accused of; the observing officer often orally informs the

inmate of what he is accused, talks to the inmate, and

conducts an appropriate investigation; if the incident is mi-

nor, the officer may merely admonish the inmate; if the

observing officer believes that further action is appropriate,

the senior deputy is notified; the senior deputy again advises

the inmate of what he is accused of, interviews him and

listens to whatever defense he has and conducts an inves-

tigation; if the senior deputy believes further action other

than admonishing is appropriate, the inmate is given a writ-

ten notice of what he is accused of which informs him in

English and Spanish of his potential punishment and that

he will be given a hearing before a disciplinary review board

and an opportunity to present a defense; the observing of-

ficer’s version of the facts are placed upon an inmate in-

cident report by the senior deputy and the inmate’s version

or defense is also recorded thereon and the senior deputy

makes a recommendation as to the appropriate sanction, if

any; the inmate incident report is then forwarded to a ser-

geant who reviews the inmate incident report and who may,

if appropriate, talk to the inmate again, conduct a further

investigation, and has the discretion to overturn or modify

the recommended sanction; the inmate incident report is then

forwarded to the watch commander who has the discretion

to talk to the inmate, conduct an additional or further in-

vestigation, and to overturn or modify the recommendation

for appropriate sanction.

2. Whether as defendants contend: If the watch com-

mander agrees that some sanction involving loss of privi-

leges should occur, the inmate incident report is forwarded

to the disciplinary review board; the disciplinary review

board has the inmate brought before it and informs the

inmate again of what he is accused of and what the officers

have said in their report: the disciplinary review board de-

termines that the inmate is competent to present a defense

and marks this determination on the form given to the in-

mate; the inmate is given an opportunity to present a defense

and the matter is discussed with the inmate; if the inmate

indicates that there are other persons or evidence that may

atnlii

clear him, the disciplinary review board conducts further

investigation; and the disciplinary review board makes a

determination as to whether the accusation is founded or

unfounded and so indicates in writing on a form given to

the inmate.

3. Whether the inmate incident report, together with the

findings, are forwwrded to the facility commander who has

the discretion to conduct a further investigation or overturn

any decision. -

4. Whether as defendants contend: The inmate may, in

addition, send a sealed written letter of grievance to the

facility commander; and the disciplinary review board fol-

lows a written standard of appropriate standardized

punishments.

5. Whether as defendants contend: The disciplinary

sanctions potentially available are not onerous; by state law,

disciplinary reviews are limited to loss of privileges, and

assignment of extra duties, (Minimum Jail Standards, Title

15, California Administrative Code, §1172, ‘Forms of Dis-

cipline’’); state law prohibits disciplinary segregation for

periods in excess of ten days without a finding and a new

charge of violation of the facility’s rules and regulations;

state law also prohibits the withholding of mail privileges

except for violation of mail rules; even when an inmate is

transferred to disciplinary segregation, the transfer is not

onerous; as a practical matter, such disciplinary segregation

transfers the inmate to a disciplinary cell which is exactly

the same as a regular housing cell and he loses visiting

privileges and an opportunity to purchase items from the

store; and he is permitted to retain legal materials.

XXI. Classification.

A. No Admitted Facts.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether although there are considerable differences

between living conditions and privileges available to pris-

oners in different parts of the Jail and there are enormous

differences in the propensity for assaults and escapes posed

by prisoners within the Jail, defendants make little or no

attempt to classify prisoners; let alone classify prisoners in

a manner that accords with due process of law.

2. Whether as a result of defendants’ failure to classify,

pretrial prisoners are all treated as though they pose serious

dangers to Jail security, and the general pretrial prisoner

population is exposed to assault and bullying at the hands

of the more violent of their number.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether as defendants contend: The Central Jail is

presently implementing a new classification system which

is the result of several years of study and planning; such

system was presented to the Court in its initial planning

Stages in the case of Dillard v. Pitchess; under this classi-

fication system, it is intended and hoped that all inmates,

regardless of their status as sentenced or pretrial inmates,

will be classified as minimum, low moderate, moderate,

high moderate or maximum security inmates; the classifi-

cation is based upon an objective point system which gives

weighted consideration to an inmate’s current charge, crim-

inal history, amount of bail, employment status at the time

of arrest, residence within the County, family ties and other

matters; when the system becomes fully operative, inmates

will be so classified within a few days of their incarceration

at Central Jail; and this system is to begin operating May

23, 1977.

2. Whether as defendants contend: Present indications

are that when fully implemented, such classification system

will permit the classification and housing ef substantial num-

bers of the pretrial inmates as minimum security, and as

high moderate security, as moderate security. and as high

moderate security and only a small percentage as maximum

security; present data suggests that when implemented, such

a classification system may ideally permit those pretrial

inmates classified as minimum security to qualify for dor-

mitory housing and permit travel about the jail on an unes-

corted basis; those inmates classified as low moderate to

have relatively free movement in cell blocks, and open day-

rooms, if possible; those inmates classified as high moderate

to be housed in cell blocks with constant access to the

freeway and scheduled dayroom time; and those inmates

classified as maximum security to be housed in cell blocks

with scheduled freeway time.

XXII. Supervision of Prisoners by Jail Officers.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail regarding Jail Officers’ su-

pervision of prisoners is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits

Z (pp. 1, 6), A (pp. 43, 51-53), and BM.

2. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail with regard to training of Jail

Officers is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits CD, BZ, B

and A (pp. 20-21).

3. Most Sheriff's Academy graduates are placed in a

jail facility as a first assignment.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether defendants fail to provide adequate super-

vision of prisoners within housing areas; and consequently

prisoners suffer beatings, assaults and threats from fellow

prisoners, and commit suicides.

2. Whether the Jail’s Officers are too inexperienced and

inadequately trained to supervise the lives of prisoners; and

the Sheriff's Department Academy curriculum heavily em-

phasizes police work and only superficially touches correc-

tional work within a Jail environment.

—t-—

XXIII. Brutality, Harassment and Abuse.

A. Admitted Facts.

1. The stated written policy of the Sheriff's Department

Custody Division and the Jail regarding abuse of prisoners

is as set forth in pre-marked Exhibits B (p. 7), CR, BU (pp.

1-2, 6, 8-9), BH, Z (pp. 3-5), A (pp. 14-19), AE, AF, AG

and AK.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether the defendants subject prisoners to a reign

of terror, the principal ingredients of which are a widespread

pattern and practice of threats, unprovoked assaults and

verbal abuse of prisoners by Jail Officers, a lack of due care

for prisoner safety at the hands of other prisoners, inadequate

officer supervision and a failure to vigorously classify

prisoners.

XXIV. Other Issues — Scope of Bifurcation.

A. The Problem.

1. Plaintiffs wish to challenge three practices, travel to

and from the Los Angeles County-U.S.C. Medical Center,

housing conditions in the Jail’s hospital and Jail Officers’

alleged obstruction of prisoners’ access to medical personnel.

2. Defendants contend that the Court's bifurcation df

the trial of this case between medical and non-medical issues

precludes plaintiffs from litigating said three issues because

defendants’ defense would require expensive medical tes-

timony and proof.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether housing in the Jail’s infirmary, described

in Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact X-B-3, supra, is punitive

and inadequate.

2. Whether prisoners taken to the Los Angeles County

U.S.C. Medical Center suffer hardships and deprivations

similar to those arising from court appearances — by being

awakened early in the morning, spending long days in hold-

‘ing tanks at the Jail and the Medical Center, and frequently

returning exhausted to the Jail in the evening.

3. Whether Jail Officers deny prisoners access to med-

ical personnel during sick call and at other times.

C. Defendants’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Defendants reserve additional legal or factual con-

tentions regarding the proper scope of the biiurcation and

the trial of said three issues for the Pretrial Conference.

XXV. Comparison to Other Correctional Facilities.

A. No Admitted Facts.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions of Fact.

1. Whether the policies, practices, and conditions which

the defendants inflict on pretrial detainees are incredibly

egregious in view of the fact that convicted prisoners in the

Jail itself, in other Los Angeles County jail facilities, and

in California state and federal prisons are treated consid-

erably better than the Jail’s pretrial prisoners; although the

lives of convicted prisoners are far from idyllic, convicts

do not face the same oppressive confinement and boredom

experienced by the Jail’s pretrial detainees; and convicts

generally live in superior housing and have daily opportunity

to exercise, recreate, entertain themselves indoors and out-

doors; and almost universally convicts are permitted to have

physical contact with their visitors.

XXVI. Exhibits.

A. Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ present list of exhibits, excluding rebuttal and

impeachment exhibits, is attached hereto as Schedule B.

B. Defendants.

Defendants’ present list of exhibits, excluding rebuttal

and impeachment exhibits, is attached hereto as Schedule

C. Exchange of Exhibits.

1. All exhibits known to the parties have been ex-

changed or will be exchanged as soon as is practicable and

not later than ten (10) days before trial without good cause.

2. The parties will disclose to each other rebuttal and

impeachment exhibits, including those discovered during

trial, as soon as is practicable.

3. The parties will file a staeement of their respective

positions on the admissibility of the other side’s exhibits

ten (10) days before trial or ten (10) days after receipt of

copies of such exhibits whichever is later.

XXVII. Contentions of Law.

A. Jurisdiction.

The parties stipulate that jurisdiction is conferred upon

this Court by 28 U.S.C. $1343 providing jurisdiction in

District Courts over claims for redress of civil liberties aris-

ing under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

B. All Other Contentions of Law.

The parties’ remaining extensive and voluminous con-

tentions of law are set forth in their respective Memoranda

of Contentions of Fact and Law, which, for purposes of

convenience, are incorporated hereby by reference as though

fully set forth.

The foregoing admissions having been made by the par-

ties, and the parties having specified the foregoing issues

of fact and law remaining to be litigated, this order shall

supplement the pleadings and govern the course of the trial

of this cause, unless modified to prevent manifest injustice.

DATED: June 27, 1977.

/s/ William P. Gray

WILLIAM P. GRAY

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

/s/ Terry Smerling

TERRY SMERLING

Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED: June 13, 1977

/s/ Frederick R. Bennett

FREDERICK R. BENNETT

Attorney for Defendants DATED: June 13, 1977.

(Schedule A, listing all jail cells by number, size, and lo-

cation; Schedule B, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List; and Schedule

C, Defendants’ Exhibit List have been omitted from the

Pretrial Conference Order in part because of difficulty in

printing Schedule A, which is a handwritten ledger reduced

in size, and Schedules B and C do not accurately reflect the

exhibits at trial. All three schedules are set forth at pages

447 through 459 of the Clerks Record in the underlying

appeal, USCA Docket No. 79-3061).

Stipulation.

United States District Court, Central District of California.

Dennis Rutherford, et al., Plaintiff, vs. Peter J. Pitchess,

et al., Defendants. No. CV 75-4111 WPG.

Filed: July 25, 1977.

In order to minimize the necessary trial time, the parties,

through their respective counsel, the undersigned, stipulate

as follows:

1. The affidavits submitted at the hearing on the pre-

liminary injunction may be admitted into evidence as the

direct testimony of the affiant in lieu of oral direct testimony;

provided, however, that any party may, if they desire, call

such affiant and cross-examine such affiant as to the state-

ments contained in the affidavit, or may call such_affiant

and question him orally as to any matter relevant to the

action and otherwise admissible.

2. Should any party request to so examine any such

affiant orally and such person not be available or reasonably

capable of being brought to court for such examination,

such affidavit may not be admitted into evidence in lieu of

oral direct testimony.

DATED: 7/19/77

JOHN H. LARSON, County Counsel

By /s/ Frederick R. Bennett

FREDERICK R. BENNETT

Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendant

DATED: 7/20/77

/s/ Terry Smerling

TERRY SMERLING

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Soo

ws ) 2 oe

a) i

Ww oe cd

aa. —

tx:

oi. 1)

ciallttia

Judgment Reaffirming Judgment Entered

February 15, 1979.

United States District Court, Central District of California.

Dennis Rutherford, Harold Taylor and Richard Orr, et

al., Plaintiffs, vs. Peter J. Pitchess, et al., Defendants. Case

No. CV 75-4111-WPG.

Filed: May 18, 1981.

On February 15, 1979, this court, after a trial of the class

action here concerned, entered a judgment requiring several

changes in practices and conditions of confinement in the

Los Angeles County Central Jail (the jail). Three of these

requirements were appealed. On August 8, 1980, the Court

of Appeals remanded the case to this court for reconsider-

ation of the three chal!enged orders in light of Bell v. Wolfish,

441 U.S. 520 (1979), which was decided after those orders

were rendered.

The three orders here concerned read as follows:

**2.(b) Contact Visits. Commencing not more

than ninety days following the date of this order, the

defendants will make available a contact visit once each

week to each pre-trial detainee that has been held in

the jail for one month or more, and concerning whom

there is no indication of drug or escape propensities;

provided, however, that no more than fifteen hundred

such visits need be allowed in any one week. In the

event that the number of requested visits in any week

exceeds fifteen hundred, or such higher number as the

Sheriff voluntarily undertakes to accommodate, a rea-

sonable system of rotation or other priorities may be

maintained. The lengths of suchi visits shall remain in

the discretion of the Sheriff.’

**5. Restoration Of Windows. Within ninety days

following the filing of this order, transparent windows

shall be restored in each portion of the jail from which

id...

they previously have been removed.”’

**8. Cell Searches. Inmates that are in the gen-

eral area when a ‘shakedown’ inspection of their cells

is undertaken shall be permitted to be sufficiently prox-

imate to their respective cells that they may observe

the process and respond to such questions or make such

requests as circumstances may indicate.’’

For reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Decision

filed contemporaneously herewith, the previously entered

judgment is hereby reaffirmed.

DATED: May 18, 1981.

[Stamp] William P. Gray

WILLIAM P. GRAY

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.