Case: Hall v. Mims

On December 13, 2011, four inmates of the Fresno County Adult Detention Facilities filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Fresno County Sheriff's Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2011 WL 11557976. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office, Disability Rights California, and private counsel, sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant violated prisoners' Constitutional rights by failing to provide minimally adequate health care and failing to protect prisoners from injury and violence from other prisoners.

The case was assigned to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. On January 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add three individual plaintiffs to the suit, and brought additional claims against the defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs also expanded the scope of the injunctive relief requested, seeking the compulsion of reasonable accommodations to prisoners with disabilities.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint due to failure to state a claim for which the court could provide a remedy. Judge O'Neill denied this motion on May 16, 2012, finding that the plaintiffs' complaint had sufficiently pleaded their claims. 2012 WL 1799179.

The parties stipulated to and the Court ordered the substitution of the individual defendants with the county of Fresno on November 16, 2012. This stipulation also dismissed the claims of three of the named plaintiffs, without prejudice.

On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the consent decree they had drafted. The parties agreed to an extensive remedial plan to be implemented by the defendants covering all of the substantive areas in dispute: health care, personal safety, and disability discrimination. The plaintiffs' counsel agreed to be responsible for monitoring compliance with the consent decree and the remedial plan. The decree was court enforceable, and the parties agreed it would last for four years after its approval -- unless the court earlier determined that the defendants were in substantial

compliance, or it was extended based on non-compliance. The defendant also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' counsel $900,000 in attorneys' fees and $40,000 per year for monitoring fees and expenses. On July 21, 2015, Judge O'Neill preliminarily approved the settlement, setting it for a fairness hearing at the end of September.

That hearing was held before Magistrate Judge McAuliffe on September 28, 2015; on October 7, 2015, she recommended approval of the decree without amendment. 2015 WL 5916741. On November 2, 2015, Judge O'Neill adopted Magistrate Judge McAuliffe's recommendations in full, granted final approval to the consent decree, granted certification of the settlement class, approved attorneys' fees for class counsel, and retained jurisdiction for monitoring of the consent decree. The class was defined as "all prisoners who are now, or at some time in the future during the terms of this Consent Decree are, incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail."

On December 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe denied a motion to unseal court records filed by a non-party to this action and sought support for a separate civil rights action against the Fresno County Jail. 2015 WL 13236882. She found that compelling reasons to keep them sealed, such as potential prejudice to the defendants if expert reports were unsealed, outweighed any minimal prejudice to the non-party. On February 1, 2016, she denied the non-party's motion for reconsideration. 2016 WL 374550. On February 12, 2016, the non-party sought a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on April 4, 2016.

On February 11, 2016, Judge O'Neill granted the parties' joint request for appointment of a court expert to complete a comprehensive review of the facilities and report on the County's progress regarding the remedial plan. A second expert was appointed on April 11, 2016.

On October 3, 2018, Judge O'Neill granted additional attorneys' fees to plaintiffs's counsel to compensate their monitoring work which had become more intensive than previously anticipated. As of May 20, 2020, there has been no further action in the docket but presumedly the case remains open for monitoring of the consent decree.