Case: Hall v. Mims

1:11-cv-02047 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 13, 2011

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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' Constitution…

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.

Summary Authors

Greg in den Berken (6/8/2014)

Jessica Kincaid (10/14/2015)

Veronica Portillo Heap (11/21/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5900165/parties/hall-v-county-of-fresno/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Alger, Maureen P. (California)

Berk, Andrew N (California)

Bird, Melinda R. (California)

Coelho, Monisha Ann (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Cederborg, Daniel C. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:11-cv-02047

Docket [PACER]

Hall v. County of Fresno

Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Docket

DOJ National Institute of Corrections Report [Jail and Justice System Assessment of Fresno County]

No Court

Nov. 10, 2006

Nov. 10, 2006

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
1

1:11-cv-02047

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Complaint
8

1:11-cv-02047

First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Jan. 25, 2012

Jan. 25, 2012

Complaint
55

1:11-cv-02047

Stipulation and Order [Dismissing Individual Defendants and Substituting County of Fresno, and Dismissing Certain Individual Plaintiffs Without Prejudice]

Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

Order/Opinion
112

1:11-cv-02047

Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class

Hall v. County of Fresno

May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Pleading / Motion / Brief
128

1:11-cv-02047

Findings and Recommendations Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Hall v. County of Fresno

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

Order/Opinion
132

1:11-cv-02047

Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations in Full

Hall v. County of Fresno

July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Order/Opinion
175

1:11-cv-02047

Findings and Recommendations Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Hall v. County of Fresno

Oct. 7, 2015

Oct. 7, 2015

Findings Letter/Report
179

1:11-cv-02047

Order Adopting in Full the Findings and Recommendations Granting Approval of the Class Settlement and Granting in Full Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees

Hall v. County of Fresno

Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5900165/hall-v-county-of-fresno/

Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 7:11 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details