Case: Pederson v. County of Plumas

2:89-cv-01659 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 4, 1989

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 4, 1989, detainees at the Plumas County Jail filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County of Plumas. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prisoner Rights Union and by private counsel, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement. Specifically, they alleged problems with overcrowding, unequal access to programs and work opportunities for women detainees, lack of exercise, inadequate access to medical, dental and mental health treatment, lack of law library access, and lack of adequate visiting time and other contact with people in the outside world, and claimed that these problems constituted violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The PACER docket begins on September 12, 1990, when the Court (Judge Lawrence K. Karlton) ordered the County not to hold any warrantless arrestee who had not been provided with a determination of probable cause before a judge within 36 hours of his or her arrest.

There are several multiple-month gaps between entries over the following two years, but the principal developments are clear. On January 21, 1992, the Court (Judge John F. Moulds) certified the proposed class of detainees, and on February 10, the parties submitted a consent decree for the Court's approval. Under the terms of the decree, the County agreed to maintain all housing units at the jail at or below their rated capacities; to provide detainees with sufficient storage space for their personal belongings and with adequate clothing and food; to allow detainees one hour of exercise per day five days a week; to provide regular access to adequate medical, dental, and mental health care services; to allow visits of at least a half an hour each at least two days per week; to provide women detainees with equal access to programs and work opportunities and to always have at least one female guard working each shift; to provide prompt physical access to the law library; to provide access to a pay phone, a television and non-legal reading material; and to allow inspection by the fire marshal and comply with any recommendations the fire marshal makes. The County also agreed to develop, implement and make known to the detainee rules of conduct, a grievance procedure, disciplinary procedures, and visitation policies and procedures. Finally, the County agreed to allow plaintiffs' counsel to make reasonable inspections to ascertain its compliance with the decree.

The Court (Judge Moulds) approved the consent decree on April 21, 1992, and ordered the County to pay the plaintiffs $65,000 in attorneys' fees on June 12, 1992.

Since the decree was entered, several detainees at the jail, representing themselves, have petitioned the Court for enforcement of the decree, most recently in 2006. Each time, the Court has directed them to contact plaintiffs' counsel to seek enforcement. No action has been taken on these petitions, though on April 1, 2013, the Court signed a joint stipulation modifying the consent decree as to the population cap and staffing provisions.

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a request for a status conference, alleging noncompliance with the Consent Decree. On April 17, 2015, the Court (Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman) ordered the County to file a response two weeks later, "setting forth the status of compliance with the Consent Decree." After the County filed its response, the Court found that the defendants might not be in compliance with the sections of the Consent Decree addressing mental health care and the law library. In June 2015, the parties attended a settlement conference, where they discussed ongoing deficiencies in compliance with the Consent Decree. The parties provided status reports to the Court for several months.

On October 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the Consent Decree after reaching an impasse regarding one particular provision: the agreement to provide prosthetic dentures to detainees. On November 23, 2016, the County filed a motion to modify the consent decree so that dentures would be provided to detainees based solely on the standard of “medical necessity,” rather than the to allow detainees to eat solid food. Following these motions, the parties met over a series of months to discuss the denture policy.

On October 9, 2018, the parties submitted a joint status report to the court. Although the plaintiffs observed progress by the County and did not observe violations of the Consent Decree upon their most recent visit, they did note several concerns related to staffing, the law library, nursing, medical care, mental health care, and dental care. On October 15, 2018, the parties engaged in another settlement conference. The Court ordered the County to submit a report addressing the status of its compliance with the Consent Decree and scheduled a status conference for February 22, 2019.

The joint status report was submitted on February 15, 2019. At the February 22, 2019 status conference, the court ordered that "By noon on 4/26/2019, the County is to provide a detailed report to the Court and plaintiff's counsel, regarding its compliance with outstanding issues in this litigation as well as steps toward IMQ or NCCHC accreditation."

On May 29, 2019, Judge Newman issued orders detailing that: (1) the County must apply for NCCHC accreditation on or before January 2020; (2) Plaintiff’s counsel must submit a proposal for the length of a monitoring period under an amended consent decree within 60 days; and (3) the County must pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

Nothing was reported in the docket until January 29, 2020 when both parties submitted a new Joint Status Report requesting a postponement of the status meeting because the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented the NCCHC accreditation team from visiting the jail. The status meeting was postponed until May 29, 2020; then again on May 26, 2020 until September 18, 2020; and then again on September 17, 2020 until December 12, 2020.

	Document
2:89-cv-01659	Docket [PACER] Pedersen v. County of Plumas	Sept. 17, 2020	Sept. 17, 2020 Docket
2:89-cv-01659	Consent Decree	Feb. 10, 1992	Feb. 10, 1992 Settlement Agreement
48 2:89-cv-01659	Joint Stipulation to Amendment of Consent Decree Penderson v. County of Plumas	April 1, 2013	April 1, 2013 Order/Opinion
49 2:89-cv-01659	Plaintiffs' Request for Status Conference [Includes declarations on compliance]	March 27, 2015	March 27, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
52 2:89-cv-01659	Order [directing Defendants to report on compliance]	April 17, 2015	April 17, 2015 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
18	STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton : ordering that the sheriff will not hold in the jails any warrantless arrestee who has not been provided w/ a determination before a judge, commisssioner or a judge pro tem or probable cause for cont detention w/i 36 hrs of arrest; and, this o shall be entered as part of the final jgm or consent decree in this action.(cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/24/1990)	Sept. 12, 1990	Sept. 12, 1990 PACER
19	STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Walter Pedersen, plaintiff Cheryl Preston (old) (Entered: 01/10/1991)	Jan. 9, 1991	Jan. 9, 1991 PACER
20	NOTICE by plaintiff Walter Pedersen, plaintiff Cheryl Preston of change of firm name for attorney Stormer. (old) (Entered: 02/08/1991)	Jan. 31, 1991	Jan. 31, 1991 PACER
	LODGED substitution of Dan Stormer, Hadsell & Stormer, as atty of rec for plaintiff in the place of Dan Stormer, Litt & Stormer not to be signed (old) Modified on 11/26/1991	Oct. 21, 1991	Oct. 21, 1991 PACER
	LODGED referral of action to magistrate by plaintiff not to be signed (old) Modified on 10/31/1991	Oct. 24, 1991	Oct. 24, 1991 PACER
21	ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton Case reassigned to Judge John F. Moulds; any dates set bef LKK are hereby vacated; reserved 11/8/91 (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 11/08/1991 (Entered: 10/31/1991)	Oct. 31, 1991	Oct. 31, 1991 PACER
22	MAIL Returned [21-2] addressed to plaintiff Walter Pedersen, plaintiff Cheryl Preston mailed to Paul Comisky (old) Modified on 11/08/1991 (Entered: 11/01/1991)	Nov. 1, 1991	Nov. 1, 1991 PACER
23	ORDER by Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING: parties shall file and serve a joint status report addressing the status of the proposed consent decree within 30 days of the date of this order (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 12/03/1991)	Dec. 3, 1991	Dec. 3, 1991 PACER
24	JOINT STATUS REPORT by defendant County Of Plumas (old) (Entered: 01/10/1992)	Jan. 10, 1992	Jan. 10, 1992 PACER
25	ORDER by Judge John F. Moulds for certification of class action status. (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/21/1992)	Jan. 21, 1992	Jan. 21, 1992 PACER
26	ORDER by Judge John F. Moulds; The court orders that he proposed Consent Decree, accompanying exhibits, and a proposed notcie to the class be submitted to the court no later than 2/10/92 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/21/1992)	Jan. 21, 1992	Jan. 21, 1992 PACER
	LODGED application for approval of consent decree, notice to class and settlement hrg from plaintiff (old)	Feb. 10, 1992	Feb. 10, 1992 PACER
	LODGED consent decree from plaintiffs (old)	Feb. 10, 1992	Feb. 10, 1992 PACER
27	PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Walter Pedersen, plaintiff Cheryl Preston of lodged [0-1], lodged [0-1] (old) (Entered: 02/11/1992)	Feb. 10, 1992	Feb. 10, 1992 PACER
28	APPLICATION by plaintiff for approvak of consent decree, notice to class and settlement hearing (old) (Entered: 03/03/1992)	Feb. 20, 1992	Feb. 20, 1992 PACER
29	ORDER by Judge John F Mould ORDERING: the court will hold a hearing on 4/30/92 to determine whether, the Consent Decree filed in this case should be appproved by the court (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 03/03/1992)	March 3, 1992	March 3, 1992 PACER
31	DECLARATION of Michael Jamison, attorney for defendants (old) (Entered: 04/23/1992)	April 20, 1992	April 20, 1992 PACER
32	DECLARATION of Kate West for the defendants (old) (Entered: 04/23/1992)	April 20, 1992	April 20, 1992 PACER
30	ORDER by Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: consent decree lodged 2/10/92 is hereby approved and entered; the settlement hearing set for 4/30/92 is VACATED all parties RE-SERVED on 4/28/92: defendant's not initially served (cc: all counsel) (old) Modified on 04/28/1992 (Entered: 04/21/1992)	April 21, 1992	April 21, 1992 PACER
	LODGED stipulation re continuance of motion for cost (old)	May 6, 1992	May 6, 1992 PACER
33	STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge John F Moulds ORDERING: lodged stipulation GRANTED [0-1]; the motion for cost's and expenses may be filed and heard with the attorney fee motion to be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment filed on 4/21/92 (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/19/1992)	May 19, 1992	May 19, 1992 PACER
	LODGED stipulation RE: attorneys' fees and costs (old)	June 3, 1992	June 3, 1992 PACER
34	STIPULATION and ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge John F Moulds ORDERING plaintiffs' shall receive attorneys' fees and costs for their work in the total sum of $65,000.00 to be paid in full to Paul Persons by 6/15/92 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 06/12/1992)	June 12, 1992	June 12, 1992 PACER
36	PETITION by James Miller for Order to Show Cause (ch) (Entered: 08/08/1997)	July 30, 1997	July 30, 1997 PACER
37	LETTER to court from James Miller requesting if his petition on the consent decree has been heard (ch) Modified on 08/08/1997 (Entered: 08/08/1997)	July 30, 1997	July 30, 1997 PACER
35	LETTER to court from James Miller, that all parties have been notified (ch) (Entered: 08/06/1997)	Aug. 5, 1997	Aug. 5, 1997 PACER
38	LETTER to court from plaintiff James Miller regarding continual civil rights violations (old) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/11/1997)	Aug. 8, 1997	Aug. 8, 1997 PACER
39	ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERING petition for order to show cause filed on 7/30/97 is [36-1] DENIED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve upon counsel for pltfs a copy of each document submitted for filing in this action on July 30, August 5 and August 8, 1997 (cc: all counsel) (ch) (Entered: 08/18/1997)	Aug. 18, 1997	Aug. 18, 1997 PACER
40	LETTER to court from Gerald Miller (non-party) regarding an Order to Show Cause (sk) (Entered: 01/06/2004)	Jan. 5, 2004	Jan. 5, 2004 PACER
41	LETTER to court from Gerald A Miller (non-party) (sk) (Entered: 01/07/2004)	Jan. 6, 2004	Jan. 6, 2004 PACER
42	ORDER by John F Moulds Magistrate Judge ORDERING re letter filed 1/6/04 [41-1], and letter filed 1/5/04 by non-party Gerald Miller [40-1] shall be placed in the file and disregarded; Clerk shall forward a copy of the letters to Paul A. Comiskey, counsel for pltfs in this action; Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on non-party Gerald Miller at address on document #41 (cc: all counsel) (daw) (Entered: 02/06/2004)	Feb. 6, 2004	Feb. 6, 2004 PACER
43	LETTER to court from Gerald A Miller (non-party) (sk) (Entered: 02/12/2004)	Feb. 11, 2004	Feb. 11, 2004 PACER
44	ORDER by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of Mr Miller's letter to Paul A Comiskey, thereafter the letter shall be placed in the court file and disregarded; the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on Gerald Miller [43-1] (cc: all counsel) (sk) (Entered: 11/04/2004)	Nov. 4, 2004	Nov. 4, 2004 PACER
45	Enforcement of Consent Decree "Order to Show Cause by Gerald A. Miller. (Mena-Sanchez, L) (Entered: 09/28/2006)	Sept. 27, 2006	Sept. 27, 2006 PACER
46	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Amendment of Consent Decree re 30 Scheduling Order,,, by County Of Plumas. Attorney Mansell, Stephen Leo added. (Mansell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/18/2013)	March 18, 2013	March 18, 2013 PACER
47	CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by County Of Plumas re 46 Stipulation and Proposed Order. (Mansell, Stephen) (Entered: 03/19/2013)	March 19, 2013	March 19, 2013 PACER
48	JOINT STIPULATION to AMENDMENT of CONSENT DECREE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/1/13. (Dillon, M) (Entered: 04/01/2013)	April 1, 2013	April 1, 2013 RECAP
	SERVICE BY MAIL: 48 Order served on Richard P Herman, Dan Lewis Stormer. (Dillon, M)	April 1, 2013	April 1, 2013 PACER
	MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed; unable to forward: 48 Order sent to Richard P. Herman. Notice of Change of Address due by 7/1/2013. (Meuleman, A)	April 24, 2013	April 24, 2013 PACER
49	REQUEST for Plaintiffs Request for Status Conference; Declaration of Lincoln Ellis and Exhibits in Support Thereof by Walter Pedersen, Cheryl Preston. Attorney Ellis, Lincoln Wolf added. (Ellis, Lincoln) (Entered: 03/27/2015)	March 27, 2015	March 27, 2015 PACER

Case: Pederson v. County of Plumas

2:89-cv-01659 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details