Case: Wooden v. County of Shasta

2:90-cv-01003 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 2, 1990

Closed Date: 1995

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 2, 1990, prisoners at the Shasta County jail filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County of Shasta and the County Sheriff. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prisoner Rights Union and private counsel, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their conditions of confinement violated the Eight Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged problems with overcrowding, inadequate staffing, and inadequate medica…

On August 2, 1990, prisoners at the Shasta County jail filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County of Shasta and the County Sheriff. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prisoner Rights Union and private counsel, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that their conditions of confinement violated the Eight Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged problems with overcrowding, inadequate staffing, and inadequate medical, dental and mental health care. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 26, 1990, and on April 12, 1991, the District Court (Judge Edward J. Garcia) certified a class of all present and future prisoners at the Shasta County jail, as well as subclasses for male and female prisoners.

On November 8, 1991, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of medical, dental and mental health care. After holding a hearing on May 13, 1992, on September 4, 1992, Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski recommended that the defendants' motion be granted and the case be dismissed. On October 28, 1992, the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted Magistrate Judge Nowinski's recommendations in full, over the plaintiffs' objections.

The plaintiffs appealed, and during the appeals process litigation continued in the District Court over attorneys' fees and discovery. On April 6, 1994, the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted further recommendations by Magistrate Judge Nowinski to deny plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs appealed this decision as well.

On October 21, 1994, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit (Judge Poole, Judge Canby and Judge Rymer) affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Wooden v. Cnty. of Shasta, 39 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 1994). The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the issues raised in the defendants' motion, but found the District Court's grant of summary judgment sua sponte on the issues of overcrowding and inadequate staffing to be improper and remanded to have those issues properly briefed and argued.

On January 6, 1995, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. Magistrate Judge Nowinski issued a report on March 31, 1995, recommending that the motion be granted, and the Court (Judge Garcia) adopted this report on June 9 and dismissed the case. A further motion for attorneys' fees by plaintiffs was later denied.

As of the date of this summary, we have no further information on this case.

Summary Authors

Christopher Schad (8/20/2012)

People


Judge(s)

Canby, Rhonda Cate (California)

Garcia, Edward J. (California)

Nowinski, Peter A. (California)

Poole, Cecil F. (California)

Rymer, Pamela Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Berg, Eric Alan (California)

Comiskey, Paul Wayne (California)

Derevan, Richard (California)

Eisen, Jay-Allen (California)

Fabricant, Deborah (California)

Judge(s)

Canby, Rhonda Cate (California)

Garcia, Edward J. (California)

Nowinski, Peter A. (California)

Poole, Cecil F. (California)

Rymer, Pamela Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Berg, Eric Alan (California)

Comiskey, Paul Wayne (California)

Derevan, Richard (California)

Eisen, Jay-Allen (California)

Fabricant, Deborah (California)

Herman, Richard P. (California)

Persons, Paul Turner (California)

Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Frank, David R. (California)

Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)

Jahr, Karen Keating (California)

Ralston, Michael Allen (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:90-cv-01003

Docket (PACER)

Dec. 15, 1995

Dec. 15, 1995

Docket
8

2:90-cv-01003

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class Action

Wooden v. Shasta

Dec. 26, 1990

Dec. 26, 1990

Complaint

2:90-cv-01003

Stipulation re. Rule 23(B) Class Certification; Recommendation; Order

Wooden v. Shasta

Feb. 25, 1991

Feb. 25, 1991

Order/Opinion
58

2:90-cv-01003

Findings and Recommendations

Wooden v. Shasta

Sept. 4, 1992

Sept. 4, 1992

Order/Opinion
64

2:90-cv-01003

89-cv-01019

Order

Wooden v. Shasta

Oct. 28, 1992

Oct. 28, 1992

Order/Opinion

92-17049

[Ninth Circuit] Opinion [Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding to the District Court]

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

39 F.3d 1190

Oct. 21, 1994

Oct. 21, 1994

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 4, 2022, 3:14 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

California Jail Population Caps

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 2, 1990

Closing Date: 1995

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

the class of all present and future inmates in Shasta County Jail

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Hadsell, Stormer & Renick

Prisoners Rights Union

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

County of Shasta (Shasta), County

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Law library access

Recreation / Exercise

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Dental care

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run