Case: DOJ Monitoring of Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Camps

No Court

Filed Date: 2008

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 6, 2006, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation into whether youth were adequately protected from harm at the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camps, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.The DOJ's investigation revealed that youth residing in Los Angeles County's Camps were not adequately protected from harm and…

On November 6, 2006, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation into whether youth were adequately protected from harm at the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camps, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

The DOJ's investigation revealed that youth residing in Los Angeles County's Camps were not adequately protected from harm and that the County had failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. On October 31, 2008, the DOJ submitted a Findings Letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors outlining areas requiring remedial attention. The same day, the DOJ and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a settlement agreement entitled, "Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the County of Los Angeles Regarding the Los Angeles Probation Camps" ("MOA"). The MOA allowed the County to address the areas of concern over a four-year period under the supervision of a monitoring team.

The MOA stipulated the appointment of Michael Graham as the Lead Monitor of a team of four members. During the first eighteen months of their responsibilities, each of the monitors was required to conduct initial visits to review each of the camps and report on the County's progress toward complying with provisions. A report from the monitors is required twice annually, or as directed by the parties.

On March 29, 2010, the parties executed the First Amendment to the MOA, which included very minor adjustments to the monitoring team. However, on October 12, 2012, the parties executed the Second Amendment to the MOA which was much more expansive. The Second Amendment recognized that although the County had made significant reforms, they were unlikely to achieve the required level of compliance by the original termination date. The Second Amendment eliminated the four-year termination requirement and allowed for a termination date of December 31, 2014.

The Eleventh Monitoring Report covered January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014. Monitors were still concerned with a lack of adequate staffing to supervise youth and a lack of increased access to community alternatives.

On February 24, 2015, the twelfth and final report, covering July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, showed full compliance. The team of monitors concluded that as full compliance was achieved, the County would no longer be subject to monitoring.

The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Richard Jolly (11/11/2014)

Averyn Lee (6/10/2019)

People


Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Johnson-Brooks, Emily (California)

O'Brien, Thomas (New York)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Fortner, Raymond G. Jr. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Birotte, Andre Jr. (California)

Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)

Graham, Michael (California)

Jansen, Regina (District of Columbia)

Krattli, John F. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Johnson-Brooks, Emily (California)

O'Brien, Thomas (New York)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Fortner, Raymond G. Jr. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Birotte, Andre Jr. (California)

Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)

Graham, Michael (California)

Jansen, Regina (District of Columbia)

Krattli, John F. (California)

Mazor, Marina (District of Columbia)

Monteleone, Robyn-Marie L (California)

Ordin, Andrea Sheridan (California)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Saucedo, Luis E. (District of Columbia)

Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

Trask, Gordon (California)

Weidman, Leon W. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Findings Letter 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

Findings Letter/Report

Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the County of Los Angeles Regarding the Los Angeles Probation Camps

Oct. 31, 2008

Oct. 31, 2008

Settlement Agreement

First Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement (2008)

March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

Settlement Agreement

Second Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement (2008)

Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

Settlement Agreement

Eleventh Monitoring Report for the Memorandum of Agreement (2008)

Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Resources

Docket

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2008

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s investigation of conditions at the Los Angeles County Probation Camps

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Los Angeles County Probation Camps (Los Angeles), County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.

34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Special Case Type(s):

Out-of-court

Availably Documents:

None of the above

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Order Duration: 2008 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Training

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students

Assault/abuse by staff

Classification / placement

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Grievance Procedures

Juveniles

Pepper/OC spray

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Suicide prevention

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Self-injurious behaviors

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility:

Government-run