Case: Babu v. Ahern (Babu v. County of Alameda)

On December 21, 2018, detainees at California’s Alameda County Jail filed a class-action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County of Alameda in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued for violations of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California state law. The plaintiffs asked the court for a declaration that the jail’s ongoing practices violated their constitutional and statutory rights, and injunctive relief ordering the jail to end the use of “safety cells” and to give prisoners with psychiatric disabilities access to adequate mental health care. The case was assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that suicidal prisoners were thrown into “safety cells,” “where they are stripped naked and given only a smock to cover themselves. The safety cells contain no furniture and only a hole in the ground for prisoners to use as a bathroom, meaning that prisoners have to sleep and eat on the same floor that they must also urinate and defecate on and are also unable to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.” Although jail policy limited confinement in these cells to seventy-two hours, the complaint alleged that the prisoners had been forced to stay in those cells for a week or more at a time, causing prisoners to stop reporting suicidal feelings to staff in order to avoid being thrown into these cells.

On December 6, 2019, the plaintiffs and the jail filed a joint motion for class certification. On January 21, 2020, the court certified a class of “All adults who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Alameda County Jail,” and a subclass of all members of the primary class “with a psychiatric disability,” as defined by the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and California statute.

The parties reached a proposed settlement on August 26, 2021, and the court gave preliminary approval of the settlement on September 23, 2021, and held a final approval hearing over several days in January 2022. For more about the settlement terms, see https://rbgg.com/proposed-settlement-reached-in-federal-class-action-over-alameda-county-jail-mental-health-care.

Throughout 2020, the parties engaged in negotiations discussing jail responses to the COVID-19 epidemic. Through status reports provided to the court, the jail noted that it had imposed occupancy restrictions of three incarcerated people per vehicle for transportation to and from the jail; provided testing to the incarcerated population; and used contact tracing to monitor the spread of the virus throughout the incarcerated population. The plaintiffs critiqued the defendants’ actions as being insufficient, especially with regard to testing. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were not conducting enough testing, particularly of new people entering the jail. They also urged the defendants to reduce the jail population in order to decrease the risk of exposure.

On August 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. They largely reiterated their previous claims, but also included additional facts pertaining to COVID. The plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of confinement in light of COVID violated the Eighth Amendment, due process, California state law, Title II of the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.

On August 26, 2021, the plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a consent decree that would last for six years from the time of its entry and retain jurisdiction for the district court. The court granted the motion on September 25. The defendants agreed to implement a new classification system that limits the use and duration of restrictive housing. This system was intended to prohibit the jail from placing individuals with serious mental illness in the most restrictive system, absent a determination that the individual presented an immediate and serious danger such that there was no reasonable alternative. The agreement also provided that the defendants would reconfigure recreation spaces to maximize out-of-cell time, and ensure that incarcerated people are offered adequate out-of-cell time each day (at least 14 hours for everyone, and people in less restrictive spaces would be given at least 35 hours). 

Major changes were agreed to to improve the jail’s handling of detained individuals’ mental health needs, too. For example, the jail must maintain sufficient mental health staff to provide adequate care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The jail will hire 107 mental health employees over the next three years. Beyond mental health staffing, the jail also agreed to hire more than three hundred custody staff so that the jail could be operated safely, with minimal need for overtime.

The jail also agreed to overhaul its policies and procedures for addressing inmates’ mental health needs. These changes would be made in consultation with an agreed-upon subject matter expert in the subsequent three months.

Similarly, the jail agreed to work with an ADA subject matter expert to improve its compliance with the ADA. It also agreed to encourage its ADA Coordinators to serve for at least five years to ensure consistency and made arrangements for continuity whenever the Coordinator would be absent. An improved communication policy for engaging with detained individuals with psychiatric disabilities was specifically called for.

The Decree required changes to the jail's use of force policies, too. The jail agreed to draft a new policy in consultation with an agreed-upon use of force expert. In addition, the jail agreed to discontinue its use of WRAP devices. Any time some other restraint is applied to a Behavioral Health Client, the jail must follow new procedures designed to notify medical staff and incorporate their opinion on the situation.

The settlement agreement gave experts the opportunity to tour the jail twice per year to ensure compliance, and also allowed for tours by class counsel and the Department of Justice. Defendants also agreed to cover $2,150,000 in legal fees and costs for plaintiffs. And the defendants also agreed to pay for monitoring costs. 

Throughout 2020, the parties engaged in negotiations discussing jail responses to the COVID-19 epidemic. Through status reports provided to the court, the jail noted that it had imposed occupancy restrictions of three incarcerated people per vehicle for transportation to and from the jail; provided testing to the incarcerated population; and used contact tracing to monitor the spread of the virus throughout the incarcerated population. The plaintiffs critiqued the defendants’ actions as being insufficient, especially with regard to testing. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were not conducting enough testing, particularly of new people entering the jail. They also urged the defendants to reduce the jail population in order to decrease the risk of exposure.

On August 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. They largely reiterated their previous claims, but also included additional facts pertaining to COVID. The plaintiffs alleged that the conditions of confinement in light of COVID violated the Eighth Amendment, due process, California state law, Title II of the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.

On August 26, 2021, the plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a consent decree that would last for six years from the time of its entry and retain jurisdiction for the district court. The court granted the motion on September 25. The defendants agreed to implement a new classification system that limits the use and duration of restrictive housing. This system was intended to prohibit the jail from placing individuals with serious mental illness in the most restrictive system, absent a determination that the individual presented an immediate and serious danger such that there was no reasonable alternative. The agreement also provided that the defendants would reconfigure recreation spaces to maximize out-of-cell time, and ensure that incarcerated people are offered adequate out-of-cell time each day (at least 14 hours for everyone, and people in less restrictive spaces would be given at least 35 hours). 

Major changes were agreed to to improve the jail’s handling of detained individuals’ mental health needs, too. For example, the jail must maintain sufficient mental health staff to provide adequate care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The jail will hire 107 mental health employees over the next three years. Beyond mental health staffing, the jail also agreed to hire more than three hundred custody staff so that the jail could be operated safely, with minimal need for overtime.

The jail also agreed to overhaul its policies and procedures for addressing inmates’ mental health needs. These changes would be made in consultation with an agreed-upon subject matter expert in the subsequent three months.

Similarly, the jail agreed to work with an ADA subject matter expert to improve its compliance with the ADA. It also agreed to encourage its ADA Coordinators to serve for at least five years to ensure consistency and made arrangements for continuity whenever the Coordinator would be absent. An improved communication policy for engaging with detained individuals with psychiatric disabilities was specifically called for.

The Decree required changes to the jail's use of force policies, too. The jail agreed to draft a new policy in consultation with an agreed-upon use of force expert. In addition, the jail agreed to discontinue its use of WRAP devices. Any time some other restraint is applied to a Behavioral Health Client, the jail must follow new procedures designed to notify medical staff and incorporate their opinion on the situation.

The settlement agreement gave experts the opportunity to tour the jail twice per year to ensure compliance, and also allowed for tours by class counsel and the Department of Justice. Defendants also agreed to cover $2,150,000 in legal fees and costs for plaintiffs. And the defendants also agreed to pay for monitoring costs.

While the magistrate judge granted final approval of the consent decree, one plaintiff has appealed that judgment, arguing that the terms do not reflect the plaintiffs' best interests. As of May 29, 2022, that appeal is ongoing.